An Investigation of the Maze Procedure in Assessing Reading Levels of Incarcerated Adults: Texas Department of Corrections.
The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether significant correlations exist between comprehension and vocabulary scores on the maze procedure test and the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests when these instruments are administered to incarcerated adults. The investigator conducted this investigation during the spring of 1983. The sample (N=299) from the population (N=l,300) was randomly selected from alphabetical class rosters of the ten Texas Department of Corrections units randomly selected for this investigation. Subjects attended regular academic classes in the Windham School System (Texas Department of Corrections). For this investigation, the Test of Adult Basic Education, Level M, Form I, reading scores were used to classify readers as proficient (Group A) or nonproficient (Group B). Subjects with a reading score of 6.0 to 9.0 were identified as proficient readers (N:174). Subjects with a reading score of 4.0 to 5.9 were identified as nonproficient readers (N= 125). The predicted variables in this investigation were comprehension and vocabulary scores obtained from the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test, while comprehension and vocabulary scores obtained from the maze procedure test served as predictor variables. To determine whether significant correlations existed between predicted and predictor variables, the investigator used the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation (r) method. The .05 level of probability was used as a criterion to support or not to support the null hypotheses. When comparing comprehension and vocabulary scores from the maze procedure test with comprehension and vocabulary scores from the Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests using proficient and nonproficient incarcerated adult readers, it was concluded that significant and positive correlations existed between the two measures. This investigation should be replicated in other instructional settings representing adult readers with diverse goals, reading abilities, attitudes, motivations, and backgrounds to confirm or challenge the results of this investigation.