A Study on Validity and Reliability of the Literacy Assessment Battery (LAB) Developed for Primary School Children

Öz

In this study, the aim was to analyze the validity and reliability of the Literacy Assessment Battery (LAB), developed to assess the reading, reading comprehension, and writing skills of children attending primary school and to determine whether they have difficulties in these areas. The study also aimed to establish cut-off intervals and evaluation criteria for LAB’s scores. Participants consist of 1177 children attending the 1st--4th grades of primary school. While socioeconomic status of the participants was determined with the SES Index Parent Information Form, literacy skills were assessed using LAB. In the analyzes, first the validity and reliability of LAB was examined and then the cut-off intervals to evaluate the performance were determined. As a result of the analysis, it was found that LAB had content validity, had a three-factor structure (reading, reading comprehension, and writing) with high model fit indexes for each grade level, and significantly discriminated lower and upper groups at all grade levels. In the reliability analysis of the battery, it was found that the internal consistency coefficient was at a good level, the test-retest correlations, and the correlation coefficients of the equivalence of the A and B forms were also high. In addition, cut-off intervals were determined at all grades in order to make a five-level evaluation of the performance as “very low, low, medium, high, and very high”.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Literacy Assessment Battery
• LAB
• validity
• reliability
• cut-off points
• evaluation criteria

İlkokul Çocuklarına Yönelik Geliştirilmiş Okuma Yazma Değerlendirme Bataryasının (OYAB) Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmada ilkokula devam eden çocukların, okuma, okuduğunu anlama ve yazma becerilerini ölçmek ve bu alanlarda güçlük yaşayıp yaşamadıklarını belirlemek amacıyla geliştirilmiş olan Okuma Yazma Değerlendirme Bataryasının (OYAB) geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin belirlenmesine yönelik analizlerinin yapılması ve kesme aralıkları ile değerlendirme ölçütlerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın katılımcıları ilkokul 1, 2, 3 ve 4. sınıflara devam eden 1177 çocuktan oluşmaktadır. Katılımcıların sosyoekonomik düzeyleri SED İndeksi Ebeveyn Bilgi Formuyla, okuma yazma becerileri ise OYAB ile değerlendirilmiştir. Analizlerde öncelikle OYAB’ın geçerlik ve güvenirliği incelenmiş, ardından performansı değerlendirmeye yönelik kesme aralıkları belirlenmiştir. Analizler sonucunda OYAB’ın kapsam geçerliğine sahip olduğu, üç faktörlü (okuma, okuduğunu anlama, yazma) bir yapısının olduğu ve bu yapının model uyum indekslerinin her bir sınıf düzeyi için yüksek düzeyde olduğu ve tüm sınıf düzeylerinde alt üst grupları ayırıcılığının yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur. Bataryanın güvenirlik analizlerinde iç tutarlılık katsayısının iyi düzeyde olduğu, test tekrar-test korelasyonları ile A ve B formlarının eş değerlik anlamında korelasyon katsayılarının da yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ek olarak, bataryanın tüm sınıf düzeylerinde performansa ilişkin “çok düşük, düşük, orta, yüksek, çok yüksek” şeklinde beş düzeyli bir değerlendirme yapılabilmesi için kesme noktaları ve aralıkları belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okuma Yazma Değerlendirme Bataryası
• OYAB
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik
• kesme aralıkları
• değerlendirme ölçütleri

Kaynakça

1. Afflerbach, P. (2005). National Reading Conference policy brief high stakes testing and reading assessment executive summary. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(2), 151-162.
2. Afonso, O., Connelly, V., ve Barnett, A. L. (2019). Struggling with writing: An examination of writing difficulties in specific language impairment, developmental dyslexia and developmental coordination disorder. C.Perret ve T. Olive (Eds.), Spelling and Writing Words: Theoretical and Methodological Advances (pp. 112-127). Brill.
3. Akyol, H. (2015). Türkçe ilk okuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
4. Akyol, H., ve Sever, E. (2018). Okuma yazma güçlüğü ve bir eylem araştırması: İkinci sınıf örneği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(3), 685-707.
5. Babür, N., Haznedar, B., Erçetin, G., Özerman, D., ve Çekerek, E. (2011). Türkçe’ de Kelime Okuma Bilgisi Testi’nin geliştirmesi. (KOBİT). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 28(2), 1-21.
6. Ball, C. R., ve O’Connor, E. (2016). Predictive utility and classification accuracy of oral reading fluency and the measures of academic progress for the Wisconsin knowledge and concepts exam. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41, 195–208.
7. Boscolo, P. (2008). Writing in primary school. C. Bazermen (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp.293-309). L. Erlbaum Associates.
8. Breznitz, Z. (2005). Fluency in reading: Synchronization of processes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

