Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 1

Test Review: Gray Oral Reading Test-4 (GORT-4)

Name of Test: Gray Oral Reading Test-4 (GORT-4)

Author(s): Wiederholt, J. Lee and Bryant, Brian R.
Publisher/Year: Pro-Ed 1967, 1986, 1992, 2001
Forms: Form A and Form B
Age Range: 6 years, 0 months to 18 years, 11 months
Norming Sample:

GORT-4 used a test administrator recruitment procedure common to other Pro-Ed tests in which the customer database was used to
invite potential examiners to participate. At the four major test sites (one in each geographic region), site coordinators supervised the
administration of tests to students. At these sites, the authors state that “several hundred children in Grades 1 through 12”
(Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 49) participated in Fall, 1999 and Fall, 2000.

Authors report that students with disabilities were those who attended regular rather than special education classes. The sample was
stratified by ages and region, gender, race, ethnicity, parental income, and parental education. This data was presented in table form
(Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, Table 4.2, pp. 53-55). The percentage of the sample compares favourably to the national school age
percentages taken from the 1997 Statistical Abstract of the United States: The National Data Book by the U.S. Bureau of Census.

Total Number: 1 677 students

Number and Age: 6 years (n=87) to 18 years (n-72) with 12 month intervals for groups
Location: 28 states (and the District of Columbia in four major geographic regions)
Demographics: Age, race (White, Black, Other), ethnicity (Native American, African American, Hispanic, Asian, European
American and Other), gender, urban vs. rural, geographic region (NW, Midwest, West, and South), family income (under 15,000 to
over 75, 000) and educational attainment of parents (less than bachelor’s degree, bachelor’s degree, and
master’s/professional/doctoral degrees) and disability status (no disability, learning disability, speech/language disorder, mental
retardation, and other) were reported. The authors stratified the sample on these characteristics.
Rural/Urban: yes
SES: by family income
Other: no
Summary Prepared By: Eleanor Stewart 18 October 2007
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 2

Test Description/Overview:

The test kit consists of the examiner’s manual, the student workbook containing both Forms A and B, and Form A and Form B
record forms. The kit is contained in a sturdy cardboard box. The examiner needs a stopwatch.

The preface provides an interesting history of Dr. William Gray and his career in reading assessment and research. His influence is
acknowledged with the test name, Gray Oral Reading Test, a testament to his original work in developing the present day edition.
Each edition of the GORT is described in order for the reader to appreciate the progression toward the revisions made for the fourth
edition.
Comment from the Buros reviewer: “The GORT-3 was well received, but criticism of the technical aspects of the test was made.
These areas of criticism involved documentation of the equivalency of Forms A and B, need for more extensive validity data for
assessing student progress in reading, socioeconomic description of students in the standardization sample, and the normative data
being 15 years old” (Crumpton, & Miller Whitehead, 2003, p. 418).

Improvements included in the 2001 edition of the GORT-4, are listed on page x (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001). Changes include: new
normative data comparable to the U.S. population, normative sample stratification, bias is addressed, additional reliability is
calculated for subsamples, validity studies addressing new normative sample as well as subgroups are included, and clear evidence of
form equivalence.

In the introductory chapter, the authors describe the nature of reading and the purpose of the GORT-4. They begin with the statement,
“The nature of reading is complex and not completely understood” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 1). They outline a brief history of
how reading has been conceptualized first as “thought getting” by Huey in 1908 followed by Gray’s proposition that “reading
assumes not only fluent, accurate recognition of words, but in addition, a clear grasp of the meanings implied by the symbols used”
(Quote in text, p. 1). The authors state that theorists hold three broad views of how reading develops. These views are described as:
bottom-up, top-down, and interactive theories. They briefly outline the central tenets of each theory. They then introduce the view
that certain skills may be more important at certain stages of reading development with a brief comment on phonemic skills. Finally,
they re-state Gray’s view as follows, “Regardless of how one learns to read, the ultimate goal of reading instruction is the same-that
is, the fluent recognition of words and a clear grasp of the meaning implied by the symbols used. The GORT-4 is a measure of this
ultimate goal” (p. 2).

