ArticlePDF Available

Revised version of the Scale of Evaluation of Reading Competence by the Teacher: final validation and standardization [Versión revisada de la Escala de Evaluación de la Competencia de Lectura por el Profesor: validación final y estandarización]


Abstract and Figures

The original version of the EACOL, a tool for teachers to assess silent and aloud reading of Brazilian 2nd-to-5th-graders, was revised and the resulting instrument was validated and normalized. Method: 72 teachers were asked to answer the revised EACOL and a behavioral questionnaire; 452 pupils performed a test battery composed by seven reading tasks and one general cognitive ability measure. Results: The revised EACOL presented high reliability and moderate-to-strong correlations with all reading variables; cluster analysis suggested three proficiency groups (poor/not-so-good/good readers). Conclusion: in agreement with previous studies, teachers, when provided with sound criteria, can come to reliable evaluations of their students' reading ability. Thus, an improved instrument, with evidence of reliability as well as content, internal and external validity, is offered to allow an indirect assessment of the reading ability of schoolchildren. This instrument can easily be adapted to other Portuguese-speaking countries.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Revised version of the Scale of Evaluation
of Reading Competence by the Teacher:
final validation and standardization*
Versión revisada de la Escala de Evaluación de la Competencia
de Lectura por el Profesor: validación final y estandarización
Douglas de Araújo Vilhena*
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil
Ângela Maria Vieira Pinheiro**
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil
Received: June 16, 2015 | Accepted: October 10, 2016
*Doctoral Student in Psychology. E-mail:
**Full Professor. Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology,
University of Dundee, Scotland. E-
The original version of the EACOL, a tool for teachers to assess silent
and aloud reading of Brazilian 2nd-to-5th-graders, was revised and the
resulting instrument was validated and normalized. Method: 72 teachers
were asked to answer the revised EACOL and a behavioral questionnaire;
452 pupils performed a test battery composed by seven reading tasks and
one general cognitive ability measure. Results: The revised EACOL
presented high reliability and moderate-to-strong correlations with all
reading variables; cluster analysis suggested three proficiency groups
(poor/not-so-good/good readers). Conclusion: in agreement with previous
studies, teachers, when provided with sound criteria, can come to reliable
evaluations of their students’ reading ability. Thus, an improved
instrument, with evidence of reliability as well as content, internal and
external validity, is offered to allow an indirect assessment of the reading
ability of schoolchildren. This instrument can easily be adapted to other
Portuguese-speaking countries.
reading skills, reading assessment, child assessment, Portuguese language, teacher
La versión original de EACOL es una herramienta para que los profesores
evalúen la lectura silenciosa y en voz alta de los estudiantes brasileños
del segundo al quinto año escolar, esta fue revisada, validada y
estandarizada. Método: 72 profesores respondieron la escala EACOL y
un cuestionario de comportamiento; 452 estudiantes respondieron siete
medidas de lectura y una de capacidad cognitiva general. Resultados:
la revisión de EACOL mostró una alta confiabilidad y correlaciones de
moderadas a fuertes con todas las variables de lectura. Análisis de clusters
sugirió tres grupos de competencia (lector de baja/media/ alta).
Conclusión: de acuerdo con estudios anteriores, los profesores pueden
hacer evaluaciones confiables de la capacidad de lectura de sus estudiantes,
cuando se proporciona criterios operacionales. De esta manera, se ofrece
un instrumento mejorado para evaluar indirectamente la lectura de niños,
con evidencias de fiabilidad interna y externa validez de contenido. Este
instrumento se puede adaptar fácilmente a otros países de lengua
Palabras clave
| Universitas Psychologica | Colombia | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 | ISSN 1657-9267 |
Douglas de Araújo Vilhena, Ângela Maria Vieira Pinheiro.
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
habilidades para la lectura, evaluación de lectura, evaluación de
niños, lengua portuguesa, escala de profesores.
How to cite: Vilhena, D.A., & Pinheiro, A.M.V.
(2016). Revised version of the Scale of
Evaluation of Reading Competence by the
Teacher: final validation and standardization.
Universitas Psychologica, 15 (4). http://dx.doi.o
According to the Literacy Initiative for
Empowerment (LIFE; United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
[UNESCO], 2007), education is a human right
and a public good that enables access to
information about health, the environment, the
world of work and, most importantly, how to
learn throughout life. This assertion is of
particular relevance in the Brazilian context as
only 56.1% of children are fully literate at 8 years
of age (Todos pela Educação, 2013) and 11% of
young people aged
1524 remain functionally illiterate (Instituto
Paulo Montenegro, 2011).
Given this situation, a proactive approach is
needed. Nothing justifies waiting for students to
fail, as the focus of literacy education should be
on the prevention of reading problems rather than
on remedial intervention. Early screening for
reading difficulties can be appropriately done by
elementary school teachers, who are undeniably
one of the most important sources of information
about their students. Snowling, Duff, Petrou,
Schiffeldrin, and Bailey (2011) asserted that
teachers evaluations of their students reading
skills, when criterion-referenced assessments are
made available, can be as good as those of
most formal tests. It is possible that with clear
criterion, the teachers’ judgments are less
influenced by factors beyond the school
performance itself, such as gender, social
behavior and socioeconomic characteristics
(Bennett, Gottesman, Rock, & Cerullo, 1993;
Soares, Fernandes, Ferraz, & Riani, 2010).
In Brazil, there is a lack of instruments with
validity and precision to guide teachers in an
initial categorization of the reading abilities of
their students. The development of the Scale of
Evaluation of Reading Competence by the
Teacher (in Portuguese, Escala de Avaliação da
Competência em Leitura pelo Professor, or
EACOL) (Pinheiro & Costa, 2015) is an initiative
to fill this gap. However, previous studies
identified issues indicating that the scale needed
revision (Lúcio & Pinheiro, 2013). In this
paper, we present the improvements in EACOL
in response to these issues, followed by validation
and standardization of the resulting final version
of the scale.
Pinheiro e Costa (2015) provided evidence of
content validity to EACOL by the judgment of
specialists of a set of descriptors of good, not- so-
good and poor Reading Aloud and Silent Reading
behaviors that could be recognized by the teacher.
Reading Aloud items measure speed and accuracy
in word recognition, prosody, and
comprehension; whereas Silent Reading items
measure comprehension and the capacity for
synthesis. After this procedure, two scales were
created: a) Form A, with 23 items for 2nd-graders
(in elementary school), who are at or near the
beginning of the literacy process, with an average
age of 7 years; and b) Form B: with 27 items for
students from 3rd to 5th grade, at the later stage
of literacy learning and also for readers already
literate, with an approximate age of 811 years.
The study of Pinheiro e Costa remained only in
the theoretical validation bases, as there was no
direct assessment of the students.
A first internal and external validation of the
EACOL´s Form B was carried out by Cogo-
Moreira, Ploubidis, Brandão de Ávila, Mari,
& Pinheiro (2012). Using the statistical Latent
Class Analysis method, the three types of readers
expected by the authors of the EACOL (good,
not-so-good, and poor readers) were found. Out
of 27 items of the Form B, only two items
showed an overlap Reads too slowly
Revised version of the Scale of Evaluation of Reading Competence by the Teacher: final validation and
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
or too quickly and Reads words correctly
suggesting that they required revision. The study
established a concurrent validation with word
naming tasks only, as text comprehension was
not evaluated. On the other hand, psychiatric
behaviors and non- verbal intelligence measures
provided evidence of discriminant validity.
