Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how different scoring procedures affect interpretation of maze curriculum‐based measurements. Fall and spring data were collected from 199 students receiving supplemental reading instruction. Maze probes were scored first by counting all correct maze choices, followed by four scoring variations designed to reduce the effect of random guessing. Pearson's r correlation coefficients were calculated among scoring procedures and between maze scores and a standardized measure of reading. In addition, t tests were conducted to compare fall to spring growth for each scoring procedure. Results indicated that scores derived from the different procedures are highly correlated, demonstrate criterion‐related validity, and show fall‐to‐spring growth. Educators working with struggling readers may use any of the five scoring procedures to obtain technically sound scores.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