Comment: I was surprised at how short this introduction was at only 1.5 pages. Also, the brief statement above is the only reference
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 3

to the authors’ views. Supposedly this constitutes their rationale. Perhaps earlier editions contained more detailed information and
rationale leading the authors to assume that readers are familiar enough with the test and its history to make their own judgments
about rationale and theory. I just wonder about this because whenever I use a test, I recognize that by doing so I am operating within
the authors’ theoretical view of the phenomenon of interest.

The two equivalent forms have 14 stories each. Each story is read by the student. A series of five multiple choice questions follow
that aim to assess the student’s comprehension. The results are scored as follows (in quotations from the text):
1. “Rate- the amount of time taken by a student to read a story
2. Accuracy- the student’s ability to pronounce each word in the story correctly
3. Fluency- the student’s rate and accuracy scores combined
4. Comprehension- the appropriateness of the student’s responses to questions about the content of each story read
5. Overall reading ability- a combination of a student’s Fluency (i.e., Rate and Accuracy) Comprehension Scores” (Wiederholt
& Bryant, 2001, p. 3).

The Flesch-Kincaid Readability Formula was used to determine the reading levels of the stories. The results indicated that Story 1
had a 0.0 readability index and ranges were exhibited for subsequent stories with the final five (Stories 9-14) demonstrating 12.0.

The authors describe the equating procedures used to align Forms A and B. They state that they followed Kolen and Brennan’s
(1995) recommendation for correcting differences in difficulty that might exist between the two forms (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001,
p. 50). They describe the linear equating procedure chosen including the equation used.

The student workbook contains both Form A and Form B stories. The type print appears to be 12 point for stories 1-7, 10 point for
stories 8-14 for both forms. Each story is presented as a paragraph printed in the middle of the page with the corresponding questions
printed on the reverse.

Several appendices (A-G) are included. A to D present normative score tables, standard scores, and age and grade equivalents.
Information about the samples used in validity studies is presented in Appendix E. The miscue worksheet is found in F and two
examples of completed sample performances are found in Appendix G.

Purpose of Test: The purpose of this test is to assess oral reading rate, accuracy, fluency, and comprehension, identify strengths,
document progress, and use in research. The test is intended to help identify students who perform below their peers in reading
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 4

proficiency, to identify strengths and weaknesses, to document progress in intervention, and to use in research on reading. Each of
these purposes is briefly described in the manual (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, pp. 4-5).

Areas Tested:
 Reading Comprehension
 Other: fluency, accuracy, rate

Who can Administer: A range of individuals such as teachers, special educators, and speech pathologists are listed as potential
testers. The authors state that whoever uses the GORT-4 should have formal training in test administration and interpretation and
suggest that such training is available through colleges and “local agencies or private consultants” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 7)
however, they note that testers should consult schools and professional organizations if the purpose of testing involves the diagnosis
of disabilities or qualification for special programs. The authors provide five general rules to make test administration more reliable.
These are familiar injunctions about familiarizing oneself with the test prior to administering it, creating an appropriate test
environment, etc.

Administration Time: The manual indicates 15 to 45 minutes (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 10). Though testing can be completed
in one session, two sessions are also allowed if, for example, the student becomes fatigued.

