John's Reading Inventory

Something sounds kind of fishy to me…because I thought all protocols (assessments) should be kept with the students files and not destroyed.

Yes Pattim, It sounded strange to me as well. She insisted that the copy she had would have to be shreaded and I wsa not allowed to have a copy. They only went over the results with me the whole time, the teacher was arguing with the AP on the results. It was very evident that what ever this test was suppose to determine, they were all not united with the findings.
Sandy

here’s a web site talking about the Jerry L. Johns reading inventory complete with ordering information. There’s a phone number there you could try calling to ask specific questions about test.

http://www.state.tn.us/education/ci/cistandards2001/la/cik3assesmentfolder/cik3rakendall.htm

(If this link is too long to access, I got to it via

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/reading_levels.htm

at the bottom of the page.

A reading inventory is fine to track progress or even as one component of a comprehensive evaluation, but it is not a standardized instrument (as far as I know). To determine LD, they should have done either the Woodcock Johnson-III ir the WIAT. Those reading subtests would have yielded standard scores. Garde equivalents are not really meaningful.

Janis

Thanks for the help and especially the link. I checked it out and saw information regarding the evaluation. I think I am still confused about why the test was not put into his folder especially for the sake of doing it. No comments were made regarding the results and if any modifications needed to be done in his class. So, why keep it so secret? Maybe I will get an answer from the school soon………

I just reread this. Our district puts NO test protocols in the child’s special ed. folder. There are evaluation reports but the actual test protocols are never even brought back to the school after testing. I assume the diagnostician and psychologist either keep (or destroy eventually?) the protocols. Our SLP (based at the school) also writes a summary of test results for the file and scores are recorded on the IEP form “Summary of Test Results”. But parents normally do not see the test protocols.

Janis

THat’s the way it’s been done every where I’ve been — the protocols get filed much more “deeply.” Let’s face it, if everybody knew what was on those tests we’d have more parents like that one who coached her kiddo into “geniushood” (and herself into the courts).
However, evaluation of the results should be there — AND so should a standardized inventory of his skills. There’s just enough gap there between solid abilities and shaky but not disastrous skills that you want to know where the breakdown is. (Let me guess…. whole language?)

How’d you guess Sue? My kiddo came home and said the Speech Pathologist gave him some tests today. I was expecting some consent forms to be sent home first. I guess my email to the principal triggered something to happen. I emailed her 3 days ago asking her the status of the educational assessment. She emailed me back today asking me more specifically which assessment I was referring to. ??? Strange she would ask that the same day he was in there testing with the speech pathologist. My problem is simple. My son’s doctors have asked for a full psyco-edu eval several times over the last 3 years. They are bugging me that I have not made the school do it. I attempt again and it’s 3 months after my written request. His doctors all state specific reason why he should have the school test him specifically for dyslexia and dysgraphia and they pretty much do not want to be the only source of help and he is not going to benefit until he is taught how to read and write on his level. argh….does it have to be so difficult?

when I requested copies of my daughter’s cum at the districit offices the Protocols were xeroxed along with everything else. As an SLP I have protocols in my implementer files but I have never been asked to shred a protocol after showing it to the parent. Some test protocols that we use like the Rosetti are filled out by the parents…

Sandy,

The real question I would have to ask myself is: what purpose will it really serve to have the school test the child? My personal answer is that since the majority of schools in the US are clueless about remediating reading disorders, it is extremely unlikely that the school would be any help at all. Usually parents have to find a qualified tutor or get the training themselves to really have a chance at remediation.

Patti, I have also asked Anna’s SLP for copies of test protocol score sheets (not the full protocol) after she has been tested and they do give them to me. I think they may have made those concessions for us since we are also in the same (or related) field and already understand the score sheets.

Janis

The Johns is a very nice criterion-referenced test which is well-served as a measurement of objectives/benchmarks in the IEP goals section if administered correctly and completely. I mention such scores in a Present Level of Ed Performance during non-evaluatory years—and use the data from the Johns in grouping students for instruction and evaluating other instructional needs. From a formal assessment standpoint, it is a screening tool—and a valuable one for teaching reading. However, not being standardized, I cannot accurately measure growth from the past three years nor compare scores to other scores.

The Star Reading test mentioned in the original post is heavily skewed toward vocabulary. It is a comprehension-only test and computerized (which adds another factor to the equation). I am forced to use it at my school and find it inaccurate—either inflated if the student is a saavy context reader (uses clues in passages to guess at unknown words) AND has a good vocab, or deflated if vocab is an issue or doesn’t use context clues effectively…or doesn’t do well on the compter screen. Also, the lack of human contact on this test makes it impossible to analyze errors or effort.

