The influence of language knowledge and test components on reading comprehension scores

被引:0
作者
Alyson A. Collins
Esther R. Lindström
Micheal Sandbank
机构
[1] Texas State University,Department of Curriculum & Instruction
[2] Lehigh University,Department of Education and Human Services
[3] The University of Texas at Austin,Department of Special Education
来源
Annals of Dyslexia | 2021年 / 71卷
关键词
Assessment; Language knowledge; Reading comprehension; Reliability;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This study investigated the dependability of reading comprehension scores across different text genres and response formats for readers with varied language knowledge. Participants included 78 fourth-graders in an urban elementary school. A randomized and counterbalanced 3 × 2 study design investigated three response formats (open-ended, multiple-choice, retell) and two text genres (narrative, expository) from the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI-5) reading comprehension test. Standardized language knowledge measures from the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (Academic Knowledge, Oral Comprehension, Picture Vocabulary) defined three reader profiles: (a) < 90 as emerging, (b) 90–100 as basic, and (c) > 100 as proficient. Generalizability studies partitioned variance in scores for reader, text genre, and response format for all three groups. Response format accounted for 42.8 to 62.4% of variance in reading comprehension scores across groups, whereas text genre accounted for very little variance (1.2–4.1%). Single scores were well below a 0.80 dependability threshold (absolute phi coefficients = 0.06–0.14). Decision studies projecting dependability achieved with additional scores varied by response format for each language knowledge group, with very low projected dependability on open-ended and multiple-choice scores for readers with basic language knowledge. Multiple-choice scores had similarly low projected dependability levels for readers with emerging language knowledge. Findings evidence interactions between reader language knowledge and response format in reading comprehension assessment practices. Implications underscore the limitations of using a single score to classify readers with and without proficiency in foundational skills.
引用
收藏
页码:238 / 259
页数:21
相关论文
共 113 条
[1]  
Best RM(2008)Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts Reading Psychology 29 137-164
[2]  
Floyd RG(2005)Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system American Educational Research Journal 42 231-268
[3]  
McNamara DS(2012)Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers Journal of Educational Psychology 104 166-181
[4]  
Booher-Jennings J(2017)Similar but different: Differences in comprehension diagnosis on the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability and the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension Journal of Research in Reading 40 403-419
[5]  
Catts HW(2012)The cognitive and academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities Journal of Learning Disabilities 45 79-95
[6]  
Compton D(2006)Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured Scientific Studies of Reading 10 277-299
[7]  
Tomblin JB(2012)Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension Journal of Educational Psychology 104 515-528
[8]  
Bridges MS(2005)Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient Journal of Learning Disabilities 38 98-108
[9]  
Colenbrander D(2018)Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers and across texts: The complete view of reading (CVRi) Remedial and Special Education: RASE 39 274-288
[10]  
Nickels L(2011)Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics Educational Researcher 40 223-234