Twenty years of research on the Maze is reviewed to help ascertain the potential usefulness of this classroom-based reading measure for students with learning disabilities. Alternative methods of construction, administration, and scoring are examined. We examined evidence for three types of reliability: test-retest, alternate forms, and internal consistency. In addition, we scrutinized the use of Maze scores for instructional-level text placement. Finally, we summarized evidence on three types of validity criteria: standardized tests, teacher judgment, and reading group placement. The extant research on various Maze formats is supportive; however, the most common version of the Maze (Guthrie, 1973) needs to be revised to obtain minimum construct validity. Additional research is urgently needed on the Maze's alternate forms reliability and its usefulness in making instructional decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
Baldauf & Propst. (1978). Matching and multiple-choice cloze tests. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 321‐326.
3.
Balyeat, R., & Norman, D. (1975). IEA-cloze&Comprehension test. The Reading Teacher, 28, 555‐560.
4.
Bean, T.W., & Brandt, P. (1981). Evaluating a history text: A comparison of cloze and maze procedures. Reading World, 21(2), 116‐122.
5.
Bormuth, J.R. (1968). Cloze test readability criterion referenced scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 189‐196.
6.
Bradley, J., Ackerson, G., & Ames, W. (1978). The reliability of the maze procedure for classroom assessment. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 291‐296.
7.
Bradley, J.M., & Ames, W.S. (1984). Using the LAB method to estimate a book's readability variation. Journal of Reading, 25(1), 28‐33.
8.
Bristow, P.S., Pikulski, J.J., & Pelosi, P.L. (1983). A comparison of five estimates of reading instructional level. The Reading Teacher, 37, 276‐279.
9.
Brown, F.G. (1983). Principles of educational and psychological testin. (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
10.
Bruning, R. (1985). Review of degrees of reading power. In J.V. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 442–444). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
11.
Burry, J., Catterall, J., Choppin, B., & Dorr-Bremme, D. (1982). Testing in the nation's schools and districts: How much? What kinds? To what ends? At what costs? (CSE Report No. 194). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education, University of California.
12.
Chall, J.S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debat. (rev. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Coleman, M., & Harmer, W.R. (1982). A comparison of standardized tests and informal placement procedures. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 481‐437.
15.
The College Board. (1983). Degrees of reading power: User's guide. PA series. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
16.
Cranney, A.G. (1972-73). The construction of two types of cloze reading tests for college students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 5(1), 60‐64.
17.
Curtis, M.E., & Glaser, R. (1983). Reading theory and the assessment of reading achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 133‐147.
18.
Dale, E. (1931). A comparison of two word lists. Educational Research Bulletin, 10, 484‐489.
Espin, C., Deno, S., Maruyama, G., & Cohen, C. (1989). The basic academic skills samples (BASS): An instrument for the screening and identification of children at risk for failure in regular education classroom. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
21.
Feely, T.M. (1975). How to match reading materials to student reading levels: II. The cloze and the maze. Social Studies, 66, 252‐258.
22.
Fitzgerald, T.P., & Fitzgerald, E.F. (1978). A cross cultural study of three measures of comprehension at the primary and intermediate levels. Educational Research Quarterly, 3(2), 84‐92.
23.
Fitzpatrick, A.R. (1983). The meaning of content validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7(1), 3‐13.
24.
Fries, C.G. (1952). The structure of English. New York: Harcourt Brace.
25.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., & Ferguson, C. (1990). Effects of instructional consultation within curriculum-based measurement using a reading maze task. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Glaser, R. (1981). The future of testing: A research agenda for cognitive psychology and psychometrics. American Psychologist, 36, 923‐936.
28.
Greene, F.P. (1965). Modification of the cloze procedure and changes in reading test performances. Journal of Educational Measurement, 2, 213‐217.
29.
Gronlund, N.E. (1985). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York: Macmillan.
30.
Guthrie, J.T. (1973). Reading comprehension and syntactic responses in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 294‐300.
31.
Guthrie, J.T., Seifert, M., Burnham, N.A., & Caplan, R.I. (1974). The maze technique to assess, monitor reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 28, 161‐168.
32.