9. Burns, S. M., Kidd, J. K., ve Genarro, T. (2010). Writing: Underutilized for young children with disabilities? Scruggs, T. E. ve Mastropieri, M. A. (Eds.) Literacy and Learning (pp. 175-204). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
10. Caglar‐Ryeng, Ö., Eklund, K., ve Nergard‐Nissen, T. (2019). Lexical and grammatical development in children at family risk of dyslexia from early childhood to school entry: A cross‐lagged analysis. Journal of Child Language, 46(6), 1102–1126.
11. Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., ve Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406.
12. Chow, B. W. Y., McBride-Chang, C., ve Burgess, S. (2005). Phonological processing skills and early reading abilities in Hong Kong Chinese kindergarteners learning to read English as a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 81-87.
13. Christ, T. J., Silberglitt, B., Yeo, S., ve Cormier, D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: An evaluation of growth rates and seasonal effects among students served in general and special education. School Psychology Review, 39, 447–462.
14. Clarke, P. J., Truelove, E., Hulme, C., ve Snowling, M. (2014). Developing reading comprehension. Hoboken: John Wiley ve Sons, Ltd.
15. Cunningham, A. E., ve Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934-945.
16. Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., ve Shinn, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurements to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
17. Erden, G., ve Çelik, C. (2019). Sesli okuma becerisi ve okuduğunu anlama testinin psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Nesne, 7(14), 1-18.
18. Ergül, C. (2012). Okumada güçlük yaşayan öğrencilerin okuma performanslarının öğrenme güçlüğü riski açısından değerlendirilmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(3), 2033-2057.
19. Ergül, C., Ökcün-Akçamuş, M. Ç., Akoğlu, G., Bahap Kudret, Z., Kılıç Tülü B., Demir, E., ve Okşak F. E. (2020). Türkçe konuşan çocuklarda fonolojik işlemleme becerileri ilk okuma performansını yorduyor mu? Boylamsal sonuçlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2020062765
20. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., ve Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.
21. Goldsworthy, C. L. (2003). Developmental reading disabilities: A language based treatment approach. Thomson Learning, Inc.
22. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. C. J. Bonk ve C. R. Graham (Eds.), The Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, (pp. 3-21). Pfeiffer.
23. Graham, S. (2010). Want to improve children's writing? Education Digest, 76(1), 49-55.
24. Graham, S., ve Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the center on accelerating student learning. Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19-33.
25. Green, S. B., ve Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, USA: Pearson.
26. Hoien-Tengesdal, I., ve Tonnessen, F. (2011). The relationship between phonological skills and word reading. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 93–103.
27. Hoover, H., Dunbar, D., Frisbie, D., Oberley, K., Bray, G., Naylor, R., et al. (2003). The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing
28. Hoover, W. A., ve Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160.
29. Hosp, J. L., Suchey, N., ve Burns, M. (2014). Reading assessment: Reading fluency, reading fluently, and comprehension. School Psychology Review, 43, 59-68.
30. Hougen, M. (2014). Evidence-based reading instruction for adolescents, grades 6-12 (Document No. IC-13). Erişim adresi: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations
31. Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., ve Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714.
32. İmer, K., Kocaman, A., ve Özsoy, A. S. (2011). Dilbilim sözlüğü. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
33. Katzir, T., Kim, K., Wolf, M., O’Brien, B., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., ve Morris, R. (2006). Reading fluency: Whole is more than parts. Annals of Dyslexia, 56(1), 51-82.
34. Kerbow, D., ve Bryk, A. (2005). STEP literacy assessment: Technical report of validity and reliability. Erişim adresi: https://docplayer.net/9212668-Step-literacy-assessment-technical-report-of-validity-and-reliability.html
35. Kirby, J. R., Desrochers, A., Roth, L., ve Lai, S. S. (2008). Longitudinal predictors of word reading development. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 103-110.
36. Knoop‐van Campen, C. A., Segers, E., ve Verhoeven, L. (2018). How phonological awareness mediates the relation between working memory and word reading efficiency in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia, 24(2), 156-169.
37. Kuhn, M. (2004). Helping students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency instruction for small groups. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 338-344.
38. Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., ve Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230-251.
39. Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Morris, R. D., Morrow, L. M., Woo, D. G., Meisinger, E. B. ve ark. (2006). Teaching children to become fluent and automatic readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(4), 357-387.
40. Lambert, M. (2007). A guide to reading fluency and the assessment of specific learning disabilities in the individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Erişim adresi: https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/reading-fluency-draft.pdf
41. Lipson M. Y., ve Wixson, K. K. (2009). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing difficulties (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.
42. Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of automatization. Reading ve Writing Quarterly, 13(2), 123-146.
43. Maclean, M. J., Taylor, C. L., ve O’Donnell, M. (2016). Pre-existing adversity, level of child protection involvement, and school attendance predict educational outcomes in a longitudinal study. Child Abuse ve Neglect, 51, 120-131.
44. McCoach, D. B., O’Connell, A., Reis, S., ve Levitt, H. (2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 14–98
45. Meisinger, E. B., Bloom, J., ve Hynd, G. W. (2010). Reading fluency: Implications for the assessment of children with reading Disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 1-17.