I like the Johns and Burns-Roe and Flynnt-Cooter and many other criterion-ref tests; however, not for three year assessments as the data are not measurable in the proper way. BTW, I do not like the Silveroli for students 4th grade and above. It’s readability just isn’t accurate. McGraw-Hill is redoing it (again & again) and perhaps that will change.

I do not put my test protocols in the child’s cumulative file. Those stay in my personal file. I do, however, report all scores (including raw scores when requested). If I am called to testify, I want my protocols were I can find them—not in some school file where they could be lost or misused.

Good folks, there is a difference between the typical standardized test and the “criterion-refrenced” test. In most instances, norm-referenced tests (aka standardized) are useful to determine approximately where your child ranks in comparison to other students of approximately his/her age and/or grade level. Most standardized tests are not detailed enough to be diagnostic.

Standardized reading tests are used to assist in qualifying students for special education because the scores, when converted to a standard score, can be compared to other areas of assessment/achievement. They are also useful to look at performance changes after special education is in place. If your child has a standard score of 80 in reading comprehension and three years later this score has become a 96, for example, then you have seen a positive change and can compare the new standard score to other scores, I.Q., processing issues, etc.

To gather diagnostic data to guide instruction and to gear to writing goals/objectives, criterion-referenced measures like the Johns are appropriate. A complete administration of the Johns can assist the teacher in identifying strengths, weakness and response patterns while applying decoding skills to the reading of randomly selected words from graded lists. Reading inventories also permit the teacher to assess oral reading speed and accuracy (fluency) and comprehension skills (orally given answers to open-ended questions from varying levels of understanding). Finally, the teacher can also analyze how and what decoding skills the student applies to reading words in context. Much can be learned about the reader.

Tests like the Johns offer 4 selections per level, two fiction and 2 content area reading. This also assists the teacher with assessing reading strengths and deficits. Generally, I liked to administer at least two per level, particularly levels in question. I have several inventories, the ones named by Susan, so I ultimately have assess to as many as 12 passages per reading level.

When administering a reading inventory parents can easily become confused. Usually we find a pattern of “acing the levels” until we find the instructional and then the frustration level. However, it is not unheard of for a student to, for example, score 80% comprehension at the fifth grade level on one selection and 50% on another at the same level. This is why we need to use multiple. When I encounter this, I always administer a third at that level.

“Reading levels” are not exact science. The ability of a person to read and comprehend at a given level is dependent upon a number of factors; several of which are inherent in the text and others that reside in the individual.

If a child is reading a selection about a class visiting a science museum that has exhibits and hands-on activities, the child who has been to such a museum will be familiar with much of the vocabulary and the experiences that are being written about. The child who has never visited a science museum may not comprehend the selection. But, who is the better reader? Another selection might deal with a Mexican holiday. A child in Indiana may have no background with this holiday. A Mexican-American child in the S.W. may celebrate this holiday annually, even Anglo kids in the S.W. may be exposed to this holiday. So, the child in Indiana struggles with the selection, while the children from the S.W. pass handily. Who is the better reader?

When reading inventories are administered thoroughly, more data is available to the teacher and the parent than is available from a standardized test that does not yield diagnostic data.

Both kinds of tests are useful, but usually for different purposes. And, yes, I can show growth in reading skills via a Johns inventory, particularly when I administer 2 or more selections per grade level and also administer the word recognition (words in isolation lists). It is very clear.

I also keep some of these and only use at IEP time. I have been known to re-administer the same lists/selections that were administered one year prior. Generally the child does not recall enough after a year, particularly if the child read at frustration level the year before. When the child can “ace” that same passage and continue to score well at the next level, too, we do have progress and it is very measurable numerically.

Anitya,
Thank you for your explanation. My 8th grade son recently had the Burns-Roe Informal Reading Inventory administered as the reading test as part of his 3 year re-eval which I found less than helpful. He has and identified language based learning disability which greatly impacts his reading decoding, comprehension, accuracy and fluency. I’m used to more standardized results in addition to the observations during testing and couldn’t make sense of what the reading teacher reported in her test results. I asked for the GORT and the CTOPP and they will be administering those tests sometime in January.

If the reading inventory is part of a teacher’s ongoing (through the year) plan to keep track of progress then it can help with accountability (when I taught we did some tests midyear, some at the end, and they really helped me re-focus on making *progress,* not just “doing the lessons” by highlighting that student’s individual struggles & strengths).

Do any of you use the QRI-3? I ordered it recently but haven’t had time to wade through the huge amount of instructions.

Janis