The article by J. Benson Wyman and Miriam Wendle from Stanford University explores the reliability and validity of various reading ability tests. The authors question whether these tests truly measure reading ability, as their reliability coefficients do not guarantee this. To address this, they develop a method to determine if the tests effectively measure reading ability by using two criteria: teachers' estimates of students' reading ability and an alternative criterion based on the weighted average of five independent judgments from professors and graduate students. The study involves two main components: a Grade VIII reading study and a High School English study. In the Grade VIII study, various reading tests are correlated with teachers' estimates of students' reading ability (Reading Ability T) and an alternative criterion (Reading Ability C). In the High School English study, English tests are correlated with teachers' grades (English Ability E) and the Terman Group Test of Mental Ability. Key findings include: - The Terman Group Test, Teachers' Estimates, and Spelling are the most reliable tests. - The Terman Group Test is the best measure of English ability, as it correlates highly with teachers' grades. - The Monroe Rate of Reading test shows the least relationship with teachers' estimates of reading ability. - The reliability coefficients for the tests vary, with some tests being more reliable than others. - The corrected coefficients of correlation, which account for attenuation, are used to interpret the results, and Spearman's formula for correcting these coefficients is discussed. The authors conclude that the Terman Group Test is the best test for measuring reading ability, followed by Visual Vocabulary and Completion. They also caution against the use of Spearman's formula, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that test halves are independent and comparable and that probable errors are considered in interpreting results.The article by J. Benson Wyman and Miriam Wendle from Stanford University explores the reliability and validity of various reading ability tests. The authors question whether these tests truly measure reading ability, as their reliability coefficients do not guarantee this. To address this, they develop a method to determine if the tests effectively measure reading ability by using two criteria: teachers' estimates of students' reading ability and an alternative criterion based on the weighted average of five independent judgments from professors and graduate students. The study involves two main components: a Grade VIII reading study and a High School English study. In the Grade VIII study, various reading tests are correlated with teachers' estimates of students' reading ability (Reading Ability T) and an alternative criterion (Reading Ability C). In the High School English study, English tests are correlated with teachers' grades (English Ability E) and the Terman Group Test of Mental Ability. Key findings include: - The Terman Group Test, Teachers' Estimates, and Spelling are the most reliable tests. - The Terman Group Test is the best measure of English ability, as it correlates highly with teachers' grades. - The Monroe Rate of Reading test shows the least relationship with teachers' estimates of reading ability. - The reliability coefficients for the tests vary, with some tests being more reliable than others. - The corrected coefficients of correlation, which account for attenuation, are used to interpret the results, and Spearman's formula for correcting these coefficients is discussed. The authors conclude that the Terman Group Test is the best test for measuring reading ability, followed by Visual Vocabulary and Completion. They also caution against the use of Spearman's formula, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that test halves are independent and comparable and that probable errors are considered in interpreting results.