46. Melekoğlu, M. A., Erden, H. G., ve Çakıroğlu, O. (2019). Development of the Oral Reading Skills and Comprehension Test-II (SOBAT®-II) for assessment of Turkish children with specific learning disabilities: Pilot study results. Journal of Educational Issues, 5(2), 135-149.
47. Nandhini, K., ve Balasundaram, S. R. (2011, July). Improving readability of dyslexic learners through document summarization. IEEE International Conference (pp. 246-249). Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
48. National Assessment of Educational Progress, (2013). Nation’s report card. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Erişim adresi: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2013/pdf/2014451.pdf
49. Nelson, P. M., Van Norman, E. R., ve VanDerHeyden, A. (2017). Reduce, reuse, recycle: The longitudinal value of local cut scores using state test data. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35, 683–694.
50. Nordström, T., Jacobson, C., ve Söderberg, P. (2016). Early word decoding ability as a longitudinal predictor of academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 175–191.
51. Northwest Evaluation Association (2011). Technical manual for measures of academic progress and measures of academic progress for primary grades. Erişim adresi: https://www.richland2.org/RichlandDistrict/media/Richland District/AdvancED/Standard%205/5.1/5-1-NWEA-Technical-Manual-for-MAP-and-MPG.pdf
52. Oakhill, J., Cain, K., ve Elbro, C. (2019). Reading comprehension and reading comprehension difficulties. D. Kilpatrick, R. Joshi, W. Malatesha, ve K. Richard (Eds.), Reading development and difficulties (pp. 83-115). Springer.
53. Ou, S.-R., ve Reynolds, A. J. (2008). Predictors of educational attainment in the Chicago longitudinal study. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(2), 199–229.
54. Öney, B., ve Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (1997). Learning to read in Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 1-15.
55. Parrila, R., Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Nurmi, J. E., ve Kirby, J. (2005). Development of individual differences in reading: Results from longitudinal studies in English and Finnish. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 299-319.
56. Peng, P., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Elleman, A.M., Kearns, D.M., Gilbert, J., … Patton, S. (2019). A longitudinal analysis of the trajectories and predictors of word reading and reading comprehension development among at-risk readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(3), 195–208.
57. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press.
58. Perfetti, C. A. (2010). Decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension. M. G. McKeown ve L. Kucan (E), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 291-303). Guilford Press.
59. Perfetti, C., Landi, N., ve Oakhill, J. (2005) The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. M. J. Snowling ve C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading (pp. 227–247). Blackwell Publishing.
60. Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., Osmond, W. C., ve Maynard, A. M. (2002). Relative reading achievement: A longitudinal study of 187 children from first through sixth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 3-13.
61. Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704-706.
62. Richek, M. A., Caldwell J. S., Jennings, J. H., ve Lerner, J. W. (2002). Reading problems: Assessment and teaching strategies. Boston: Allyn ve Bacon.
63. Saddler, B. (2006). Increasing story-writing ability through self-regulated strategy development: Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4), 291-305.
64. Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Sesma Jr, A., ve van Dulmen, M. (2006). The role of developmental assets in predicting academic achievement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 29(5), 691-708.
65. Scanlon, D. M., Anderson, K. L., ve Sweeney, J. M., (2010). Early inventions for reading difficulties. Guilford Press.
66. Scarborough, H. S. (2002). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman ve D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97-110). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
67. Seçkin-Yılmaz, Ş., ve Baydık, B. (2017). Okuma performansı düşük olan ve olmayan ilkokul öğrencilerinin okuma akıcılıkları. Elementary Education Online, 16(4), 1652-1671.
68. Snowling, M. J., Duff, F. J., Nash, H. M., ve Hulme, C. (2016). Language profiles and literacy outcomes of children with resolving, emerging, or persisting language impairments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(12), 1360–1369.
69. Snowling, M. J., Lervag, A., Nash, H. M., ve Hulme, C. (2019). Longitudinal relationships between speech perception, phonological skills and reading in children at high-risk of dyslexia. Developmental Science, 22(1), 1272-1289.
70. Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray?. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 7-29.
71. Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189, 23-55.
72. Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K., ve Wagner, R. K. (2009). Relationships between word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381-398.
73. Uzunkol, E. (2013). Akıcı okuma sürecinde karşılaşılan sorunların tespiti ve giderilmesine yönelik bir durum çalışması. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(1), 70-83.
74. Valdez, C. R., Lambert, S. F., ve Ialongo, N. S. (2011). Identifying patterns of early risk for mental health and academic problems in adolescence: A longitudinal study of urban youth. Child Psychiatry ve Human Development, 42(5), 521-538.
75. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., ve Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 73-87.
76. Westwood, P. S. (2008). What teachers need to know about reading and writing difficulties. ACER Press.
77. Willoughby, M. T., Wylie, A. C., ve Little, M. H. (2019). Testing longitudinal associations between executive function and academic achievement. Developmental Psychology, 55(4), 767–779.
78. Yuill, N., Oakhill, J., ve Oakhill, O. J. (1991). Children's problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge University Press.