Scholastic Reading Inventory

Area: Reading

Cost Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs Service & Support Purpose & Other Implementation Information Usage & Reporting

Cost for year 1:

$2,950.00 for complete kit which includes 200 licenses per site with complete software program and six teacher’s guides.

Optional costs:

$39.00 for additional teacher manuals.

$299 for an Extension Plan which includes an additional 50 licenses.

$255 for Product Support plan per year per site.
Cost for subsequent years:
Perpetual license on server version, with no additional cost for program software.

Computer and Internet access are required for full use of product services.
Testers will require 1-4 hours of training.
Accommodations:

  • Universal scale.
  • Voiced instructions.
  • Easy practice test to familiar students to test instrument.
  • Consistently sized and easy-to-read program fonts.
  • 864 high-interest and low ability test items.
  • High-interest and low-ability book titles in the recommended reading list.

Scholastic Inc
P.O. Box 7502
Jefferson City, MO 65102-9964

Phone: 877-387-1437
www.scholastic.com/SRI

Technical support is included in Product Support Plan. Staff is available via phone, email and web chat.

SRI is a research-based, computer-adaptive reading assessment for students in grades K-12 that measures reading comprehension on the Lexile Framework for Reading.

The student is asked to read a passage taken from an authentic text and then choose the option that best fills the blank in the last statement. To complete the statement, the student must respond on a literal lever (recall a fact) or inferential level (determine the main idea of the passage, draw an inference from the material presented, or make a connection between sentences in the passage).
The tool provides information on student performance in Spanish (print version only) and English.

SRI is intended to be non-times and typically takes 20 - 30 minutes to complete. Scoring is automatic. It can be administered to an individual student or to a group. 

Raw, standard, percentile and composite scores are available. Grade equivalents, normal curve equivalents, stanines, and developmental benchmarks are also available.

 

Reliability of the Performance Level Score: Full bubble

Study 1. During January 2000, a study was conducted to compare SRI with scores from the STAR assessment (School Renaissance Institute). SRI was administered twice to 104 students in Grades 1 through 11 over a two-week period. The correlation between the two Lexile measures, an estimate of the reader measure consistency, was 0.886.

Study 2. In a large urban school district, SRI was administered to all students in Grades 2 through 10. Table 1 shows the reader consistency estimates for each grade level and across all grades over a four-month period. The data is from the first and second SRI administrations during the 20042005 school year.

SRI reader consistency estimates over a four-month period, by grade.

Grade N Reader Consistency Correlation
3 1,241 0.829
4 7,236 0.832
5 8,253 0.854
6 6,339 0.848
7 3,783 0.860
8 3,581 0.877
9 2,694 0.853
10 632 0.901
Total 33,759 0.894

 

Reliability of the Slope: mdash

Validity of the Performance Level Score: Full bubble

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n (range) Coefficient
median
Concurrent   READ 180 525 85.2L
Concurrent Middle School READ 180 399 86L
Concurrent Middle and High School READ 180 361 118.7L
Concurrent Middle School READ 180 573 109.5L
Concurrent Grades 7&8 READ 180 548 95.9L

Predictive Validity of the Slope of Improvement: mdash

Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data: mdash

Alternate Forms: Full bubble

1. Evidence that alternate forms are of equal and controlled difficulty or, if IRT based, evidence of item or ability invariance:

Reader Measure Consistency. Alternate-form reliability examines the extent to which two equivalent forms of an assessment yield the same results (i.e., students’ scores have the same rank order on both tests). Test-retest reliability examines the extent to which two administrations of the same test yield similar results. When taken together, alternate-form reliability and test-retest reliability are estimates of reader measure consistency. Two studies have examined the consistency of reader measures. If decisions about individuals are to be made on the basis of assessment data (for example, placement or instructional program decisions), then the assessment results should exhibit a reliability coefficient of at least 0.85.

