Test identification

Name of test Diagnostic Reading Analysis
Version 3rd Edition
Previous version(s) 1st and 2nd Edition
Subjects Literacy
Summary A one-to-one standardised test of reading; listenting and reading comprehension, text reading accuracy and reading speed and single word reading.

Assessment screening

Subscales Listening comprehension, reading assessment (which provides measures of accuracy, reading speed, comprehension, and comprehension processing speed), a single word reading assessment.
Additional References n/a
Authors Mary Crumpler & Colin McCarty
Publisher RS Assessment from Hodder Education
Test source https://www.risingstars-uk.com/series/diagnostic-reading-analysis
Guidelines available? Yes
Norm-referenced scores. Yes
Age range 7-16 years
Key Stage(s) applicable to KS1, KS2, KS3, KS4
UK standardisation sample Yes
Publication date 2019
Re-norming date n/a


Validity measures available? Yes
Reliability measures available? Yes
Reason for exclusion from shortlist shortlisted

Evaluation and Appraisal

Additional information about what the test measures Listening and reading comprehensino, 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.

Response format

Response mode Oral
What device is required n/a
Queston format. open ended
Progress through questions adaptive

Assessor requirements

Is any prior knowledge/training/profession accreditation required for administration? no
Is administration scripted? Yes


Description of materials needed to score test manual
Types and range of available scores raw, age-standardised (69-130), year/grade-standardised (61-140), reading age equivalents (6;09-16;09), percentile, reading speech/reading comprehension speed
Score transformation for standard score both age standardised and grade standardised
Age bands used for norming 2 months
Scoring procedures simple manual scores key - clerical skills required
Automatised norming none

Construct Validity

Does it adequately measure literacy, mathematics or science?
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).

Criterion Validity

Does test performance adequately correlate with later, current or past performance?
Summarise available comparisons n/a


Is test performance reliable?
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.

Is the norm-derived population appropriate and free from bias?

Is population appropriate and free from bias? No
If any biases are noted in sampling, these will be indicated here. Although the sample size for generating norms was excellent, the manual (Crumpler & McCarty, 2019) provides insufficient information to understand how participants were recruited. Weaker readers were intentionally oversampled and therefore sampling is unlikely to be representative of the general population. No information is given about ethinicity or SES, only gender distribution.


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