The underlying purpose of the study was to learn more about how elementary-aged children deal with tests purporting to measure critical thinking skills. This involved four related purposes: (a) development of a testing instrument, (b) analysis and evaluation of the test instrument, (c) to determine the difference of performance between grades, and (d) identification of commonality factors among the tests.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the predictive validity of formal and informal measuring instruments as related to reading achievement test scores at the end of first grade, in sixth grade, and in ninth grade. Second, relationships between first grade reading achievement test scores and those at sixth and ninth grades were sought. Third, the relationships between two visual motor coordination subtests and between the scores of two mental maturity tests were examined. Finally, the relationship between reading test scores for boys and girls was determined at each of these intervals.The initial population consisted of 195 first grade students in Mount Pleasant Community School System in Yorktown, Indiana. The first data were compiled in the Fall of 1968; a second collection was April, 1969; the third June, 1977, at which time 113 of the initial population of students were still enrolled.Instruments used included: (1) a teacher opinion rating scale of student reading potential (TRSS); (2) a form for documenting dates students began formal reading (DBRF); (3) Gates-MacGinitie Reading Readiness Test (GMRRT); (4) Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT); (5) Good-enough-Harris Drawing Test (GHDT), Draw-A-Man subtest; (6) Marianne Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception (MFDTVP); (7) Evanston Early Identification Scale (EELS); (8) Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT); (9) Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), Level 12, Form 5, Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension subtests; (10) Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED), Grades 9-12, Form X5, Reading subtest. All of the formal instruments were group-administered to the students by classroom teachers.Variables analyzed included twenty-one scores from the tests and subtests of the above measures. Statistical procedures used to analyze the data were the Pearson product-moment correlations, multiple regression correlations, and the t test. The .05 level was accepted as basis for statistical significance.The variables measured by the readiness test (GMRRT), visual perception test (MFDTVP), intelligence tests (CAT & GH DT), screening test (EELS), and teachers' opinions of students' potential reading abilities (TRSS) were related to reading abilities after eight months in school. The variables designated as listening comprehension, auditory discrimination, visual discrimination, following directions, word recognition, intelligence (CAT), teachers' opinions of students' potential reading abilities, and first grade reading achievement tests were related to reading abilities after five years in school. The variables identified as listening comprehension, auditory discrimination, visual-motor coordination, intelligence (CAT), position in space, teachers' opinions of students' potential reading abilities, and first grade reading achievement tests were related to reading abilities bf students after nine years in school.The intelligence test (CAT) had a high correlation with the sixth grade reading achievement test; the correlation with the first grade achievement test was not as high; the correlation was lowest with the ninth grade achievement test.There was a low, but statistically significant relationship between the two visual, motor coordination subtests (GMRRT & MFDTVP), and between the two inte71lectual measures (CAT & GHDT). Girls scored higher than boys on the first grade reading achievement tests, but the differences were not statistically significant after six and nine years in school.Of the formal and informal instruments administered prior to beginning formal reading only three subtests, Letter Recognition, Word Recognition, and Visual Discrimination, of the GMRRT and the Teacher Rating Scale of Students demonstrated predictive validity as to first grade reading ability. Two subtests, Auditory Blending and Listening Comprehension, of the GMRRT, Cognitive Abilities Test, Figure-Ground subtest of the MFDTVP, and the TRSS demonstrated predictive validity as to reading ability after five years in school. Two subtests, Following Directions and Listening Comprehension, of the GMRRT, TRSS, and DBRF demonstrated predictive validity of reading ability after nine years in school.In predicting first grade reading ability the instruments which were most effective were recommended to be included in a screening procedure. Using the conclusions of this study, the screening procedure should include the Letter Recognition, Word Recognition, and Visual Discrimination subtests of the GMRRT, and the Teacher Rating Scale of Students.

Thesis (Ph. D., Education)--University of Idaho, June 2007. / Major professor: Lee Ostrom. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 88-98). Also available online (PDF file) by subscription or by purchasing the individual file.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2008. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 176-183).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Bern.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University. Measurement and Quantitative Methods, 2008. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on July 21, 2009) Includes bibliographical references (p. 111-120). Also issued in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1925. / Vita. Published also as Teachers college, Columbia university, Contributions to education, no. 161. Bibliography: p. 119-121.

Thesis (PH. D)--Columbia University, 1923. / Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Bibliography: p. 331-334.

Thesis (PhD(Curriculum Studies))-University of Pretoria, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Washington State University, May 2010. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on July 15, 2010). "Department of Educational Leadership & Counseling Psychology." Includes bibliographical references (p. 67-73).