In spite of the general good quality of the
instrument evidenced in Cogo-Moreira et al.
(2012) study, there was two points of concern
about it. The first refers to the number of items
actually filled by the teachers, and the second
to the awareness that the instrument could be
more attractive to the teachers if it were to be
shortened. Taking the first point, later scrutiny
of the data revealed that a significant number of
items had not been answered. It was reasoned,
then, that such a result could have been due
to the dichotomous nominal level of response
demanded by the instrument: “Yes” and “No”,
as in this case a teacher may be prone to waive an
answer if he or she is not pleased with either
alternative. Another problem with binary choice
is that the respondents tend to favor the positive
alternatives rather than the negative ones
(Emmerich, Enright, Rock, & Tucker, 1991).
Thus, in an attempt to obtain more control over
the answers given by teachers and to avoid the
problems associated with binary options, the
alternative “I do not know” was added as a third
As for the second concern, in order to make the
instrument shorter, it was realized that the set of
items describing the not-so-good reader category
[e. g., Sometimes makes mistakes when (…), Not
always is able to identify (…), and Presents some
difficulty in (…)] could be excluded and that the
idea of a behavior that sometimes occurs and
sometimes does not would be replaced by the
option “sometimes”, which would be included
within the response alternative of the scale. In this
way, only the items requiring a “yes” or “no”
response that respectively describes the good and
the poor reader would be kept, which required
a further change not only in the structure of the
scale, but also in its scoring criterion.
Finally, again inspired by studies evaluating
the reliability of multiple-choice answers
(e.g., Verbic, 2012), we replaced the options
“Yes” and “No” with “True” and “False” to avoid
misinterpretation of items with negative
statements. For example, on the item Not always
able to identify the subject from the title and vice
versa, while a “Yes” answer indicates a poor
reader, a “No” answer indicates a good reader. In
such cases, the teacher may erroneously assign a
“Yes” to a good performance or a “No to a poor
performance, which would lead to an inaccurate
judgment of the child’s ability.
To summarize, in this revision, EACOL
underwent the following modifications: a)
replacement of “Yes” by “True” and “No” by
“False”; b) replacement of the binary option for
answers by four choices: “True”, “False”,
“Sometimes”, and “I do not know”; c) exclusion
of the set items about the not-so-good reader
due to the new response format; d) addition and
revision of other items; and e) identification and
selection of the best scoring criterion to the new
format of the scale. These modifications were
tested and evidence of validity and of reliability
were provided, as well as standardization of the
resulting revised version, being this the first
validation study for the Form A.
To evaluate whether the teacher’s judgment is as
reliable as a direct reading assessment, the
cognitive functions of 2nd-to-5th-graders were
evaluated to provide evidence of concurrent
validity (see Table 1 for the pupils’
sociodemographic distribution). The sample (452
students and 72 teachers across
8 state schools) was tested from November
to December 2013. Only six students were
randomly selected in each classroom. The
institutions were arbitrarily chosen from a
document provided by the State Secretary of
Education, stratified over the districts in Belo
Horizonte city.
Schools, teachers, pupils and their guardians
signed an informed consent form for the
Douglas de Araújo Vilhena, Ângela Maria Vieira Pinheiro.
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
research. The assessments were administered
during school hours, in a quiet room in the
institution. All participants provided informed
consent, and the Ethical Committee from the
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais approved
the study (Certificate of Appreciation
Presentation to Ethics [Certificado de
Apresentação para Apreciação Ética; CAAE]:
Table 1
Items and scores of the EACOL Scale of
Evaluation of Reading Competence by the
Form A (2nd grade) contains only the underlined
sentences and Form B (3rd-5th grade), both
sets: underlined and non-underlined sentences.
Each item is followed by the alternatives:
True, False, Sometimes, I do not know.
Source: own work
The revised version of EACOL is composed of
two forms (A and B) that differ from its original
version in their number of items and in its
content. Form A consists of 15 items and Form B
of 21 items (against 23 and 27 items,
respectively, in the original version of the
instrument). In front of all items are the
alternative answers “True”, “False”,
“Sometimes”, and “I do not know”.
Child behavior was assessed by the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaires (SDQ), which
is a brief behavioral screening questionnaire for
416-year-olds (Goodman, 1997; Cury
& Golfeto, 2003; Saur & Loureiro, 2012). This
study used the single-sided Brazilian version,
with scoring for teachers (Goodman,
2005), composed by 25 items divided into
5 scales: emotional symptoms (anxiety/mood),
conduct problems (aggression/delinquency),
hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship
problems (withdrawn/social problems), and
prosocial behavior (empathy/positive relations).
The Word Reading Task (WRT) and the
Pseudoword Reading Task (PWRT) are Reading
Aloud instruments each consisting of 88 words
and 88 pseudowords printed on an A4 page, font
Ariel size 14 (Pinheiro, 2013). The
psycholinguistic variables for the words were a)
frequency of occurrence (high vs. low), b)
bidirectional regularity (regular and irregular
words according to grapheme-to- phoneme
correspondence and vice versa), and c) length
(short, medium, and long words). The
pseudowords were constructed with the same
orthographic structures and stimulus length used
in the word task.
The Reading Test Sentence Comprehension
(Teste de Leitura Compreensão de Sentenças,
TELCS) was used to evaluate the silent reading
efficiency (Vilhena, Sucena, Castro, & Pinheiro,
2016). It consists of 36 incomplete and isolated
sentences, each followed by five words as
alternative fill-in-the-blank answers. The child’s
task is to select, in up to 5 minutes, the best word
to give meaning to each sentence.
Another instrument used to evaluate the silent
reading was the Text Reading Comprehension
subtest (PROLEC-text), which is part of the
PROLEC (Provas de Avaliação dos Processos
de Leitura [Reading Processes Assessment
Battery]; f or Capellini, Oliveira & Cuetos,
2012). It consists of four short texts to investigate
students’ ability to answer sixteen literal
General cognitive ability was measured using
Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices Test
(CPM) (Angelini, Alves, Custódio, Duarte, &
Revised version of the Scale of Evaluation of Reading Competence by the Teacher: final validation and
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
Duarte, 1999). It evaluates analogic reasoning,
or the ability to infer relations between objects
or elements (Pasquali, Wechsler, & Bensusan,
2002). It is used mainly for children between 5
and 11 years, and consists of 36 items divided
into three sets of 12 (A, Ab, B) arranged in inter-
and intrasets according to increasing difficulty.
The task is to select the best option to, fill-in the
gap, among six alternatives printed beneath.
Each teacher was asked to answer, during a
period of one week, the EACOL and SDQ for six
students only. All instruments answered by
students were administrated on the same day,
in two sessions, each lasting on average 15
minutes. Whereas in the first session, groups of
up to 10 children were collectively submitted
to both TELCS and CPM, in the second, each
individual child was presented with the pair WRT
and PWRT (in random order), followed by the
To guarantee EACOL’s internal consistency,
two exclusion criteria were established to control
possible incongruence and/or unjudgeability on
a given scale: a) opposing items answered more
than twice, and b) presence of four or more items
not answered or “I do not know” responses. Either
of these criteria would led to the exclusion of that
scale from the sample.
The WRT and the PWRT tests were
administrated in sequence, but in a random order.