Study 1. During January 2000, a study was conducted to compare SRI with scores from the STAR assessment (School Renaissance Institute). SRI was administered twice to 104 students in Grades 1 through 11 over a two-week period. The correlation between the two Lexile measures, an estimate of the reader measure consistency, was 0.886.

Study 2. In a large urban school district, SRI was administered to all students in Grades 2 through 10. Table 1 shows the reader consistency estimates for each grade level and across all grades over a four-month period. The data is from the first and second SRI administrations during the 2004–2005 school year.

SRI reader consistency estimates over a four-month period, by grade.

Grade N Reader Consistency Correlation
3 1,241 0.83
4 7,236 0.83
5 8,253 0.85
6 6,339 0.85
7 3,783 0.86
8 3,581 0.88
9 2,694 0.85
10 632 0.90
Total 33,759 0.89

2. Number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty:

SRI is a computer-adaptive test. The print version has 10 forms.

Sensitive to Student Improvement: Full bubble

1. Describe evidence that the monitoring system produces data that are sensitive to student improvement (i.e., when student learning actually occurs, student performance on the monitoring tool increases on average).

A number of studies on READ 180 demonstrate the sensitivity of the SRI to student improvement. For example, in a 2006 study in Brockton, MA., results of the Scholastic Reading Inventory were gathered, in addition to data on attrition and retention in the program. Findings reveal that students who participated in READ 180 reading in the lowest quartile moved up to the 25th percentile or above after approximately five months of the intervention as measured by the SRI. Students also made positive and significant gains on oral reading fluency as measured by the DIBELS assessment.

Scholastic Inc. (2008). Compendium of READ 180 Research. New York, NY.

End-of-Year Benchmarks: Full bubble

1. Are benchmarks for minimum acceptable end-of-year performance specified in your manual or published materials?

Yes.

Criterion-referenced

Criterion-referenced

Procedure for specifying benchmarks for end-of-year performance levels: In 1999, four performance standards were set at each grade level in SRI—Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Proficient was defined as performance that exhibited competent academic performance when students read grade-level appropriate text and could be considered as reading "on Grade Level." Students performing at this level should be able to identify details, draw conclusions, and make comparisons and generalizations when reading materials developmentally appropriate for their nominal grade level.

The standard-setting group consisted of curriculum specialists, test development consultants, and other educators. A general description of the process used by the standard-setting group to arrive at the final cut scores follows:

  1. Specify the end-of-year performance standards:
    • Advanced: Students scoring in this range exhibit superior performance when reading grade-level appropriate text and can be considered as reading "above Grade Level."
    • Proficient: Students scoring in this range exhibit competent performance when reading grade-level appropriate text and can be considered as reading "on Grade Level." Students performing at this level should be able to identify details, draw conclusions, and make comparisons and generalizations when reading materials developmentally appropriate for the grade level.
    • Basic: Students scoring in this range exhibit minimally competent performance when reading grade-level appropriate text and can be considered as reading "below Grade Level."
    • Below Basic: Students scoring in this range do not exhibit minimally competent performance when reading grade-level appropriate text and can be considered as reading significantly "below Grade Level."
  2. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable end-of-year performance:
  3. Specify the benchmarks:
    Grade Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11

