Spread the word

"Share

Why choose PAR™ as your RTI Assessment?

Why Choose the Predictive Assessment of Reading (PAR)?Learn how the unique combination of tests plus the sophisticated scoring algorithm make PAR the most accurate classroom reading assessment available.More>>
Learn about the the findings of 20 years of NIH funded research into the causes of Dyslexia and Reading Failure at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

Diagnostic & Prescriptive PAR is a diagnostic reading assessment that accurately determines the underlying cause of Reading Failure and then recommends a targeted plan for intervention

More>>

Secure scoring & reports INSTANTLY reports 7 critical results via secure web server More>>

Answers you can trust in only 15 minutes Getting a highly accurate report of a student’s reading ability has never been quicker or easier!

More>>

POLL - What do you think?

Is RTI working well at your school to identify students with reading problems?
Yes, it's working well
37%
No, it's not producing the results we need
18%
Somewhat, but it takes too long
18%
We aren't using RTI strategies
27%
Total votes: 2165

Compare K-3 Reading Assessments - 2012 Data

Are You Using an Accurate Reading Assessment?


The clinical standard of < .90 accuracy is set by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). That is what you expect when you are tested in the hospital and we should expect nothing less when testing our children for reading deficits. The Predictive Assessment of Reading has a validity of .91. “A validity value in the .60 range indicates that the screener is a poor measure of reading.

Too many popular assessments don’t even come close to meeting the <.90 standard. Worse yet, too many schools depend on these inaccurate screeners to assign a classification to children that determine their placement in special education programs.The closer the numbers are to .50, the more likely the results are no better than a coin toss. With an inaccurate assessment, you get misleading information and you can spend a lot of time trying to fix the wrong problem. Why not use an assessment that gives you the best chance of helping struggling children? Click on the above chart to compare reading screeners / assessments.



Validity and Classification Accuracy Matter!

Some vendors tout their high reliability score without listing their validity or classification accuracy. They are implying that their product is “reliable” in every sense (valid and high classification accuracy.) However, “reliability” is a scientific term that only means that it reliably produces the same result whenever it is given. That does not mean that it has high validity or high classification accuracy.

Compare Your Reading Assessment NOW!



To properly assess a child’s reading ability, all of the scores need to be near or above .90. A low score in any of the measures indicates that the assessment is producing inaccurate information. You can’t just assume that all assessments produce accurate results.

The data listed is as posted by the The National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI)'s in their comparison chart, but with the actual data as supplied by the vendors. Only values reported for grades K-3 were used for comparison. If multiple values were submitted, the single value shown is an average of submitted values.
 

One of the Most Accurate Diagnostic Reading Tests Available

Achieve RTI Reading Success Quickly!


Whether you are looking for a reading assessment or reading screener, you should evaluate the Predictive Assessment of Reading™ (PAR), a "next generation" diagnostic reading universal screener / assessment for K - 3. Compare most of the commonly used reading screeners by clicking on the button above.ROC plot showing exceptionally high sensitivity and specificity for PAR What ever you decide, make sure that the assessment you choose is accurate!

AUC stands for "area under the curve":  the ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve; it is the mathematically precise way to measure accuracy and it is one of the measures used by the National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI) is its review of reading screeners. The AUC for PAR is 0.96, which means that it is extremely accurate. This accuracy is what sets PAR apart from the others. You can depend on the results that PAR produces.

Too many of the commonly used reading assessments are really not accurate enough to be used to "classify" a child as needing "special" help learning to read. Often, an incorrect classification follows them for years. To make matters worse, some assessments, especially those available over the Internet, only indicate the approximate grade level at which a child is reading. They never tell you specifically why a child is reading at a lower level, nor what to do about it. The Predictive Assessment of Reading does all of that, plus a lot more. When it comes to assessing reading deficits, scientific diagnostics and accuracy really matter!

NCRTI Gives PAR Top Rating again for 2010

Submitted by Researcher on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 15:55
The Predictive Assessment of Reading™(PAR) received a score of "Convincing Evidence" in every RTI reading category.

Sample chart showing the review results for PAR as listed by NCRTI.The Predictive Assessment of Reading™(PAR) was the ONLY reading screening tool to receive the top rating of CONVINCING EVIDENCE in every category for 2009 and again for 2010 by  the American Institutes for Research's National Center on Response To Intervention, NCRTI. This independent reviewing agency is supported by U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.

Read about the NCRTI independent review of Reading Screeners

The "BIG PICTURE" in literacy

Submitted by Professor on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 14:26
This “big picture” approach is every bit as important in beginning to learn to read (say, in kindergarten) as it is in advanced reading by adults.  But at the beginning level of reading, when even letters are only just becoming familiar, the big picture approach basically reduces to the question of familiarity.  When a kindergartener looks at a page of text, the only things that will be familiar are a few letters, and if these won’t make sense or provide any clues to meaning.  Words and their meanings can only start developing when the letters themselves have started to be quickly familiar. 

The implication is as obvious as it is overlooked: beginning readers need many repeated exposures to the letters of the alphabet, and to the sounds these letters represent, before they can get started learning to read effectively.  It’s never a simple matter of a parent or teacher telling the child what the letter is.  Unless the letter is already familiar, the child gains little help from being told what it is.  In effect, the child’s brain is saying: “Mommy says that letter is an ‘e’ and I know what she means because I’ve seen it many times before and sometimes have heard her say what it is.”  This principle of familiarity is equally true at the whole word, sentence, and paragraph levels. 

To put it simply, fluent recognition or understanding of letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, or pages upon pages of text depends on one simple factor—familiarity with the letters, words, meanings, or ideas that are in the text.   And, as the next post will show, with some references to the science of reading, the only way to achieve familiarity is repetition—much more of it that you would suspect. 

Next post: REPETITION, REPETITION, REPETITION—HOW TO DO IT AND HOW TO GAIN FROM IT.   
 
 
But that does not mean that a “look and guess” strategy for reading is a good one.  Indeed, the opposite is true.
 
Frank Wood, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Neurology/Neuropsychology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.  He is also Honorary Professor of Behavioural Medicine at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa, and Visiting Professor of Neuroscience and Society at Liverpool Hope University in the United Kingdom.  He invented PAR, the Predictive Assessment of Reading, published by Child’s Mind Publishing.  Major emphases of his research career have included reading, dyslexia, attention deficit, neuro-genetics, and best teaching practices for all ages.