Hambleton, R.K. (1984). Test score validity and standard-setting methods. In R.A. Berk (Ed.), Criterion-referenced measurement: The state of the art (pp. 199–230). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
33.
Hanna, G.S. (1985). Review of degrees of reading power. In J.V. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 444–447). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
34.
Harris, L., & Lalick, R. (1987). Teachers' use of informal reading inventories: An example of school constraints. The Reading Teacher, 40, 624‐630.
35.
Hinofotis, F.B., & Snow, B.G. (1977). An alternative cloze testing procedure: Multiple-choice format. In J.W. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 129–134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
36.
Jenkins, J.R., & Jewell, M. (1990). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, Seattle.
37.
Johnston, P.H. (1984). Assessment in reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 66–83). New York: Longman.
38.
Jongsma, E. (1971). The cloze procedure as a teaching technique. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
39.
Kaczmarek, C.M. (1980). Scoring and rating essay tasks. In J.W. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 151–155). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
40.
Kingston, A.J., & Weaver, W.W. (1970). Feasibility of cloze techniques for teaching and evaluating culturally disadvantaged beginning readers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 82, 205‐214.
41.
Kirsch, I.S., & Guthrie, J.T. (1980). Construct validity of functional reading tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17(2), 81‐93.
42.
Linn, R.L. (1982). Two weak spots in the practice of criterion-referenced measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 1, 12‐13.
43.
Marshall, N. (1983). Using story grammar to assess reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 36, 616‐620.
44.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do it. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford Press.
45.
McKenna, M.C., & Miller, J.W. (1980). The effects of age and distractor type on maze performance. In M.L. Kamil (Ed.), Perspectives on reading research and instruction: 29th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 288–292). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.
46.
Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012‐1027.
47.
Messick, S. (1981). Constructs and their vicissitudes in educational and psychological measurement. Psychological Measurement, 89, 575‐588.
48.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–105). New York: American Council on Education & Macmillan.
49.
Oshima, L.K.The cloze and maze as measures of comprehension of a social studies text: A preliminary report. Paper presented at the National Council for the Social Studies, New Orleans.
50.
Paige, G.C., The relative efficacy of five modified cloze procedures for vocabulary instruction in a seventh-grade social studies class (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 5575A. (University Microfilms No. 77--05, 863)
51.
Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (1989). Combining informal teacher judgment and objective test scores to make cross-classroom reading group placements (Resource Consultant Training Program Research Rep. No. 4). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, College of Education.
52.
Parker, R., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1989). Initial validation of two classroom-based measures of reading comprehension. Diagnostique, 14(4), 222–240.
53.
Pedigo, P., & DeSanti, R.J. (1986, October). A comparative analysis of cloze and maze performances of second grade children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the College Reading Association, Knoxville, TN.
54.
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
Pflaum, S.W. (1980). Diagnosis of oral reading. The Reading Teacher, 33, 278‐284.
56.
Pikulski, J.J., & Pikulski, E.C. (1977). Cloze, maze, and teacher judgment. The Reading Teacher, 30, 766‐770.
57.
Pikulski, J.J., & Shanahan, T. (1982). Informal reading inventories: A critical analysis. In J.J. Pikulski & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Approaches to the informal evaluation of reading (pp. 94–116). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
58.
Schwartz, S. (1984). Measuring reading competence: A theoretical-prescriptive approach. New York: Plenum Press.
59.
Shanahan, T., Kamil, M., & Tobin, A. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 229‐255.
60.
Stanovich, K.E. (1981). Attentional and automatic context effects in reading. In A.M. Lesgold & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Interactive processes in reading (pp. 241–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
61.
State Education Department & Touchstone Applied Science Associates. (1980). Degrees of reading power. Readability report: 1980–81 academic year. New York: College Board.
62.
State of New York Education Department. (1979). The further development of an effectiveness measure in reading: Phase III. A proposal submitted to the Carnegie Corporation. New York: College Board.
63.
Thorndike, E.L., & Lorge, I. (1931). The teachers word book of 30,0words. New York: Columbia University.
Ysseldyke, J. (1979). Psychoeducational decision-making. In J.E. Ysseldyke & P.K. Mirkin (Eds.), Proceedings of the Minnesota Roundtable Conference on Assessment of Learning Disabled Children (Monograph No. 8). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