Participants were asked to read aloud each item
of each test card, starting from the first row
from to right. The reading time and errors were
registered by the applicator. On both instruments,
two measures were used: accuracy, which is the
total number of correctly read words or
pseudowords, and accuracy rate, which is the
total number of correct words or pseudowords
read per minute.
The TELCS was administered with a training
phase composed of four items, with the first two
answered collectively after being read aloud by
the researcher and the other two individually, via
silent reading. The remaining 36 items were also
read in silence by each child, however, as quick
as possible within a maximum of five minutes
and with no assistance granted. The scoring of the
test consisted of one point for each correct answer
and zero for the incorrect or omitted ones.
The PROLEC-Text’s stories were
administrated in a fixed order, after the following
statement: "I will display a small text for you to
read. Read it carefully because after you finish
I will ask you some questions about them". The
participant was asked to read each story, in
silence, without time limit, and to respond orally
to open questions (also made orally), immediately
after reading each text. No rereading was
The CPM was individually administrated to
2nd year students and the collective form was
used for students from grades 3 to 5. It was
presented as a puzzle game: the first two items
were introduced collectively and explicitly, with
subsequent items answered without assistance.
There was no time limit. No child spent more than
12 minutes to complete the test.
Statistical analyses
All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS
Statistics version 21.0. Due to the diversity in
EACOL’s item structures, all data were
transformed to represent only a Likert-type scale
from negative to positive. A hypothetical-
deductive method using a Pearson bivariate
correlation with all the instruments was applied to
determine which was the best scoring criterion for
the alternatives of each item from the EACOL.
Four scoring hypotheses were tested: a) bad
reading: 0, not-so-good: 1, good: 2; b) bad
reading: 0, not-so-good: 2, good: 3; c) bad
reading: 0, not-so-good: 1, good: 3; d) bad
reading: 0, not-so-good: 0, good: 2. The answer
“I do not know” was assigned the same score as
those corresponding to the category “not-so-
good-readers”. Cronbach’s alphas were
calculated to estimate the reliability of EACOL’s
Forms A and B. A hypothetical-deductive
method can confirm if the removal of any item
can alter the alpha and the concurrent validity
Douglas de Araújo Vilhena, Ângela Maria Vieira Pinheiro.
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
As EACOL evaluates reading competence as a
whole, dimension reduction by principal
component analysis (Carreira-Perpiñán, 1997)
was used to incorporate all four reading
instruments into a robust reading measure, from
here on called the General Reading Composite. A
reliability analysis indicated the use of the raw
scores from the PROLEC-text, TELCS, Word
Reading Task accuracy rate, and Pseudoword
Reading Task accuracy. This integration of
measures enables us to represent the child’s
reading performance with a single variable.
A two-step cluster analysis was used to verify
the number of mutually exclusive latent groups in
the sample. The only variables used were the
score for each item in EACOL. This method is
a scalable cluster analysis algorithm designed
to handle large data sets in two steps: 1) pre-
cluster the cases into many small sub-clusters;
2) cluster these sub-clusters into the desired
number of clusters. The log likelihood distance
measure was used, with subjects assigned to the
cluster leading to the largest likelihood. The
Bayesian information criterion (BIC) was
stabilished to compare the number of latent
classes, a comparison in which small values
correspond to better fit. Differences in the sample
were compared according to cluster membership
using a univariate Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) test. For all tests performed, the
significance level was set at 0.05.
Item revision
Due to the addition of the alternative
“Sometimes”, the following eight items,
descriptors of the not-so-good-readers, were
removed in both Form A and Form B: a)
Sometimes reads and cannot retell what was read
; b) Reads too slowly or too quickly ; c)
Sometimes makes mistakes when reading “new”
words ; d) Sets the tone of interrogation and/
or exclamation only in the word that precedes the
punctuation mark ; e) Slows the rhythm of
reading when “new” words are encountered,
needing to spell them out ; f) Not always able to
identify the subject from the title and vice versa
; g) Does identify characters and places, but has
some difficulty identifying main ideas without a
second reading ; and h) Has some difficulty in
orally summarizing what was read.
Within these, the item (b) Reads too slowly or
too quickly, was one of the two that showed poor
discrimination in Cogo-Moreira et al. (2012). The
other, Reads words correctly, was also removed
for being rather vague. Finally, the last excluded
item was a descriptor of a poor reader (Says “I
do not know” when encounters a new word),
since there is another item in the scale that deals
with reading of new words and to avoid confusion
with the new alternative answer “I do not know”.
In contrast to these 10 removed items, 5 others
were added (one in Form A and the remainder
in Form B). This was thought to be necessary to
increase the number of descriptors of the ability
of the readers and to maintain the power of the
scale. The descriptor of poor reading Reads with
difficulty “known” words was added to Form A.
The following items were added to Form B: a)
Reads clearly, without “stumbling” or
“swallowing” syllables. Someone who hears can
understand what is being read ; b) Has great
difficulty in Reading Aloud ; c) Reads without
pronouncing words or without moving the lips,
only moving the eyes ; and d) Cannot read without
movements of the lips or without pronouncing the
Finally, the item Reads “new” and invented
words quickly was changed into Reads “new”
words correctly. The omission of “invented
words” was motivated by the fact that
pseudowords are rarely presented to students in
school. Equally, the alteration of quickly into
correctly, was motivated by the expectation that
although automatized reading of both known and
new words is the end point in literacy learning,
correct word reading, especially of new words, is
achieved before the gain of speed.
The original version of EACOL was
structurally divided into Reading Aloud and
Silent Reading subscales, but this separation did
not show to be justifiable in the current version
Revised version of the Scale of Evaluation of Reading Competence by the Teacher: final validation and
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
due to the reduction of items (although the items
were statistically analyzed individually). In
addition, in the Reading Aloud subscale there are
two items that evaluated reading comprehension
(e.g., Seems to have understood what was read
when asked about the text read), and in the Silent
Reading subscale there are eight items that
expressed behaviors that are not specific to the
condition of silent reading. Rather, these
behaviors can be assessed in either reading aloud
or silent condition (e.g., Does not identify
characters, places, or main ideas; Is able to
choose a title for passages with no title or even
give an alternate title for titled passages).
On the selection of the scores for EACOL, the
strongest correlations were with the first
hypothesis (the first scoring criterion). This was
the hypothesis under which predictors of poor
readers score zero, predictors of good readers
score two points, and both predictors of not-so-
good-readers (alternative “Sometimes”) and “I
do not know” score one point (see Appendix).
In Form A, the Cronbach’s Alpha suggested
that the removal of item 5 (Does not identify
characters, places, or main ideas) would increase
the alpha by 0.004. This suggestion was
confirmed by the consistent weak correlations
of item 5 (r # 0.244) with all reading measures.
Finally, the total score (sum of both subscales
minus the aforementioned item 5) has an alpha of
0.935, demonstrating the strong internal
consistency reliability of EACOL’s Form A. In
the further analysis of Form A, item 5 will not be
considered. The same internal validity test was
performed on Form B, that demonstrated a strong
Cronbach’s alpha (# = 0.958), with a loss in alpha
with the removal of any item.
For concurrent validity, to attest to what extent
the evaluations of teachers agree with the actual
performance of children, correlations were
calculated between the scores of EACOL and all
reading measures (see Table 2). Forms A and B
had correlation ranges with the reading measures
of 0.5440.737 and 0.4840.688, respectively.
