Oral Reading and Maze Measures as Predictors of Success for English Learners on a State Standards Assessment

By Hilda Ives Wiley, S. Deno. 2005

186 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2a31dc737e68aac91238a9eaa1507a19b086b944

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. C. Espin
2. E. Geva
3. Nonie K. Lesaux
4. Fataneh Farnia
5. Kristen D. Ritchey
6. R. Silverman
7. Jeffrey R. Harring
8. J. Jenkins

In Education

1. C. Espin
2. Kristen D. Ritchey
3. J. Jenkins
4. Evelyn S. Johnson
5. Hilda Ives Wiley
6. E. Geva
7. Y. Petscher
8. Nonie K. Lesaux

In Statistics and Probability

1. C. Espin
2. Kristen D. Ritchey
3. E. Geva
4. Hilda Ives Wiley
5. Jeffrey R. Harring
6. R. Silverman
7. Fataneh Farnia
8. J. Jenkins

Citations in the corpus

• How Can We Improve the Accuracy of Screening Instruments? (2009, background): “Two studies have found performance differences associated with language and poverty status on ORF and state standards reading tests (Hixson & McGlinchey, 2004; Wiley & Deno, 2005).”
• Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1 (2012, background): “With better developed language skills, older or more proficient L2 learners may be able to capitalize on the processing of meaning as well (Crosson & Lesaux, 2010; Geva & Yaghoub Zadeh, 2006; Wiley & Deno, 2005 ).”
• Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers’ text-reading fluency in English (2010, background): “Research on the development of reading fluency with monolinguals from the primary grades through middle school demonstrates a robust relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxwell, 1988; Hosp & Fuchs, 2005; Riedel, 2007; Shinn, Good, Knutson, Tilly, & C”
• Literature Synthesis on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading (2007, background): “In terms of language, results generally have revealed moderate to strong reliability and criterionrelated validity coefficients for reading-aloud measures with English learners (ELs; Baker & Good, 1995; Wiley & Deno, 2005).”
• Creating a Progress–Monitoring System in Reading for Middle–School Students: Tracking Progress toward Meeting High–Stakes Standards (2010, background): “…to the present study, both reading-aloud (Crawford, Tindal, & Stieber, 2001; Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005; McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004; Silberglitt & Hintze, 2005; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001) and maze-selection measures (Wiley & Deno, 2005) have been shown to predict performance on state standards tests.”
• Fluency Has a Role in the Simple View of Reading (2013, background): “In addition, Wiley and Deno (2005) reported that a maze measure added significant unique variance to reading comprehension, controlling for connected text fluency.”