    99 and Below
    249 and Below
    349 and Below
    449 and Below
    499 and Below
    549 and Below
    599 and Below
    649 and Below
    699 and Below
    799 and Below
    99 and Below
    100 to 299
    250 to 499
    350 to 599
    450 to 699
    500 to 799
    550 to 849
    600 to 899
    650 to 999
    700 to 1024
    800 to 1049
    100 to 400
    300 to 600
    500 to 800
    600 to 900
    700 to 1000
    800 to 1050
    850 to 1100
    900 to 1150
    1000 to 1200
    1025 to 1250
    1050 to 1300
    401 and Above
    601 and Above
    801 and Above
    901 and Above
    1001 and Above
    1051 and Above
    1101 and Above
    1151 and Above
    1201 and Above
    1251 and Above
    1301 and Above
  4. Basis for specifying these benchmarks?
    • Group members reviewed previously established performance standards for Grades 1–12 that could be reported in terms of the Lexile scale. Information that defined and/or described each of the measures was provided to the group. In addition, for the reader-based standards, information was provided concerning when the standards were set, the policy definition of the standards, the performance descriptors of the standards (where available), the method used to set the standards, and the type of impact data provided to the panelists.
    • Reader-based standards included the following: the Stanford Achievement Test, Version 9 (Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement, 1997); the North Carolina End-of-Grade Test (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 1996); and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Assessment Governing Board, 1997).
    • Text-based standards included the following: Miami-Dade Public Schools (Miami, Florida, 1998); text on the National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4, 8, and 12; text-based materials found in classrooms and delineated on the Lexile Map; materials associated with adult literacy (workplace—1100L–1400L; continuing education—1100L–1400L; citizenship—newspapers 1200L–1400L; morals, ethics and religion—1400L–1500L; and entertainment—typical novels 900L–1100L); and grade-level based curriculum materials such as READ 180 by Scholastic Inc.
      • Round 1. Members of the standard-setting group individually studied the previously established performance standards and determined corresponding Lexile measures for student performance at the top and bottom of the "Proficient" standard.
      • Round 2. The performance levels identified for each grade in Round 1 were distributed to all members of the standard-setting group. The group discussed the range of cut scores identified for a grade level until consensus was reached. The process was repeated for each grade, 1–11. In addition, lower "intervention" points were identified that could be used to flag results that indicated a student was significantly below grade level (the "Below Basic" performance standard).
      • Round 3. In this round impact data were provided to the members of the standard-setting group. This information was based on the reader-based standards that had been previously established (Stanford Achievement Test, Version 9 national percentiles).

Rates of Improvement Specified: Full bubble

1. Is minimum acceptable growth (slope of improvement or average weekly increase in score by grade level) specified in manual or published materials?

No.

a. Specify the growth standards:

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth:

Norm-referenced

  1. The student-level data from Palm Beach County in SY 00-01 through SY 06-07 was used to complete the analyses. The school district had approximately 80,000 students in Grades 2 through 10 in each school year. [2006 demographics: 42% free and reduced lunch; 30% African-American; 23% Hispanic; 11% ELL; 15% Special Education.]
  2. Students were categorized into an SRI percentile in the fall at each grade level.
  3. For interpretation purposes, smoothed growth expectations were required. First, smoothed functions were developed using cubic regression equations (R2s were all well above 0.98 for all 16 equations – 8 grade spans by fall/spring).
    1. The mean fall Lexile measure (SRI score) of the students in each fall percentile classification of each grade was calculated.
    2. The mean spring Lexile measure (SRI score) of the students in each fall percentile classification of each grade was calculated.
  4. The smoothed cubic functions of expected growth for fall and spring were then used. The expected growth in Lexile measures (SRI scores) of the students in each fall percentile classification of each grade was calculated. The expected growth was calculated by subtracting the fall mean Lexile measure from the spring mean Lexile measure.

Normative profile:

Representation: Local
Date: 1998
Number of States: 1
Size: 512,225
Gender: Unknown
SES: Low, Middle, and High. Other SES Indicators: Approximately 40% of the students were eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program. Approximately half of the schools in the state had some form of Title I program (either school-wide or targeted assistance). The sample's distributions of scores on norm-referenced and other standardized measures of reading comprehension are similar to those reported for national distributions.
Race/Ethnicity: 66.3% White, 29.3% Black, 1.2% Hispanic, 1.7% American Indian/Alaska Native, 1.0% Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.6% Other ELL: 0.7%
Disability classification: 10.1%

Decision Rules for Changing Instruction: mdash

Decision Rules for Increasing Goals: mdash

Improved Student Achievement: mdash

Improved Teacher Planning mdash