Reviews the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Forms E and F) and finds it an easy to use and valid norm-referenced survey test for determining the level of student reading achievement, assessing individual differences, and deriving group means. (AEA)

Provides an approach for selecting and evaluating both group and individually administered standardized tests of reading. Reviews considerations of the quality of test development; test content; test reliability and validity; and concerns of cost and time investment. Presents sample ratings of two common instruments. (RS)

Reviews the Sucher-Allred Group Reading Placement, used to determine the instructional reading level for students in grades 2-12. Concludes that the test correlates well with other standard tests and is useful as an informal reading inventory. (RS)

Indicates that the Rix modification of the Lix Readability Formula is easy to calculate, correlates highly with other popular formulas, and is useful for materials for grades 3 through 12. (AEA)

Concludes that the Estes Scale is an effective instrument for measuring levels of positive attitude toward books and reading. (RB)

Notes that the third edition of the Burns/Roe Informal Reading Inventory takes less time to administer. Reports an absence of data on the inventory's reliability. Concludes that if used to study, evaluate, or diagnose reading behaviors, the Burns and Roe IRI could be a popular and valuable tool. (RS)

Reviews the fourth edition of the Analytic Reading Inventory (ARI). Notes the addition of suggestions for diagnostic interpretation and teacher interpretations. Finds the ARI to be a convenient yet reliable diagnostic tool. (RS)

Describes a dozen ways in which reading tests are at variance in their demands with the demands of reading as it occurs in everyday life. Suggests that these sources of variance render reading tests considerably less valid as measures of real world reading behavior than most people want to believe. (RS)

Concludes that The London Procedure does not reflect contemporary research in the fields of literacy acquisition and learning disabilities. (AEA)

Describes the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests and evaluates their suitability for testing reading, concluding that they appear to be carefully developed survey tests of general reading achievement. (DD)

Reviews "Written Language Assessment" (WLA), a new standardized test to evaluate children's and adolescents' written language competence by having students write essays instead of answer multiple choice questions. Finds problems with the WLA in terms of interrater reliability. (RS)

Reports an overall positive response to the tests reviewed, with caveats regarding test reliability and validity. (AEA)

Students know more than they think they know, so guessing gives better scores even when there's a penalty for errors. (JM)

Gives instructions on how to improve student test taking skills, suggesting that students may fare poorly on standardized reading comprehension tests because of inadequate test taking ability. (Author/RB)

Reviews the "Quick-Score Achievement Test" (Q-SAT), an individually administered measure of school achievement for use with students aged 7-18, which has two forms and yields scores for reading, writing, arithmetic, facts, and general achievement. (SKC)