Test Administration (General and Subtests):

Chapter 2 presents the administration and scoring information. Entry points are identified by grade and starting point story with the
caveat that testing should begin at the child’s grade level unless the examiner has prior knowledge that the child may be a poor reader
in which case testing may begin at a lower level. For the Comprehension subtests, basal and ceiling rules are identified with three
examples provided to assist the examiner. If a basal is not initially established, the examiner is instructed to proceed to ceiling and
then return to establish five correct responses to comprehension questions. Form A and B use the same basal and ceiling rules. The
examiner scores the student’s response as correct (1 point) or incorrect (0 point) and sums the correct responses for each story which
is transferred to Section II on the record form. A completed example of the form is presented in Figure 2.2 (Wiederholt & Bryant,
2001, p. 12). For the Fluency score, the examiner is concerned with timing the reader as the passage is read to completion. Then the
time taken (in seconds) is recorded in the record booklet. Time intervals are converted to values on a 0 to 5 point Rate score.
Similarly, accuracy is recorded as the number of deviations from the print and converted to a 0 to 5 point Accuracy Score. The
Fluency score is the sum of the Rate and Accuracy Scores. The Fluency score determines the basal as a score of 9 or 10 for a story
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 5

and ceiling as a score of 2 or less. Figure 2.3 illustrates the procedure for establishing basal and ceiling scores in this manner
(Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 14).

Chapter 2 continues with specific administration and scoring instructions (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, pp. 15-26) in which
prompting and timing, noting deviations, determining scores, and identifying and calculating miscues is discussed. The examiner’s
instructions to the student are printed in red type in this section. Examples of each marking system are provided in Figures 2.5 and
2.6 (i.e., slash marking and miscue marking). The authors explain that they chose to present a simple marking system though they are
aware that some examiners may choose to separate graphic and phonemic miscues. They state that the examiner must analyze at least
two different stories with a minimum of 25 miscues across the two stories. The student’s miscues are classified according to the
outline in Section V of the record booklet. An example is illustrated in Figure 2.7 (p. 22). Five categories of miscues are used as
follows: meaning similarity, function similarity, graphic/phonemic similarity, multiple sources, and self-correction (each is described
in Chapter 1; and specific examples are provided in this chapter for purpose of assisting the reader to learn the system). The student’s
miscues per category are then totaled and a percentage is calculated for all miscue categories. The authors allow that other types of
miscues may be produced. These miscues should be noted along with general impressions and observations of the student’s
behaviour and performance during the reading tasks. Space is provided on the record booklet for this purpose.

Comment: The miscue schema is easy to follow and use. I think that it may be easier for someone who works in linguistics or related
area. Novice examiners may have some difficulty with this test. Also, I wonder if subjective judgment enters into scoring, especially
in assessing meaning elements in miscuing. I think that examiners should be proficient English language users to use this system
accurately and fairly.

Test Interpretation:

Interpreting the results of the standardized scores is explained beginning with the Total Scores which the authors state have no
clinical value in themselves but are used as the basis for calculating the standard scores, percentiles, and age and grade equivalents.
The subtest standard scores are based on 100 +/-3. The Oral Reading Quotient has a base of 100 with standard deviation of 15.
Percentiles are explained and follow the norm for this type of score. Age and grade equivalents are based on the average performance
of the normative group. The authors state that these scores were developed “through interpolation, extrapolation, and smoothing…”
(Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 36). They acknowledge the well-known APA concerns but note that examiners will have to align
their results with employer requirements and legislative requirements. Therefore, the GORT-4 authors deliver these scores
“reluctantly”. They encourage examiners to read the cautions regarding these scores and cite references to Aiken (2000), Anastasi
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 6

and Urbina (1997), Linn and Gronlund (1995), and others.

In the following section, the authors turn their attention to Discrepancy Analyses. They state that the GORT-4 can be used to
compare results with other measures of reading and to “measure the effects of instruction over time” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p.
37). They note that only the ORQ should be used for discrepancy analysis. They provide an example of how to conduct the analysis
with a student’s results using Anastasi and Urbina’s (1997) formula to calculate how large a difference is needed to be statistically
significant. They conclude by stating, “This analysis is a relatively unsophisticated way of examining differences between an
individual’s pretest and posttest ORQs. It is not recommended for examining differences between groups of individuals’ pretest and
posttest ORQs” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 38). For group differences, the authors recommend using an experimental design
appropriate for comparisons.

