The contribution of retell to the identification of struggling adolescent readers

Access full-text files

Date

2010-05

Authors

Reed, Deborah Kay

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Abstract

This measurement study examined the construct validity of the retell component of the Texas Middle School Fluency Assessment (Texas Education Agency, University of Houston, & The University of Texas System, 2008a) within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. The role of retell, provided after a one-minute oral reading fluency measure, was investigated by comparing the fit of a three-factor model of reading competence to the data collected on a diverse sample of seventh- and eighth-grade students (N=394). The final model demonstrated adequate to mediocre fit (χ2 = 97.316 {32}; CFI = 0.958; TLI = 0.941; RMSEA = .081). Results suggest that retell was a significant contributor to comprehension (Δχ2=16.652{1}, p < .001), fluency (Δχ2=10.882{1}, p = .001), and word identification (Δχ2=7.84{1}, p = .005). However, the χ2 difference was greater for comprehension, as was the factor loading for comprehension (.250, p < .001) compared to fluency (.194, p < .001) and word identification .167, p < .001). Retell did, however, have a large residual variance (.938), suggesting it did not function well as a measure of comprehension in its current state with low inter-rater reliability (K = .37).

Narrative retell scores (.352, p< .001) were better predictors of comprehension than expository retell scores (from .2221 to .264, p < .001) or the combination of all three scores (Δχ2=134.261{19}; p < .001), but average retell scores produced a more parsimonious model than narrative retell scores alone (ΔAIC = 58.275; ΔBIC = 58.275). Average retell was only weakly correlated to other measures of comprehension (from r = .155 to r = .257, p < .01). However, the relationship was stronger than the relationship between retell and other measures of fluency (from r = .158 to r = .183, p < .01) or word identification (r = .132, p < .05). In addition, retell did not demonstrate differential item functioning when student characteristics (e.g., primary language, socioeconomic status, ability level) were entered as covariates, even though there were overall latent differences.

Description

text

LCSH Subject Headings

Citation