Moderate correlations were found with the
General Reading Composite (r = 0.737 and
0.688). Unlike in Cogo-Moreira et al. (2012),
Form B was significantly correlated (p < 0.0001)
with CPM (r = 0.37) and with the total score of
the SDQ (r = -0.48). Form A also demonstrated
weak correlations (p < 0.0001) with CPM (r
= 0.26) and with all SDQ negative behaviors
Table 2
Pearson correlation between EACOL, reading,
general cognitive ability, and behavior
TELCS: Reading Test Sentence Comprehension;
WRT: Word Reading Task; PWRT: Pseudoword
Reading Task; PROLEC-
text: PROLEC Text Comprehension subtest;
CPM: Coloured Progressive Matrices scores.
The four underlined variables combined
form the General Reading Composite.
Note. *p < 0.05 (2-tailed), ** p < 0.01 (2-tailed).
Source: own work
As expected, the two-step cluster analysis
suggested a good fit-model with the following
three classes for Form B: poor (n = 47), not-
so-good (n = 119), and good readers (n = 184). As
seen in Figure 1, a clear three-class group
Douglas de Araújo Vilhena, Ângela Maria Vieira Pinheiro.
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
structure is therefore supported, considering both
empirical and theoretical elements, with an
estimated probability axis scale from 0 (reading
disability) to 2 (good reading ability), with no
item overlapped. An univariate Analysis of
Variance confirmed that all three groups
presented significant distinctions from one
another on EACOL Total Scores, F(2. 347) =
1312.7, MSE = 14.4, p < 0.00001. The cluster
analysis for EACOL’s Form A demonstrated the
distribution was found only in 4th (2.04) and
5th grades (2.03), thus showing a more uniform
layout of data than the 2nd and 3rd grades. These
statistical significances were confirmed using the
ShapiroWilk normality test.
same pattern as that for Form B, with no item Table 3 shows the norms for Forms A (2 grade)
Figure 1
Two-step cluster analysis for all 21 items from
EACOL’s Form B.
Descriptive analysis
No answered scale was eliminated due to internal
inconsistency (opposing items answered more
than twice) or incapability/difficulty of judgment
by the teacher (four or more items answered as “I
do not know”). Although the alternative “I do not
know” was chosen in just 1% of the possible
cases, in 12% of the questionnaires there was at
least one answer for this category. Another 1% of
the scales returned with at least 1 item without
answer; these items were scored with the same
value as “I do not know”.
To verify the data distribution, skewness and
kurtosis values were divided by the respective
standard error, using a significance criterion of
higher than 1.96 (Cramer & Howitt, 2004). All
school grades demonstrated significant negative
skewness: 2nd (-3.18), 3rd (-3.43), 4th (-5.35), and
5th grades (-5.70). A significant platykurtic
Revised version of the Scale of Evaluation of Reading Competence by the Teacher: final validation and
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
and B (3rd5th) of the EACOL. The scores of the
4th and 5th grades did not differ numerically, and
so these groups were combined.
Table 3
Percentile norms and classification for raw
EACOL scores by school grade
Source: own work
By assessing the EACOL in Brazil, the present
study provides information that can be of use
in developing an effective tool that is relevant
to education policymakers, teachers, principals,
parents, and pupils. Researchers, as external
advisers, can play a pivotal role as catalysts for
positive actions or informed reflections by these
educational stakeholders. We hope to stimulate
teachers to carry out systematic evaluations of
their students in elementary school, which, as the
evidence shows, is an important way to prevent
reading failure.
This final version of EACOL could be easily
adapted to other countries, especially those that
struggle with teaching Portuguese language, for
instance, those with low number of people aged
15 and over that can read and write: Guinea-
Bissau (55.3%), Mozambique (56.1%), East
Timor (58.3%), São Tomé and Príncipe (69.5%)
and Angola (70.4%) (Central Intelligence
Agency [CIA], 2014). In other
Douglas de Araújo Vilhena, Ângela Maria Vieira Pinheiro.
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
nations of the Community of Portuguese-
Speaking Countries, where literacy is above
90%, EACOL can be useful to screen children
with risk of dyslexia; these places include
Portugal and Cape Verde.
The new format of the EACOL significantly
reduced the number of items in Form A (from
23 to 14) and Form B (from 27 to 21) without
losing its validity. This should make the scale
more attractive to the teacher, since it is now
shorter and faster to complete. Even with the new
modifications, however, particularly with the
addition of the answer “I do not know,” some
scales (although just 1%) were returned
incomplete, reinforcing the conception that this
problem may be due to some characteristic of the
sample itself and not a failure of the scale. One
theory is that the teachers in our sample prefer to
decline answering an item instead of admitting
that they do not know about some aspect of
their student’s reading performance. One way to
minimize such behavior could be to add to the
EACOL’s instructions the following statement
“Please always answer ‘I do not know’ in case of
doubt; do not answer randomly or leave an item
For evidence of concurrent validity (external
validation), as EACOL incorporates items that
concern with accuracy in word recognition,
reading speed, prosody, comprehension and the
capacity for synthesis, the good correlations
found with the General Reading Composite (r
=0.737 and 0.688) can be considered the most
important result of the current study, attesting
that the teachers, when provided with sound
criteria, can come to reliable evaluations of their
students’ reading ability.
Unlike Cogo-Moreira et al. (2012), this study
found significant correlations between the
EACOL, the CPM, and the SDQ. Cogo-Moreira
et al. considered that the latter two measures
would provide to EACOL discriminant validity.
Although the CPM is sometimes referred to as
a non-verbal test, it requires language to process
the information, and thus is better defined as a
test of general cognitive ability. Hence, a small-
to-moderate positive correlation between the
reading ability of the child and the CPM score is
expected (Carver, 1990). Concerning the child’s
psychiatric characteristics, as assessed by the
SDQ, a small but significant negative correlation
is also expected. Maughan and Carroll (2006)
note that disruptive behaviors impede reading
progress and also the reverse: reading failure
exacerbates risk for behavior problems. Thus,
unlike Cogo-Moreira et al. (2012), we argue that
although the variables measured by CPM and
SDQ have distinct theoretical construct domains,
they are not independent from each other.
As the correlations of the EACOL with general
cognitive ability and psychiatric symptoms
ranged from small to moderate, it is important to
consider whether the teacher is taking these
domains into account in her/ his evaluations of
children’s reading. One way to do so is to
compare these correlations with those between
CPM and SDQ within the General Reading
Composite. First, as the correlations between the
CPM and the General Reading Composite were
smaller than those with the EACOL (0.09
reduction in the value of r), we might argue that
teachers can distinguish children’s general
cognitive ability on the basis of their reading
ability. On the other hand, the SDQ had a
bigger correlation with the EACOL than with the
General Reading Composite (an additional 0.12).
Although small, this correlation indicates that the
teacher takes the child’s behavior into
consideration in his or her judgment.
As the scale was not designed to address
children with excellent reading performance, an
increase in the number of children in the “good”
ability category occurred. This is demonstrated,
for example, by the significant negative skewness
distribution in all grades. On the other hand, given
the numerically wide range of scores, the EACOL
is an effective scale to screen for poor readers,
who should in any case be the first focus for early
educational interventions in schools. The strong
concordance between the reading task and the
EACOL of those with poor ability is in agreement
with the literature, which has shown that teachers
are more accurate in the assessment of poor
readers, identifying 89% of children with this
Revised version of the Scale of Evaluation of Reading Competence by the Teacher: final validation and
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
type of performance (e.g., Capellini, Tonelotto,
& Ciasca, 2004).