In terms of comparing with other measures, analysis can be made between standard scores to determine significance of difference.
The authors note that the same procedure is followed for statistical significance but that clinical usefulness is otherwise determined.
Following Reynolds (1990), the authors outline the formula to be used in order to identify a severe discrepancy that is clinically
useful. The authors provide Table 3.4 to illustrate the severe discrepancy analyses results for comparisons between the GORT-4 and
language and intelligence tests. Also provided is an example of a comparison between the GORT-4 ORQ and the Silent Reading
Quotient (SRQ) of the Gray Silent Reading Tests (p< .05). Continuing the student example discussed earlier, the authors present the
example illustrating the 30 point criterion cut-off (i.e., as they state, “Any Difference Score that meets or exceeds 30 points is
severely discrepant”, (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 39).

In the section, “Analyzing Oral Reading Miscues”, the authors describe how to use the optional miscue classification system to make
descriptive judgments about the student’s deviations from print. Furthering their example of the student, they provide analysis in
terms of percentage miscues before and after instruction to show how the examiner can use this information.

The GORT-4 is one of three tests, along with the Gray Silent Reading Tests and the Gray Diagnostic Reading Tests-Second Edition,
that can be used together to comprehensively examine aspects of reading ability. They briefly outline the historical antecedent, the
original Gray Silent Reading Test, and acknowledge that the relationship between oral and silent reading remains controversial. The
authors review the content of each test with a view to how to select the appropriate test to address specific questions. They state that
the GORT-4 serves to assess oral reading ability alone whereas administration of the GSRT will yield a comparison of the student’s
oral and silent reading ability. The GDRT-2 is used “when the reader’s ability is so poor that he or she cannot handle the demands of
passage reading, or when you want to look at a variety of reading skills” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 44). In the last section in the
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 7

chapter on interpreting results of the GORT-4, the authors discuss additional assessment and instruction.

Standardization: Age equivalent scores Grade equivalent scores Percentiles Standard scores (mean 10 , SD 3)
Stanines
Other: Composite (from standard scores) and Conversion Scores (for rate and accuracy)
These conversions are made when the time taken to read the passage and the number of deviations are converted into number values
from 0 to 5 that then are added to lend themselves to the overall Fluency Score which ranges from 0 to 10. The Fluency Score is said
to equally emphasize both rate and accuracy aspects. The procedure for developing the conversion scores from a sample of the
normative data is presented on page 57. Basically, the authors divided the performance into quarters with the top 25% representing
the best readers receiving a rating of 5, followed by the next group and so on down to the bottom values that represented the
performance of the students 6% who attained a value converted to 0.

The authors comment about age and grade equivalent scores and the concerns raised about their use in the chapter on interpreting
scores (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 37). They state their position as follows, “We prefer you use GORT-4 standard scores,
quotients, and percentiles rather than age and grade equivalents when reporting results to parents and other professionals” (p. 37).
They cite several references including Aiken (2000), and Anastasi and Urbina (1997). In addition to the use of norm-referenced
scores, the authors present a procedure for conducting a discrepancy analysis.

Reliability

Internal consistency of items: Cronbach’s coefficient alphas were computed for the entire norming sample by age groups.
Large value alphas were reported for the subtests and composite (ORQ) ranging from .91 to .97.

Test-retest: Forty-nine students in elementary (n=30), middle school (n=10), and high school (n=9) participated in retesting. The
students, 22 males and 27 females, ranged in age from 6 years to 18 years. The majority, 78% were European Americans with
participation from 16% African American, and 2% Other. The interval between tests was “approximately two weeks” (Wiederholt &
Bryant, 2001, p. 66). Correlation coefficients were corrected for restricted sample range where needed. The results indicated a range
from .85 to .95 for the four subtests and ORQ.

Inter-rater: Thirty randomly selected completed test records were independently scored by two Pro-Ed staff. The results indicated
inter-rater reliability from .94 to .99.
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 8

Other: none

Validity: The extensively detailed chapter on validity is not surprising given the long history and research related to the test.

