A number of authors have presented data that challenge the validity of self-report of strategy use or choice of strategy. We created a multiple-choice measure of students' strategy use based on the work of Kozminsky, E., and Kozminsky, L. (2001), and tested it with three samples as part of a series of studies testing the fit of the DIME model of reading comprehension. One study was conducted at the high school level (N=175) and two at the undergraduate level (N=185 and 737). Over the three studies with three different samples, we found good evidence for the internal consistency reliability and concurrent validity of this type of measure. Commonality analysis suggested that strategy use mainly makes a shared contribution to comprehension with other predictors, especially inference, and to some extent vocabulary, background knowledge, and word reading. The measure was relatively easy to construct and easy to administer to large numbers of students, and showed much higher evidence of concurrent validity than self-ratings of frequency of use of strategies.
Measuring strategy use in context with multiple-choice itemsAs noted by other authors in this special issue, skilled comprehenders use a multitude of cognitive and metacognitive strategies while reading. For example, they may set goals before reading, ask themselves questions while reading, summarize, and monitor their level of understanding as they read. Alexander and Judy (1988) define strategies as "goaldirected procedures that are planfully or intentionally evoked . . . . [that] aid in the regulation, execution, or evaluation of [a] task" (p. 376). The effect of reading strategies on comprehension has been a major research program since the 1980s. Two main types of evidence are brought to bear to support the role of strategies: descriptive (questionnaire, observation, and think-aloud studies) and experimental studies in which students are taught how to enact specific strategies.Briefly, reading strategy use is associated with better reading comprehension in