|c. Test analysis ................................................................................................................................72|
|---|
|7.6. Comparing Z-score distributions.....................................................................................................77|
|7.7. Comparison of distributions by groups ...........................................................................................77|
|7.8. Differential Item Functioning analysis: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method...................................81|
|7.9. Item-test and Item-Rest correlations including Fluency as an item in the ECE test........................82|
|7.10. Difference of means between fluent and less fluent readers ........................................................82|
|7.11. Rasch analysis with Fluency dummy variable in the ECE test (20 items) ...................................84|

# **Tables**

|Table 1.NAEP Oral Reading Fluency Scale, Grade 4: 2002 .........................................................................11|
|---|
|Table 2. Summary of best use for oral and standardized pencil-and-paper tests...........................................18|
|<br>Table 3. Match between items in the ECE test and Curricular Standards .....................................................22|
|Table 4. Number of third grade students by type of school...........................................................................26|
|Table 5. Descriptive statistics of Fluency and Comprehension Variables (adjusted)....................................30|
|Table 6. Assessment of Normality of Standardized Scores of Fluency and Comprehension Variables<br>(Shapiro-Wilk W test)..................................................................................................................30|
|Table 7. Mean Comparison between lowest and highest performers in each test (Z-scores) ........................31|
|Table 8. Difference in relative position (quartile) between performances in oral and written tests ..............31|
|Table 9. Difference in score distributions between Ashaninka and Non Ashaninka students (Two-<br>Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test)............................................................................................35|
|Table 10. Correlations between Fluency and Comprehension (Spearman Rho, N=475) ..............................36|
|Table 11. Correlations between Fluency and Comprehension for Ashaninka and Non Ashaninka<br>students (Spearman Rho).............................................................................................................37|
|Table 12. Regression Models (adjusted) .......................................................................................................37|
|Table 13. Mean comparison between minimally fluent and non-fluent readers with Rasch scores (U-<br>Mann Whitney test) .....................................................................................................................41|
|Table 14. Differences in reading comprehension between fluency groups (Kruskal-Wallis test).................41|
|Table 15. Hypothetical comparative report card ...........................................................................................54|
|Table 16. Distribution of primary public schools for minors by UGEL, type and location...........................66|
|Table 17. Distribution of third grade students of public primary schools for minors by UGEL and<br>location in Junin, Peru .................................................................................................................66|
|Table 18. Distribution of third grade students of public primary schools for minors by UGEL and<br>gender in Junin, Peru ...................................................................................................................67|
|Table 19. Schools in the sample by UGEL and type in the Sample ..............................................................67|
|<br>Table 20. Distribution of third grade students by UGEL in Samples A and Sample B, compared to the<br>third grade student population in Junin........................................................................................67|
|Table 21. Representation and Adjustment Factors by type of school............................................................68|
|Table 22. Item Analysis Indicators for the ECE test (N=1001).....................................................................70|
|Table 23. Response distribution by Item for the ECE test (N=1001)............................................................71|
|Table 24. Assessment of Normality for the Written Test (One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test,<br>N=1001).......................................................................................................................................72|
|Table 25. Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for Sample A (N=1001)..................................................................74|
|Table 26. Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for Sample B (N=475)....................................................................74|
|Table 27. Summary of 980 measured (non-extreme) alums..........................................................................75|
|Table 28. Summary with 21 extreme alums= 1001 alums.............................................................................75|
|<br>Table 29. Results of the Unidinmentionality Analysis..................................................................................76|
|Table 30. Contingency table..........................................................................................................................81|
|<br>Table 31. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel.............................................................................................................81|
|Table 32. Item correlations including Fluency 45 wpm in the ECE test (N=475)........................................82|
|<br>Table 33. Mean comparison at different cut points of fluency......................................................................82|
|Table 34. Mean comparison with raw and Rasch Scores using 60 wpm cutpoint (U-Mann Whitney test)...83|
|Table 35. Mean comparison with raw and Rasch Scores using 60 wpm cutpoint (U-Mann Whitney test)...83|
|Table 36. Scale Difficulty of ECE Items and Dichotomic versions of Fluency ............................................84|