Although solving error identification tasks requires different cognitive processes than spelling production (Endlich, Lenhard, Marx & Richter, 2021), national (e.g., Lenhart et al., 2019; Schneider, Martinez Méndez & Hasselhorn, 2014) and international (e.g., Frisbie & Cantor, 1995; Westwood, 1999) studies demonstrate high correlations between both skills, both for primary and secondary education.

For Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM), error identification tasks offer high potential:

1. The efficiency of implementation and evaluation is higher than that of dictations.
2. Errors due to incorrect or unclear dictation by the teacher are avoided, thus increasing the objectivity of implementation.
3. The problem of low evaluation objectivity in dictations (e.g., Birkel, 2009) is overcome.
4. All mentioned advantages can be further enhanced by computer-based implementation, which is possible from early elementary school age (Endlich et al., 2021).

It is not yet known whether error identification tests are a suitable indicator for curriculum-based measurement. Their sensitivity to change is particularly crucial for this. To fill this research gap, parallel, curriculum-based test versions for grades 5 and 6 are currently being developed. Subsequently, the psychometric quality of the developed measurement methods will be evaluated.

Click here to view the project in the research database of Europa-Universität Flensburg.

Birkel, P. (2009). Rechtschreibleistung im Diktat - eine objektiv beurteilbare Leistung? Didaktik Deutsch, 27, 5-32.

Blumenthal, S., Sikora, S. & Mahlau, K. (2021). Lernverlaufsdiagnostik im Rechtschreibunterricht der Grundschule. Konstruktion und Güte eines curriculumbasierten Messverfahrens. Diagnostica. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000261

Endlich, D., Lenhard, W., Marx, P. & Richter, T. (2021). Tablet-basierter Fehleridentifikationstest zur ökonomischen und validen Erfassung von Rechtschreibfähigkeiten in der Grundschule. Lernen und Lernstörungen, 10 (1), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1024/2235-0977/a000324

Frisbie, D. A. & Cantor, N. K. (1995). The validity of scores from alternative methods of assessing spelling achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32 (1), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1995.tb00456.x

Howard, S. J. , Burianová, H. , Calleia, A. , Fynes-Clinton, S. , Kervin, L. & Bokosmaty, S. (2017). The method of educational assessment affects children's neural processing and performance: Behavioural and fMRI Evidence. npj Science of Learning , 2 (10), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0010-9

Lenhart, M., Marx, P., Segerer, R. & Schneider, W. (2019). Rechtschreibung ohne Schreiben. Messen Fehleridentifikation und Diktat dasselbe? Diagnostica, 65 (4), 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000229

May, P., Malitzky, V. & Vieluf, U. (2022). HSP 1-10. Hamburger Schreib-Probe. Handbuch Diagnose orthografischer Kompetenz. Stuttgart: Klett.

Schneider, M., Martinez Méndez, R. & Hasselhorn, M. (2014). Fehleridentifikationstest - Rechtschreibung  für  fünfte  und  sechste  Klassen  (R-FIT 5-6+). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Westwood, P. (1999). The correlation between results from different types of spelling test and children’s spelling ability when writing. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4 (1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404159909546584

back