Table 10.

Comparing the Alternate Form Reliability Correlations for ORF Median and Mean Score across Time Points for Struggling and Adequate Readers and z-score test of the Difference in Alternate Form Reliability of across Testing Time Points 1–5 for Struggling and Adequate Readers.

	Alternate Form Reliability Correlations of the ORF Median and Mean Score (Time Point 1 with Time Points 2–5) Comparing Struggling and Adequate Readers
	Time Point 1 – Time Point 2		Time Point 1 – Time Point 3		Time Point 1 – Time Point 4		Time Point 1 – Time Point 5
	Struggling Readers	Adequate Readers	Struggling Readers	Adequate Readers	Struggling Readers	Adequate Readers	Struggling Readers	Adequate Readers
Median	.91	.87	.90	.86	.88	.85	.85	.83
Mean	.92	.88	.90	.87	.88	.85	.86	.83
	Testing the Magnitude of the Difference between the ORF Median and Mean Alternate Form Correlations across Time Points (Time Point 1 with Time Points 2–5)
	Time Point 1 – Time Point 2		Time Point 1 – Time Point 3		Time Point 1 – Time Point 4		Time Point 1 – Time Point 5
Median (Struggling vs. Adequate Readers)	3.5 a		3.2 a		2.2		1.2
Mean (Struggling vs. Adequate Readers)	1.1		2.5 c		2.2		1.9

Note. n = 727 Struggling Readers. n = 590 Adequate Readers.

^aalternate form reliability of ORF Median Score among struggling readers is statistically higher than ORF Median Score among adequate readers;

^balternate form reliability of ORF Median Score among adequate readers is statistically higher than Median Score among struggling readers.

^calternate form reliability of ORF Mean Score among struggling readers is statistically higher than ORF Mean Score among adequate readers;

^dalternate form reliability of ORF Mean Score among adequate readers is statistically higher than Mean Score among struggling readers. Alpha per comparison = 0.05/2 = 0.025. Critical z = 2.33.