Affiliation:
1. Richard Parker, Room 704, Harrington Education Bldg., Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.
2. University of Oregon
Abstract
Twenty years of research on the Maze is reviewed to help ascertain the potential usefulness of this classroom-based reading measure for students with learning disabilities. Alternative methods of construction, administration, and scoring are examined. We examined evidence for three types of reliability: test-retest, alternate forms, and internal consistency. In addition, we scrutinized the use of Maze scores for instructional-level text placement. Finally, we summarized evidence on three types of validity criteria: standardized tests, teacher judgment, and reading group placement. The extant research on various Maze formats is supportive; however, the most common version of the Maze (Guthrie, 1973) needs to be revised to obtain minimum construct validity. Additional research is urgently needed on the Maze's alternate forms reliability and its usefulness in making instructional decisions.
Cited by
40 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献