Warns that college reading instructors must be aware that standardized tests do not measure the types of skills taught in reading classes. Argues that reading instructors need to develop an awareness of what the scores on standardized reading tests do and do not tell them. (RAE)

Describes a dozen ways in which reading tests are at variance in their demands with the demands of reading as it occurs in everyday life. Suggests that these sources of variance render reading tests considerably less valid as measures of real world reading behavior than most people want to believe. (RS)

Encourages reading teachers to use journal writing by college students to look beyond basic skill deficiencies, to seek and monitor physical, emotional, psychological, and environmental factors that may impair students' progress in reading. (SRT)

Reports an overall positive response to the tests reviewed, with caveats regarding test reliability and validity. (AEA)

Suggests that continually refined and segmented reading assessment measures may be contributing to reading problems. Discusses three solutions to reading difficulties that have become problems themselves and suggests that more holistic, socially interactive teaching methods are a better solution to reading disabilities. (HTH)

Introduces a technique for comprehension assessment that allows teachers who have had only a moderate amount of training to develop tests that are valid, reliable, and interpretable. Notes that the procedure can be based on any text without an extended tryout and revision process. (FL)

Concludes that the test has basic problems in construction, interpretation, validity, and reliability. (FL)

The FRI and GORT tests are reviewed with attention to test rationales and purposes, test development, test administration, and making the purchase choice. Concludes that the FRI is the preferable test. (JK)

Concludes that valid reading tests are needed for adults and should be designed differently than tests for academic or school-related reading. (AEA)

Notes the weakness of comprehension assessment as it occurs in standardized tests and exercise books, and reports on a new approach which views reading as a constructive process that results from a complex set of interactions between reader and texts. (NH)

Describes the uses and limitations of the revised Reading Evaluation Adult Diagnosis test. (HOD)

Cautions that criterion referenced tests are no more effective at diagnosing comprehension subskills than are traditional instruments, and they may lend false credibility to the subskill approach to comprehension. (AEA)

Reviews the Spadafore Diagnostic Reading Test, which is used to determine decoding and reading comprehension levels and to give detailed diagnostic information. Concludes that it is not an improvement on similar inventories published previously. (HOD)

Reports on a study that examined differences in the comprehension scores achieved by seventh and eighth grade students on Form 1 and Form 3 of the Gates-MacGinitie, Level E. (HOD)

Argues that the Degrees of Reading Power test is not a valid tool for its main purpose, matching students to appropriate texts, because the test's units of text difficulty are not uniformly comparable to the test's units used to reflect a reader's ability. (HOD)