The contribution of retell to the identification of struggling adolescent readers

• Main Author: Reed, Deborah Kay
• Format: Others
• Language: English
• Published: 2010
• Subjects: Confirmatory factor analysis; Reading comprehension; Adolescents; Reading assessment
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/ETD-UT-2010-05-736

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. === text