This study assessed the contributions of various test features (passage variables, question types, and format variables) to reading comprehension performance for successful and unsuccessful readers. Items from a typical standardized reading comprehension test were analyzed according to 20 predictor test features. A three-stage conditional regression approach assessed the predictability of these features on item-difficulty scores for the two reader groups. Two features, location of response information and stem length, accounted for a significant amount of explained variance for both groups. Possible explanatory hypotheses are considered and implications are drawn for improved test design as well as for further research concerning interactions between assessment task features and reader performance.A CHALLENGE TO RESEARCHERS and practitioners over the years has been the accurate assessment of reading comprehension processes. Reading comprehension presents special assessment challenges due to complex interactions between reader, text, and task (see Johnston, 1983, for a review). The most commonly used tool for the formal assessment of reading comprehension remains the multiple-choice question tapping information presented through rather brief, intact passages. Educational decisions concerning students' placements and programs are influenced heavily by performance on such standardized measures, and the assumption is often made that all students' performance scores represent the same valid manifestation of the latent construct, comprehension. However, it has been suggested that the validity of such assessments can be affected by certain features of the test itself, such as passage variables (e.g.
This investigation explored the effects of question task conditions on reading comprehension and metacomprehension for subjects differing in reading ability and English language proficiency.' Proficient readers, disabled readers, and deaf readers read expository passages and completed selected-response and constructedresponse question tasks under both lookback and no-lookback conditions. In addition, subjects rated their perceived comprehension adequacy both after reading each passage and after responding to the questions. Several significant • interaction effects were found for both demonstrated and perceived comprehension performance, most notably with lookback tasks. However, overlaps between comprehension and metacomprehension processes were not comparable across reader groups. Implications are drawn for further research concerning interactions of individual differences with reading comprehension tasks.
This investigation assessed the effects of computer-displayed text on LD students' reading comprehension, strategic behaviors, task-completion time, and attitudes toward the reading task. Fifty-one LD high-school students were randomly assigned to read two lengthy expository passages either from a computer monitor or from a comparably formatted printed page. Subjects were encouraged to use six reading strategies as often as necessary to help them comprehend. Total time spent interacting with the passages was recorded in seconds. Subjects were then assessed on comprehension of the passage content, on their use of the six strategies, and their attitudes toward the task. They were retested on passage content one week later. Results indicated that, overall, the computer-displayed text format did not affect comprehension processing, five strategic behaviors, or time on task. However, computer use appeared to facilitate the lookback text strategy and made users' attitude toward the reading task more favorable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.