Abstract
Pretest and posttest measures of reading were obtained for two groups of learning disabled youngsters for two years. Measures of two types were scheduled to evaluate the program: a standardized test and direct assessment. The standardized test was the Diagnostic Reading Scales, and for the direct assessment passages from the Holt and Lippincott series were used. The two evaluation approaches were compared on: relationship to book levels passed in a year and statistical significance. The data indicated that the approaches were much alike in respect to these features. Nevertheless, the following argument was made that — based on reliability considerations, practical issues, and ethical concerns — teachers might be better off to opt for the direct approach to evaluating their reading programs.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