The EACOL was envisaged to offer the
teachers a set of valid criterion to evaluate their
pupils´ reading ability in response to the demand
of different researchers, as for instance, in the
case of those who specifically need a sample of
poor readers for an experimental study. However,
the scale can also have a practical use in the
school. It can be implemented as a means of
establishing a comparison between the judgment
of the teachers about their students’ reading
performance and their real achievement in the
formal evaluations carried out as part of the
curriculum. Any mismatch between the expected
and effective achievement could lead teachers
to develop a more accurate/realistic perception
about the reading ability of their students. It could
also alert the teachers about the aspects of their
students reading that should deserve more
Reading ability is one of the most important
competences in the modern world, essential to
educational, professional, and social
achievements. For this reason, it is of utmost
relevance to create and/or adapt scientific
validated instruments for early detection of poor
reading skills and risk of dyslexia. With this
purpose in mind, the EACOL was developed
to be a quick and efficient instrument to guide
educational stakeholders in assessing the
Reading Aloud (speed and accuracy in word
recognition, prosody and comprehension) and the
Silent Reading (text comprehension and
synthesis) of elementary-school children.
Furthermore, this instrument can be adapted to
other countries with Portuguese as the official
language or to other orthographies.
Angelini, A. L., Alves, I. C. B., Custódio, E. M.,
& Duarte, W. F. (1999). Manual. Matrizes
Progressivas Coloridas de Raven [Manual:
Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices].
São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo.
Bennett, R. E., Gottesman, R. L., Rock, D. A., &
Cerullo, F. (1993). Influence of behavior
perceptions and gender on teachers’
judgments of students’ academic skill.
Journal of Educational Psychology,
85 (2), 347-356.
Capellini, S. A., Oliveira, A. M., & Cuetos, F.
(2012). PROLEC: Provas de avaliação dos
processos de leitura [Reading Processes
Assessment Battery]. 2 ed. São Paulo: Casa
do Psicólogo.
Capellini, S. A., Tonelotto, J. M. F., & Ciasca,
S. M. (2004). Learning performance
measures: formal evaluation and teachers'
opinion. Revista Estudos de Psicologia,
PUC-Campinas, 21, 79-90. http://dx.doi.
Carreira-Perpiñán, M. Á. (1997). A review of
dimension reduction techniques.
Sheffield: Department of Computer
Science, University of Sheffield. http://dx.
Carver, R. P. (1990). Intelligence and reading
ability in grades 2-12. Intelligence, 14 (4),
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2014). The
world factbook. Washington, DC: Author.
Cogo-Moreira, H., Ploubidis, G., Brandão de
Ávila, C.R., Mari, J. de J., & Pinheiro,
A.M.V. (2012). EACOL (Scale of
Evaluation of Reading Competency by the
Teacher): Evidence of concurrent and
discriminant validity. Neuropsychiatric
Diseases and Treatment, 8, 443-454. http
Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. (2004). The Sage
Dictionary of Statistics: A practical
resource for students in the social sciences
. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cury, C. R., & Golfeto, J. H. (2003). Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): a
study of school children in Ribeirão Preto.
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria., 25 (3),
Douglas de Araújo Vilhena, Ângela Maria Vieira Pinheiro.
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
Emmerich, W., Enright, M. K., Rock, D. A.,
& Tucker, C. (1991). The development,
investigation, and evaluation of new item
types for the GRE analytical measure.
Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note.
Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 38, 581-586.
Goodman, R. (2005). Questionário de
Capacidades e Dificuldades (SDQ-Por)
[Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
(SDQ-Por)]. Retrieved from
Instituto Paulo Montenegro (2011). INAF Brasil
2011, Indicador de Alfabetismo Funcional.
Principais resultados [INAF Brazil 2011,
Functional Literacy Indicator. Main
results]. São Paulo: IBOPE Inteligência.
Lúcio, P. S., & Pinheiro, Â. M. V. (2013). Escala
da Avaliação da Competência da Leitura
pelo Professor (EACOL): evidências de
validade de critério. Temas em Psicologia,
21, 499-511.
Maughan, B., & Carroll, J. M. (2006). Literacy
and mental disorders. Current Opinion in
Psychiatry, 19, 350-55.
Pasquali, L., Wechsler, S., & Bensusan, E.
(2002). Matrizes Progressivas do Raven
Infantil: um estudo de validação para o
Brasil [Raven's Colored Progressive
Matrices for Children: a validation study for
Brazil]. Avaliação psicológica, 1(2),
Pinheiro, A. M. V. (2013). Prova de Leitura e de
Escrita de palavras [Reading and Writing
words test]. Relatório Técnico Final
aprovado pela Fundação de Amparo à
Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais
processo: APQ-01914-09.
Pinheiro, A. M. V. (2013). Prova de Leitura de
palavras [Word Reading Test]. Relatório
Técnico Final aprovado pela Fundação de
Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas
Gerais --FAPEMIG (FAPEMIG). Número
do processo: APQ-01914-09.
Saur, A. M., & Loureiro, S. R. (2012).
Psychometric properties of the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire: A literature
review. Estudos de psicologia (Campinas
), 29 (4), 619-629.
M. J., Duff, F., Petrou, A.,
Schiffeldrin, J., & Bailey, A. M. (2011).
Identification of children at risk
of dyslexia: The validity of teacher
judgements using “Phonic Phases.” Journal
of Research in Reading, 34,
Soares, T. M., Fernandes, N. S., Ferraz, M.
S. B., & Riami, J. L. R. (2010). A
expectativa do professor e o desempenho
dos alunos [Teacher’s Expectation and
Students’ Performance]. Psicologia: Teoria
e Pesquisa, 26(1),
Todos pela Educação (2013). Instituto Paulo
Montenegro/IBOPE, Fund. Cesgranrio,
Inep. Retrieved from http://www.todospela
Unesco (2007). Literacy Initiative For
Empowerment 2006-2015. Vision and
Strategy Paper, 3rd edition. Hamburg:
Unesco Institute for Lifelong Learning.
Verbic, S. (2012). Information value of multiple
response questions. Psihologija, 45,
Vilhena, D. A., Sucena, A., Castro, S. L., &
Pinheiro, A. M. (2016). Reading Test-
Sentence Comprehension: An Adapted
Version of Lobrot's Lecture 3 Test for
Brazilian Portuguese. Dyslexia, 22 (1),
47-63. doi: 10.1002/dys.1521
Revised version of the Scale of Evaluation of Reading Competence by the Teacher: final validation and
| Universitas Psychologica | V. 15 | No. 4 | Octubre-Diciembre | 2016 |
Items and scoring rubric for the EACOL
(Scale of Evaluation of Reading
Competence by the Teacher)
Form A (2nd grade) contains only the
underlined sentences, while Form B (3rd
5th grade) contains both underlined and non-
underlined sentences. Each item is followed
by the possible responses: “True,” “False,”
“Sometimes,” and “I do not know.”
* Research article. This work was supported
by the Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
(CNPq, grant No. 134357/2013-2), and had
no involvement in the study design;
collection, analysis and interpretation of
data; writing of the report; or decision to
submit the article for publication.
