A Cross-Validation Study of the Relationship of Reading Test Items to Their Relevant Paragraphs

Weaver, Wendell W.; Bickley, A. C.; Ford, Fraughton G.

doi:10.2466/pms.1969.29.1.11

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Farr & Smith, 1970;Johns, 1978;Preston, 1964). This issue of the passage dependency of items is of paramount importance (Allington, Chodos, Domaracki, & Truex, 1977;Pyrczak, 1972Pyrczak, , 1974Pyrczak, , 1975Pyrczak, , 1975Pyrczak, -76, 1976Pyrczak & Axelrod, 1976;Tuinman, 1972Tuinman, -73, 1973Weaver, Bickley, & Ford, 1969).…”

Section: Passage Dependencymentioning

confidence: 94%

The Relative Merits of Item Transformations and the Cloze Procedure for the Measurement of Reading Comprehension

Berk

1979

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relative merits and potential of item transformations and the cloze procedure are evaluated. The two strategies for assessing reading comprehension were reviewed in terms of three criteria: (1) the extent to which literal comprehension skills are validly measured; [2] the extent to which the issue of passage dependency is addressed; (3) utility for classroom teachers, reading specialists, and evaluators of reading programs. The analysis revealed that the cloze procedure offers several distinct advantages over six sentence-derived transformations. They include the assessment of both semantic and syntactic relationships, dependency on contextual clues, and ease of development, administration, and scoring. Both item generation methods were applicable to only content domains that could be decomposed into passages and sentences. Unfortunately, this limitation encompasses many of the functional skills and minimum competencies that are in the process of being measured in 38 states.

show abstract

Section: Passage Dependencymentioning

confidence: 94%

The Relative Merits of Item Transformations and the Cloze Procedure for the Measurement of Reading Comprehension

Berk

1979

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Leseverständnis ohne Lesen?

Rost

Sparfeldt

2007

Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung. Wiederholt wurden Zweifel an der Konstruktvalidität von multiple-choice-Leseverständnistestaufgaben geäußert. Diese bestehen üblicherweise aus den drei Teilen “Text”, “Fragen” und “Antworten”. In drei aufeinander aufbauenden Feldexperimenten (N1 = 371, N2 = 349, N3 = 402) bearbeiteten Schüler der 7. bis 9. Klassenstufe verschiedene Leseverständnistestversionen, in denen sukzessive zentrale Komponenten eliminiert wurden: “Original”, “ohne Text”, “ohne Fragen”, “ohne Text und ohne Fragen”. Mit abnehmendem Informationsgehalt wurden die Aufgaben erwartungsgemäß schwieriger. Jedoch lösten die Schüler in den Versionen “Original”, “ohne Text” und “ohne Fragen” deutlich und in der Version “ohne Text und ohne Fragen” teilweise mehr Aufgaben “richtig”, als bei reinem Raten zu erwarten wäre. Dies kann in den Versionen, in denen kein Text vorgegeben wurde, nicht auf “Lesen” zurückgeführt werden. Verbale Intelligenz erwies sich als bedeutsamer Prädiktor der Leseverständnistestleistung. Die Relevanz der Befunde für eine konstruktvalide Leseverständnisdiagnostik wird diskutiert.

show abstract

Summary and Review of Investigations Relating to Reading, July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1970

Otto

Barrett

Smith

et al. 1971

The Journal of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Cross-Validation Study of the Relationship of Reading Test Items to Their Relevant Paragraphs

Cited by 7 publications

References 1 publication

The Relative Merits of Item Transformations and the Cloze Procedure for the Measurement of Reading Comprehension

The Relative Merits of Item Transformations and the Cloze Procedure for the Measurement of Reading Comprehension

Leseverständnis ohne Lesen?

Summary and Review of Investigations Relating to Reading, July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1970

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About