Concludes that while aspects of the reviewed test may be criticized, overall it is a fine observational tool that provides information about what a child knows about print. (FL)

Finds that the Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty is difficult to administer and interpret, takes considerable time to give, and is not comprehensive. (FL)

Reviews the reading sections of the Metropolitan Achievement Tests and offers recommendations for their use. (FL)

Notes that, while the test is not recommended for children at the lower and extreme upper levels, it does provide a valid and reliable measure of some of the abilities that may be involved in the reading behaviors of five- and six-year-old children. (FL)

Warns that scores on standardized reading tests which fall at or below the chance level should be disregarded and suggests that teachers administer a lower level of the same test. Table. (RW)

Reports on a study testing the validity of the Names Test, an individually administered phonics assessment. Provides support for the Names Test's validity by showing it to be significantly correlated with established tests of word recognition and decoding ability. (SR)

Finds a number of problems with the test and concludes that there is little real advantage to using it in preference to other published informal reading inventories now available. (FL)

Describes a revision of the Names Test, an easy-to-administer phonics assessment. Describes what was done to increase the test's category reliability, to further examine the test's validity, and to enhance its usability. (SR)

What can teachers do in their classrooms to help students prepare for a high-stakes, standardized, multiple-choice reading test without sacrificing what they know to be best practice? Decreasing class sizes or other solutions that require substantial changes in school finance are not usually realistic options. This article outlines five…

Concludes that the "Inventory of Teacher Knowledge of Reading" is valid in discriminating between the specialist and non-specialist in reading, but that it fails to verify the seven components that the authors claim to measure. (RB)

Notes the problem that comprehension questions that claim to assess students' skills in finding main ideas may in fact be measuring their knowledge of identifying the topic of a passage. (JC)

Argues that giving students a reading test that is above or below their levels of achievement will yield inaccurate information. (FL)

Concludes that the instrument reviewed is a carefully designed test incorporating a new interpretation of standardization and improved definitions of traditional reading levels. (FL)

Some basic facts about test construction and uses and abuses of standardized measures. (Author)

Concludes that modified standard reading inventories may be made more useful for assessing the specific abilities and needs of disabled readers. Offers suggestions for making modifications. (FL)