... I feel so blessed that I have had the best people in my life who make me feel understood without having to explain anything -thank you for loving, accepting, and supporting me always. In contemporary democratic societies, education is considered an essential and basic human right that empowers individuals through access to information about inter alia their health, social environment and working milieu, but, most importantly, how to continue learning throughout life (Vilhena & Pinheiro, 2016). Thus, an education system has a vital responsibility in ensuring that all learners are provided with the appropriate individualised support, aimed at facilitating the fulfilment of their potential (Ebersohnn & Eloff, 2006;Swart & Pettipher, 2011). ...
Full-text available
This study explored the experiences of parents regarding the psycho-educational support provided at a full-service high school for their children with specific learning disorders. The purpose of the investigation was to indicate better means to empower the parents through knowledge to become proactive participants in assistance to their children as provided by educators and health professionals. A descriptive qualitative approach embedded in an interpretative and phenomenological framework was used. Data were collected by means of individual semi-structured interviews with six parents and analysed through thematic data analysis. Three themes were identified: parents’ experiences of SLD, supporting children with SLD, and the school’s challenging role in facilitating intervention/support. Parents’ had inconsistent understanding of SLD, and reported parenting to be a burden on their everyday lives. They had difficulties in supporting their child with an SLD despite their active facilitation and interventions. Parents were concerned about narrow thinking in the general school system and inconsistent educational support programmes. Findings indicated the need for improved support to parents of children with SLDs not only in a domestic but also in a school and community setting.
Full-text available
The aim of this study is to provide the theoretical framework and psychometric evidences of content and external validity for the ‘Word Recognition Test’ (TRP) and ‘Pseudoword Recognition Test’ (TRPp). A total of 598 participants, 52% male, from the 2nd up to the 5th year of Elementary Education, 7 up to 11 years old, stratified in 102 classrooms of eight state schools. The TRP was generated from a database of words, analyzed via Item Response Theory, which considers Accuracy and Reaction Time, with medium to high discrimination index and three levels of difficulty (low, medium and high). The words were balanced with the psycholinguistic variables of: occurrence frequency (High vs. Low), regularity grapheme–phoneme (Semiregular vs. Irregular) and extension (Short vs. Long). The pseudowords have the same orthographic structure and number of letters as the reference word. The scores for both instruments are given terms of Accuracy (words percentage read correctly) and Accuracy Rate (words number read correctly per minute). Content validity was strengthened by the stimuli phonemic transcriptions and the lexicality significant effects (Words vs. Pseudowords), occurrence frequency, regularity and extension. External validity (convergent, discriminant and criterion) was verified. In conclusion, the TRP and the TRPp demonstrated satisfactory psychometric evidences of content and external validity.
Full-text available
O estudo objetiva prover o referencial teórico e as fontes de evidências psicométricas de validade de conteúdo e validade externa para o Teste de Reconhecimento de Palavras (TRP) e o Teste de Reconhecimento de Pseudopalavras (TRPp). Participaram 598 alunos, 52% do sexo masculino, do 2º ao 5º ano do Ensino Fundamental, de 7 a 11 anos, estratificados em 102 salas de aula de oito escolas estaduais. O TRP foi gerado a partir de um banco de palavras, analisado via Teoria de Resposta ao Item que, por sua vez, considerou a Acurácia e o Tempo de Reação, com índices de discriminação médio a alto e três níveis de dificuldade (baixa, média e alta). As palavras foram equilibradas com as variáveis psicolinguísticas de: frequência de ocorrência (Alta vs. Baixa), regularidade grafema–fonema (Semirregulares vs. Irregulares) e extensão (Curta vs. Longa). As pseudopalavras possuem a mesma estrutura ortográfica e número de letras da palavra de referência. Os escores de ambos os instrumentos são dados em Acurácia (porcentagens de palavras lidas corretamente) e Taxa de Acurácia (número de palavras lidas corretamente por minuto). A validade de conteúdo foi fortalecida com as transcrições fonêmicas dos estímulos e com os efeitos de lexicalidade (Palavras vs. Pseudopalavras), frequência, regularidade e extensão significantes. A validade externa convergente, discriminante e de critério foi verificada. Concluiu-se que o TRP e o TRPp demonstraram evidências psicométricas de validade de conteúdo e validade externa satisfatórias.
Full-text available
The test called ‘Reading Test: Sentence Comprehension (TELCS)’ has been validated and standardized. Participants (N = 1289, 2nd to 5th grade, 7 to 11-years-old) were stratified in 15 state-schools in Brazil. The TELCS demonstrated reliability and validity to classify reading performance by both school grade and chronological age. Correlations between the TELCS and a General Reading Composite score were high, as were those with reading accuracy rates of word and pseudoword. Cluster analysis suggested a five-class solution: reading disability, below, average, above, and high reading performance. For individual or collective use, TELCS can quickly screen the sentence reading ability, useful to identify those who might need additional support. RESUMO O teste chamado ‘Teste de Leitura: Compreensão de Sentenças (TELCS)’ foi validado e normatizado. Participantes (N = 1289, 2º ao 5º ano, 7 a 11 anos) foram estratificados em quinze escolas estaduais. O TELCS demonstrou fidedignidade e validade para classificar o desempenho de leitura por ano escolar e idade cronológica. Houve alta correlação com o parâmetro composto de leitura geral, e as taxas de acurácia leitora de Palavras e de Pseudopalavras. Análise de clusters sugeriu cinco classes: transtorno, abaixo, média, acima, alta. De uso individual ou coletivo, o TELCS é um instrumento de rápido rastreio da habilidade de leitura de sentenças, útil para identificar aqueles que precisam de apoio adicional.
2. História de construção Os itens foram gerados a partir de um de banco palavras aplicado em uma amostra representativa de crianças e analisado via Teoria de Resposta ao Item, que considerou não apenas o acerto ou erro do aluno, mas também o tempo de reação gasto na leitura correta de cada palavra (Pinheiro, 2013). Os itens possuem índices de discriminação de médio a alto e três níveis de dificuldade (baixa, média e alta). As variáveis psicolinguísticas controladas foram frequência de ocorrência, regularidade grafema-fonema e tamanho da palavra. Foram selecionadas 44 palavras de baixa frequência, 1 de média frequência e 39 palavras de alta frequência de ocorrência. Quanto à extensão das palavras, 37 possuem curto comprimento (4 ou 5 letras), 28 médio (6 letras) e 23 longo (7 ou 8 letras). Com relação a regularidade para a leitura, 32 são regulares e 56 irregulares. 3. Estímulos O Teste de Reconhecimento de Palavras (Pinheiro, 2013) é composto por 88 palavras (4 de treinamento e 84 de teste), com tamanho variando de 4 a 8 letras. Os seguintes estímulos de alta frequência de ocorrência são: animais, bola, caderno, colegas, coluna, corpo, correta, depois, dias, dois, dona, duas, enorme, escola, fala, festa, figura, forte, frutas, letras, logo, medo, meio, menina, metros, nada, noite, novo, palavra, papai, perto, plantas, primeira, problema, resposta, sala, terra, veja, verde, vida. As palavras estímulos de baixa frequência são: atleta, bandeja, bengala, briga, caneca, capela, cava, cocada, colina, colo, cometa, danada, delicada, espera, estojo, favela, forno, frota, gaveta, limonada, luta, maleta, marreco, materno, moderna, monarca, moto, neto, picada, pista, prego, queda, rabanete, redonda, resta, revista, sacola, sapeca, tapete, tijolo, torta, trevo, uniforme, viola. Não se deve apresentar as palavras de alta frequência separadas das de baixa frequência, sendo todos os estímulos organizados de forma aleatória. Para cada um desses estímulos são oferecidas a frequência de ocorrência por milhão, a classificação de regularidade grafema-fonema, e a transcrição fonêmica (Pinheiro & Vilhena, 2020). 4. Administração O Teste de Reconhecimento de Palavras é apresentado em cartão plastificado, com 12 linhas, com seis a nove palavras por linha impressas em tinta preta, em papel branco e em fonte Arial, tamanho 14. Para evitar efeito de ordem, os estímulos são organizados em três versões paralelas que variam quanto à ordem de apresentação das palavras (Versão A, Versão B, Versão C). É requisitado aos participantes que leiam as palavras do teste em voz alta o mais corretamente e rápido possível. O teste é fácil de administrar e de pontuar. Em um crivo de correção, os erros de leitura (ex.: substituições, inversões e omissões de grafemas; hesitações; releituras para correções e omissões de palavras ou linhas) são individualmente registrados e o tempo total de leitura é marcado em segundos. Apenas a leitura fluente das palavras, em contraste com a leitura silabada, é considerada correta. 5. Escores O Teste de Reconhecimento de Palavras possui dois tipos de escores: acurácia (porcentagens de palavras lidas corretamente) e taxa de acurácia (número de palavras lidas corretamente por minuto). Para fins de comparação entre estudos, o cálculo da variável Acurácia é dado em porcentagem, uma vez que os testes de leitura de palavras isoladas apresentam diferença no número de itens. A variável Acurácia é calculada pelo número total de palavras lidas corretamente (máximo de 84 pontos), dividido por 84, vezes cem (ex.: 75 palavras corretas corresponde a Acurácia de 89%). A variável Taxa de Acurácia é o número total de palavras lidas corretamente (máximo de 84 pontos) vezes sessenta, dividido pelo tempo total em segundos (ex.: 75 palavras corretas em 120 segundos correspondem a Taxa de Acurácia de 37,5 palavras por minuto).