Content: The authors note that using stories with corresponding comprehension questions was the format originally chosen by Gray.
The story format continues to be a practical and logical way to assess reading abilities as they are used extensively in the students’
classroom experiences. Other reading tests also use the story format. Therefore, face validity is established. The composition of the
stories reflected general interest, controlled syntactic structure, and age and grade appropriate vocabulary. The authors describe the
specific procedures and materials they consulted in this process. They note that the stories for all but the youngest children remain
unchanged from earlier editions. The only new story is the one provided for the entry level where emerging oral reading ability is
assessed.

Comment: This is a credible process, a number of sources were consulted for vocabulary in particular.

In terms of developing the comprehension questions, the authors describe both the types of questions used and the research to support
their choice of comprehension questions (i.e., literal, inferential, critical, and affective). Also, vocabulary was controlled so that “the
vocabulary would not be more difficult than that used in the stories” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 75).

Reading fluency has received substantial research attention according the authors. In particular, they note that “poor fluent word
recognition is the most frequently cited factor in reading disorders” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 75). The GORT-4 combines rate
and accuracy to reflect the evidence indicating that good readers are proficient at both of these aspects.

The sequence of the stories is arranged in ascending order of difficulty. The controversy over readability formulas is stated with
references to the literature. The authors, who wished to provide some indication of readability, chose the Flesch-Kincaid Readability
Formula to do so. Table 6.1 (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001) provides the results for the stories. However, the authors also used the data
from the normative sample to determine the final order of stories.

In terms of deviations from print, the term preferred by the authors, a synopsis of the research history on reading errors and
classifications is given. On the basis of the research, the authors decided to use their system of five types of miscues described
elsewhere in this review. Their system, they comment, is similar to others currently in use (references are given).
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 9

Conventional item analysis provided quantitative evidence for content validity. Although the stories, save for one, are the same as
previous editions, the analysis yielded satisfactory item discrimination coefficients, corrected for part-whole effect, and item
difficulties. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 display the data (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001).

Criterion Prediction Validity: The authors chose to refer to studies that used the GORT-3 and GORT-R for evidence of aspects of
criterion prediction validity noting that this is an acceptable practice where the items, administration, and response format remain
unchanged in the new edition. Therefore, their discussion focused on the comparison of the new edition to the earlier ones mentioned
and to other measures of reading, including the GDRT-2 and GSRT. The results indicate high coefficients (with median correlations
from .63 to .75) except for Comprehension which is moderate (.45). Table 6.5 displays the correlation data for comparisons with
other reading measures.

Construct Identification Validity: Throughout this section, the authors provide background statements to highlight the relationships
that they seek to demonstrate. For example, they state in the section on measures of spoken language, “Authorities have long agreed
that reading is related to spoken language to some meaningful degree. In fact, the correlation between the two variables is often
offered as evidence for construct-identification validity for most tests of spoken language and reading…” (Wiederholt & Bryant,
2001, p. 87).

Age differentiation: Mean scores and standard deviations are displayed in table form demonstrating an age-related progression in
scores (i.e., scores become larger as children age). Coefficients for both Forms A and B were analyzed with the following
coefficients reported: Rate (.74), Accuracy (.73), Fluency (.66), and Comprehension (.74). Authors note that these coefficients are,
according to their reference, (MacEachron, 1982), to be high.
Intercorrelation: Correlations between each of the subtest measures were shown to be statistically significant at the .01 level which
“represents a moderate to very high degree of relationship” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 87).
Relationship to measures of spoken language: Results of two studies are stated: Cornwall (1992) and Catts (1993) found median
coefficients of .49 for Fluency and .57 for Comprehension. Table 6.7 displays the data.
Relationship to measures of written language: The authors summarize the results of four separate studies that demonstrated
relationship to written language (three studies used the GORT-3, one the GORT-4, Cornwall, 1992). Results are displayed in Table
6.8 with the authors pointing out that “the best evidence for validity is the median coefficient for the ORQ because it represents the
overall picture regarding the relationship between reading and writing” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 89). The authors reported the
median coefficient as.59 for ORQ.
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 10

