Diagnostic Reading Analysis

SubscalesⓘList of subscales (if applicable)

Listening comprehension, reading assessment (which provides measures of accuracy, reading speed, comprehension, and comprehension processing speed), and a single word reading assessment.

Publisher

RS Assessment from Hodder Education

Test source

https://www.risingstars-uk.com/series/diagnostic-reading-analysis

Guidelines available?ⓘAdministration guidelines available to the review team

Yes

Norm-referenced scores

Yes

Age rangeⓘSpecific population and age range that publisher states the test is intended/​suitable for. 

7 – 16 years

Key Stage

Key Stage 1, Key Stage 2, Key Stage 3, Key Stage 4

UK standardisation sample

Yes

Publication date

2019

Re-norming date

N/​a

Additional information about what the test measures

Listening and reading comprehension, text reading accuracy and reading speed, and single word reading.

Are additional versions available?

2 parallel forms

Can subtests be administered in isolation?

Yes

Administration Group Size

Individual

Administration duration

Not stated in manual but estimated at 15 minutes.

Description of materials needed to administer test

Reading booklet, manual, pupil record, and electronic timer.

Any special testing conditions?

Scoring must be done online as it is used to guide selection of passages to read.

Is any prior knowledge/training/profession accreditation required for administration?

No

Is administration scripted?

N/​a

Rating Construct

Does it reflect the multidimensionality of the subject?

Specific literacy (reading comprehension accuracy, reading comprehension speed, text reading accuracy, text reading speed, single word reading accuracy).

Construct validity comments (and reference for source)

The manual (Crumpler & McCarty, 2019) suggests that the design of the test corresponds closely to the national curriculum teaching structure, and therefore the test has face validity. Correlations with other instruments are between with the text/​word reading accuracy score and reading comprehension measures; the correlations between text reading accuracy and PIRA (primary) range between .48 and .64. Correlation with the word reading accuracy score and the PIRA range from .50 to .58. The strength of these correlations is considered inadequate-adequate. However, this likely reflects the difference in the key construct measured. Raw scores for word reading accuracy show a dip around secondary school entry and around age 15. No reliability or validity measures are presented for reading comprehension, only reading accuracy. As a result, this is described as a specific literacy measure. Note that there are some errors in the manual in the description of validity (e.g. test-retest reliability is actually construct validity).

Rating Reliability

Summarise available comparisons

The manual (Crumpler & McCarty, 2019) reports internal consistency using a combined score from listening comprehension, reading accuracy, and single word reading total from two samples (6 years to 16 years, the 2019 standardisation sample of 2312 pupils, which over-sampled weaker readers, and 2008 standardisation sample where the number of participants is not stated). This combined score shows a Cronbach’s alpha of .76. However, this seems to be based on the three total scores rather than individual items and therefore should not be considered a true measure of internal consistency. It is not possible to calculate internal consistency for the comprehension measures because different children do different passages. The manual also reports equivalence reliability as assessed in a study of primary school pupils (6 – 11 years). Equivalence reliability between form A and form B for text reading accuracy (r = .91) and single word reading scores (r = .85) is good-excellent. Equivalence between the two listening comprehension passages is inadequate (r = .60) but this is not a standardised outcome score. There are no measures of equivalence between the two reading comprehension accuracy measures or any of the reading speed measures.The authors state that they rate test-retest reliability, however since it does not involve repeating tests it has not been included here. Overall, the reliability of this measure is difficult to rate because although the internal consistency for text reading accuracy and single word reading is good, there are no reliabilities (or validities) reported for the reading comprehension elements. The authors provide a detailed discussion of the comprehension processing speed measure which indicates that it is not reliable (low correlations with age, weaker readers answering more quickly), and did not take account of answer accuracy in calculating this measure.

Sources

Crumpler, M., & McCarty, C. (2019). Diagnostic Reading Analysis Manual. London, UK: RS Assessment from Hodder Education.