Full-text available
Ser escolarizado pode ser um desafio para crianças que possuem algum Transtorno Específico de Aprendizagem. Daí a necessidade da realização de um diagnóstico adequado para que se possa intervir nos problemas identificados, o quanto antes, e gerar melhores perspectivas de futuro para essas crianças. Determinar uma forma efetiva de avaliar as dificuldades que surgem no processo de ensino e aprendizagem, especialmente fazendo a distinção entre aquelas de origem ambiental (as chamadas Dificuldades de Aprendizagem) das de origem biológica (os chamados Transtornos Específicos de Aprendizagem) é essencial. O presente artigo descreve o protocolo de avaliação do Ambulatório de Avaliação e de Intervenção nos Transtornos da Linguagem Escrita (AmbLin) no que tange, principalmente, ao diagnóstico diferencial desses transtornos. Para tal, apresenta um levantamento dos casos diagnosticados e dos recursos e técnicas adotados no procedimento de avaliação, realizado com base em evidências científicas. A coordenação do AmbLin é parte das atividades da primeira autora, no Departamento de Psicologia (FAFICH/ UFMG). O ambulatório conta com uma equipe multidisciplinar para a avaliação, intervenção e acompanhamento de indivíduos com suspeita ou diagnóstico de Transtorno Específico de Aprendizagem com prejuízo na leitura (Dislexia). O procedimento de avaliação no âmbito do AmbLin se caracteriza pela utilização de: i) anamnese e escalas comportamentais para o familiar; ii) escalas para professores, iii) bateria de avaliação neuropsicológica da inteligência e da cognição; e iii) protocolo multidisciplinar de avaliação da linguagem escrita. Esse procedimento se mostrou sensível para a distinção entre a Deficiência Intelectual Leve e a Inteligência Limítrofe, assim como entre as Dificuldade de Aprendizagem com causa ambiental ou emocional e os Transtornos Específicos da Aprendizagem com prejuízo na leitura (Dislexia), oferecendo, assim, as primeiras evidências da efetividade do diagnóstico diferencial realizado. No entanto, estudos futuros são necessários para a validação do presente protocolo de avaliação.
Corretas: _____ Percentil: _____ 25. Nós fomos de carro até o parque, onde nos sentamos na grama para comer o nosso (lanche, plante, cheiro, rugido, ache). 26. Dentre todos os jogos, você prefere ping-pong, sinuca, dominó ou (portas, cartas, tortas, rins, fartas)? 27. O marido de uma filha é para a mãe dessa filha o (gênio, gentil, genro, generoso, general). 28. Aconteceu uma coisa engraçada a um pescador: ele pescou uma (lula, truta, carpa, sardinha, bota). 29. Nós fomos passear na praia e pegamos na areia algumas (tochas, conchas, colinas, manchas, colchas). 30. Todos saíram de casa para ver os estragos provocados pela (explosão, expansão, extinção, excursão, exceção). 31. As geladeiras evitam que a comida fique (enferrujada, estragada, desligada, resfriada, morta). 32. Já que está muito quente aqui, por que você não liga o (cobertor, colchão, ventilador, carregador, corredor)? 33. Quando andar na rua, é preciso ter muita atenção aos carros para não ser (enrolado, planejado, acabado, controlado, atropelado). 34. Eles combinaram de ir assistir à corrida no próximo domingo porquê gostam de ver os carros correrem na (pista, pasta, cesta, rota, blusa). 35. O mágico, ao pôr uma faca na palma da mão, nos deixou (contratados, sentados, entrevistados, assustados, devastados). 36. As pessoas gostam do que é novidade porque isso satisfaz a sua (curiosidade, dignidade, honestidade, vaidade, justiça). 1. A menina vestiu uma (rosa, pipa, roda, rua, roupa). 2. A estação fica no meio da (unidade, metade, cidade, grande, onde). 3. Todos os cachorros têm quatro (olhos, balas, pipas, patas, dedos). 4. Ele inclinou-se sobre o poço e caiu no (fundo, segundo, funil, futuro, furado).
Full-text available
O objetivo deste estudo foi descrever a construção da Escala de Avaliação da Competência em Leitura pelo Professor (EACOL), para crianças do Ensino Fundamental, e apresentar os achados preliminares de sua validação e consistência interna. Procedimentos: (a) elaboração dos itens e critérios; (b) validação por consulta a especialistas; e (c) definição do formato final do instrumento e dos crivos. Resultados: os itens das formas A (para alunos do 2º. ano, n = 23) e B (para alunos do 3º. ao 5º. ano, n = 27) da EACOL se dividem em leitura "em voz alta" e "silenciosa". Em cada forma, as crianças são classificadas em uma das três categorias: "Lê bem", "Lê razoavelmente", "Lê mal". Pode-se concluir que após os aprimoramentos sugeridos, a EACOL será um instrumento válido e fidedigno.
Full-text available
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire is a broadly investigated tool, available for use free of charge, with the aim of assessing the mental health of children and adolescents. Given the importance of using standardized instruments for assessing mental health indicators, the aim of this study was to review scientific literature related to the psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. A search in MedLine, PsycINFO and Lilacs databases was performed, starting from year of the original publication of the questionnaire, from 1997 to 2010, using the keywords: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and psychometric properties, and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and validity or reliability. Fifty-one psychometric studies were selected and analyzed. The results indicated positive levels of validity and reliability in 21 countries, including Brazil, highlighting its crosscultural range and applicability in the area of mental health for children and adolescents.