Relationship to tests of intelligence or aptitude: The GORT-4 was correlated as follows:

 WISC-III (individual scales and full scale) ranged from .40 and .67,
 Scholastic Aptitude Scale ranged from .34 to .83,
 Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude ranged from .26-.50,
 WISC-R (individual scales and full scale) ranged from .43 to .80, and
 Median correlations for all studies ranged from .45 to .62.
Relationship to RAN: Three studies report the relationship of RAN to GORT-4. These studies found median correlation coefficients
to be .49 for Fluency and .48 for Comprehension. The authors state that these results compare favourably with the .41 reported in the
RAN literature.
Group differentiation Using the mean standard scores for the normative sample and subgroups, the predicted outcomes were
demonstrated in regard to gender, race/ethnicity (European Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans), and disability
(learning disability, serious emotional disturbance, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). (N.B. The sample for serious
emotional disturbance was small n=15). The learning disability group performed Below Average whereas the gifted children were
Above Average as expected. All results are presented in Table 6.11. Additionally, other studies reported significant differences
between the groups of students studied (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, pp. 94-95). Each study is briefly described in terms of the
sample, sample size, and the comparisons made.
Change over time: Intervention studies reported the ability of GORT-4 to detect change due to intervention. These studies are
summarized both in the text and in Table 6.13. The authors state that, “all three studies reported in this section support this use of the
GORT-4 and clearly provide convincing evidence of the GORT-4’s construct identification validity” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p.
96).
Item validity: The discriminating powers previously reported in Table 6.2 provide evidence of construct-identification validity. The
authors note that these results are replications of those found in earlier studies using the GORT-R.

Differential Item Functioning: Swaminathan and Rogers’s (1990) logistic regression procedure was used to detect DIF. The authors
explain their rationale and procedures undertaken. The results of 560 comparisons found that nine were significant at the .001 level.
Effect size was investigated and none of the nine comparisons indicated moderate or large effect sizes. On the basis of this evidence
the authors conclude that “the test is unbiased in regard to gender, race, and ethnicity” (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001, p. 82).

Other: none
Summary/Conclusions/Observations: This is a comprehensive and well-researched test, attesting to its continued relevance and
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 11

use.

Clinical/Diagnostic Usefulness:
On the basis of this review, I would use this test for its intended purposes trusting that it would yield important and clinically useful
information. I was particularly interested in the miscue analysis as I think that clinicians would use this information as a beginning
point for exploring the individual student’s approach to reading.

References

Aiken, L. R. (2000). Psychological testing and assessment (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: MIT Press.

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NK: Prentice-Hall.

Catts, H. (1993). The relationship between speech-language impairments and reading disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 36, 948-958.

Cornwall, A. (1992). The relationship of phonological awareness, rapid naming, and verbal memory to severe reading and spelling
disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(8), 532-538.

Crumpton, N.L., & Miller Whitehead, M. (2003). Test review of the Gray Oral Reading Test, Fourth Edition. In B. S. Plake, J.C.
Impara, and R.A. Spies (Eds.), The fifteenth mental measurement yearbook (pp. 417-421). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements.

Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (1995). Test equating methods and practices. New York: Springer.

Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

MacEachron, A. E. (1982). Basic statistics in the human sciences. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
 Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 12

Swiminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regressions procedures. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 26, 55-66.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1997). Statistical abstract of the United States: The national data book. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce.

Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). GORT 4 Gray Oral Reading Tests Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

To cite this document:

Hayward, D. V., Stewart, G. E., Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Lovell, M. A. (2008). Test review: Gray oral reading test-4 (GORT-
4). Language, Phonological Awareness, and Reading Test Directory (pp. 1-12). Edmonton, AB: Canadian Centre for Research
on Literacy. Retrieved [insert date] from http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/elementaryed/ccrl.cfm.