Two ESEA Title I evaluation models developed by the Resource Management Corporation (RMC), were field tested simultaneously with 560 Title I reading students, grades 2-8. Measuring instruments for models 1 and 2 were, respectively, the California Achievement Test (reading vocabulary section), a norm-referenced test; and the Tarmac Reading Inventory, a criterion referenced test. Both models measured achievement gains in the same sample of students by converting test data into a common metric called normal curve equivalents (NCEs). A 3.5 NCE difference between the models would indicate educational significance. It was determined that, with the exception of grade 2, both models were measuring the same reading skills. Results obtained under both models, although not identical, were within 1 or 2 NCE points of each other; grade 2 was a notable exception (11.7 NCE difference). Results thus support RMC's position that the criterion referenced model is an effective evaluation model and yields comparable evaluation data. It was also noted that the criterion referenced model will result in reduced testing and monetary savings in large school districts. (CP)