Full-text available
Este trabalho enfoca dois aspectos fundamentais na interação professor-aluno: a sintonia entre o professor e sua turma, e a expectativa do professor quanto ao desempenho dos alunos. Cruzando-se informações de diferentes instrumentos contextuais, aplicados aos professores e alunos, com os resultados dos testes cognitivos dos alunos, pôde-se identificar os fatores que distorcem a percepção do professor acerca da turma e influenciam sua expectativa. Constatou-se que a expectativa do professor é influenciada por suas percepções em relação ao ambiente escolar e pelas características sociodemográficas dos alunos. Observou-se que a expectativa do professor provoca um impacto positivo na proficiência do aluno, mesmo considerando-se o efeito de variáveis sociodemográficas tradicionalmente associadas ao desempenho. Essas conclusões foram obtidas a partir da construção de modelos hierárquicos.
Full-text available
The study aimed to provide information about the concurrent and discriminant validation of the Scale of Evaluation of Reading Competence by the Teacher (EACOL), which is composed of 27 dichotomous items concerning reading aloud (17 items) and reading silently (10 items). Three samples were used in this validation study. The first was composed of 335 students with an average age of 9.75 years (SD = 1.2) from Belo Horizonte (Minas Gerais State), Brazil, where the full spectrum of reading ability was assessed. The second two samples were from São Paulo city (São Paulo State), Brazil, where only children with reading difficulties were recruited. The first São Paulo sample was labeled "SP-screening" and had n = 617, with a mean age of 9.8 years (SD = 1.0), and the other sample was labeled "SP-trial" and had n = 235, with a mean age of 9.15 years (SD = 0.05). Results were obtained from a latent class analysis LCA, in which two latent groups were obtained as solutions, and were correlated with direct reading measures. Also, students' scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale and on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire tested the discriminant validation. Latent groups of readers underlying the EACOL predicted all direct reading measures, while the same latent groups showed no association with behavior and intelligence assessments, giving concurrent and discriminant validity to EACOL, respectively. EACOL is a reliable screening tool which can be used by a wide range of professionals for assessing reading skills.
This study evaluated the hypothesis that gender and behavior, as perceived by teachers, affect judgment of the academic skills of their students. A path model was proposed to describe the relationships among tested academic skill, gender, behavior grades, and teachers' academic judgments. The model was evaluated separately in each of 3 grades (kindergarten-2nd) in 2 locations, with scholastic grades and structured ratings in specific academic skill areas as the dependent variables. Results showed that, after tested academic skill and gender were controlled for, teachers' perceptions of students' behavior constituted a significant component of their scholastic judgments. This effect was more pronounced for the judgments of boys because, in Grades 1 and 2, their conduct was perceived as less adequate than was girls' behavior.
Our aim was to analyse the linguistic structure of the Lobrot's Lecture 3 (L3) reading test and to describe the procedure for its adaptation to a Brazilian cultural-linguistic context. The resulting adapted version is called the Reading Test-Sentence Comprehension [Teste de Leitura: Compreensão de Sentenças (TELCS)] and was developed using the European Portuguese adaptation of L3 as a reference. The present study was conducted in seven steps: (1) classification of the response alternatives of L3 test; (2) adaptation of the original sentences into Brazilian Portuguese; (3) back-translation; (4) adaptation of the distractors from TELCS; (5) configuration of TELCS; (6) pilot study; and (7) validation and standardization. In comparison with L3, TELCS included new linguistic and structural variables, such as frequency of occurrence of the distractors, gender neutrality and position of the target words. The instrument can be used for a collective screening or individual clinical administration purposes to evaluate the reading ability of second-to-fifth-grade and 7-to-11-year-old students. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The aim of this research was to identify, develop, and evaluate empirically new reasoning item types that might be used to broaden the analytical measure of the GRE General Test and to strengthen its construct validity. Item types were identified that varied in the aspects of reasoning they measure. Six item types were selected for empirical evaluation, including the two currently used in the GRE analytical measure. All of the experimental item types were developed in a 3-option multiple-choice format, and four of them also were developed in a multiple-yes/no format. Two experimental batteries were assembled, one using the 3-option format and the other using the multiple-yes/no format. Two samples of approximately 370 examinees each, all of whom had recently taken the GRE General Test, were administered one or the other experimental battery. Item analyses and analyses of sex differences, criterion-related validity, and relationships of the experimental item types to the current GRE measures were conducted. All but one of the experimental item types exhibited promise for strengthening the GRE analytical measure, and even the one exception appeared to be a possible item type for the GRE verbal measure. Evidence for interactions between item type and item format suggested that varying the format may result in the assessment of a different aspect of reasoning for some but not all reasoning item types. Different combinations of the experimental item types were evaluated in a series of confirmatory factor analyses, supplemented by correlational analyses and an exploratory factor analysis. Findings indicated that the convergent validity of the GRE analytical measure probably can be strengthened by selectively adding or substituting some of the experimental item types. However, such alterations of the GRE analytical measure probably would not improve the measure's discriminant validity. The study also provided evidence suggesting that the reasoning domain consists of two major subdomains: informal reasoning and formal-deductive reasoning. This outcome has implications both for understanding the structure of the reasoning domain and for predicting the impact of different combinations of reasoning item types on the construct validity of the GRE analytical measure.
O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar o desempenho de escolares em relação à avaliação formal e a opinião de professores. Participaram 164 escolares de ensino fundamental de cidade do interior paulista, sendo 81 do sexo masculino e 83 do sexo feminino. Foi utilizado o Teste de Desempenho Escolar e foram definidos 2 grupos, segundo a opinião da professora quanto ao desempenho normal e abaixo da média. Os resultados revelaram diferença significativa indicando que o menor desempenho foi verificado para o sexo masculino e para a quarta série. As médias do grupo definido pela professora com desempenho inferior foram abaixo do esperado e diferiram significativamente. A opinião da professora neste estudo foi fundamental para a identificação dos problemas relacionados à escolaridade.
It has been hypothesized that the relationship between reading ability and intelligence—as measured by the Raven Progressive Matrices test—is small and insignificant. It has also been hypothesized that this relationship is higher in the upper grades of school as compared to the lower grades. These two hypotheses were investigated by administering the Raven Progressive Matrices test and the National Reading Standards test to 486 students in Grades 2–12 of a small-town, rural school district. The correlations between these two tests for each of Grades 2–12 varied from about .40 to .60 with an average of about .50. There was no trend indicating that the correlation increased with each grade in school. Criteria have been developed for judging the effect size of correlations, and this .50 correlation would be considered as large. These data can be interpreted as indicating that general intelligence, as measured by the Raven test, has a strong and consistent relationship to reading ability.
The purpose of the research was to establish the validity of the Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM) for Brazil. Data were gathered from a sample of 9,929 students of the public educational system of Brasilia, Brazil. Factor analysis showed the presence of four factors, which were recognized as analogical-abstract reasoning, analogical-concrete reasoning, perception of the gestalt, and deductive reasoning. However, only deductive reasoning (15 items) appeared consistent. Furthermore, the four factors showed substantial covariance, which allowed for the extraction of a general factor, composed of 25 of the 36 items, identified as analogical reasoning. The deductive reasoning and the general factor appeared difficult for the children, presenting an index of b = 0.82 and b = 0.52, respectively. The conclusion was that the CPM are adequate for the assessment of analogical reasoning of Brazilian children, but several items of the original test appeared useless and item 24 was inadequate.