The assessment of reading comprehension considerations and cautions

Topics in Language Disorders

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 33-50

  Snyder, Lynn ^a   Caccamise, Donna ^a   Wise, Barbara ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Inferences; Measurement; Reading comprehension; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 18144400056     PISSN: 02718294     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00011363-200501000-00005     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
2. Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: the role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65-83.
3. Bush, G. W. (2002, January 8). No child left behind framework. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb
4. Caccamise, D., & Snyder, L. (2005). Theory and pedagogical practices of text comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 5-20.
5. Carlisle, J., & Rice, M. (2004). Assessment of reading comprehension. In A. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 521-555). New York: Guilford Press.
6. Catts, H., Fey, H., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, B. (2001). Evaluating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implications. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38-50.
7. Catts, H., & Hogan, T. (2002). The fourth grade slump: Late emerging poor readers. Poster presented at annual meeting of Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Chicago.
8. Chall, J., Jacobs, V., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Cole, R., van Vuuren, S., Pellom, B., Hacioglu, K., Ma, J., Movellan, J., et al. (2003). Perceptive animated interfaces: First steps toward a new paradigm for human computer Interaction. Proceedings of the IEEE: Special Issue on Human Computer Interaction, 91, 1391-1405.
10. Espin, C., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicted secondary students' performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497-515.
11. Foltz, P. W., Landauer, T., & Laham, D. (1999). The Intelligent Essay Assessor: Applications to educational technology. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 1.
12. Frase-Blunt, M. (2000). New roads to reading comprehension. Today, 7(1), 9, 15.
13. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptuallzing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204-219.
14. Goode, R., & Kaminski, R. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene: Oregon Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
15. Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & Louwerse, M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking read ing comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: Guilford Press.
16. Haycock, K., & Weiner, R. (2003, April). Adequate yearly progress under NCLB. Paper presented at the National Center on Education and the Economy Policy Forum, New York.
17. Jacobs, V. (2000). Using reading to learn: The matter of understanding. Perspectives, 26, 38-40.
18. Keenan, J. & Betjemann, R. (2003). Comprehension and lexical computations in skilled reading and dyslexia. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, June 2003, Boulder, CO.
19. Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful questions. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 51-64.
20. Kintsch, E., Steinhardt, D., Matthews, C., Lamb, R., & ISA Research Group. (2000). Developing summarization skills through the use of ISA-based feedback. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 87-109.
21. Kintsch, W (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
22. Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. Paris & S. Stahl (Eds.), Current issues in reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Landauer, T., Foltz, P., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction of latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
24. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative Reading Inventory-3. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc.
25. Lindstedt, D. E. (2000). Eyewitness reporting by Navajo and mainstream-culture children. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21, 166-175.
26. McFadden, T. (1996). Creating language impairments in typically achieving children: The pitfalls of "normal" language sampling. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in the Schools, 27, 3-9.
27. Nation, K., Adams, J., Bowyer-Crane, N., & Snowling, M. (1999). Working memory deficits in poor comprehenders reflect underlying language impairments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 139-158.
28. Nation, K., & Norbury, C. (2005). Specific comprehension deficits in children with reading disabilities and specific language impairment. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 21-32.
29. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1998). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 65, 996-1011.
30. National Center for Education Studies. (2000). National assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
31. National Reading Panel. (2000). leaching children to read. Bethesda, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, NICHD Clearinghouse.
32. Newcomer, P. L. (1999). Standardized Reading Inventory (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
33. No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). Bill summary and status for the 107th Congress, PL 107-110, Retrieved from http://www.thomas.loc.gov
34. Northwest Evaluation Association. (2000a). Measures of academic progress. Portland, OR: Author.
35. Northwest Evaluation Association. (2000b). Achievement level tests. Portland, OR: Author.
36. O'Connor, R., & Jenkins, J. (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159-197.
37. Olson, R., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., & Rack, J. (1994). Measurement of word recognition, orthographic, and phonological skills. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 243-277). Baltimore: Brookes.
38. Payne, R. (2003). A framework for understanding poverty (3rd Rev. ed.). Bayswater, TX: Aha Process, Inc.
39. Pellom, B., & Hacioglu, K. (2003, April). Recent Improvements in the CU Sonic ASS System for Noisy Speech. Paper presented at IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Hong Kong.
40. Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41. Rasch, G. (1980). Probablistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. (Expanded ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42. Rathvon, N. (2004). Advances in early reading assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
43. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science Informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31-74.
44. Riegelman, R. K. (2000). Studying a study and testing a test: How to read the medical evidence (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
45. Riordan, J., & Snyder, L. (2002, February). Identifying kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties. Paper presented at the Courage to Risk Council for Exceptional Children Conference, Colorado Springs.
46. Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (2nd ed.). Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone.
47. Scarborough, H. (1998). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming and I.Q. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 115-136.
48. Shapely, K. S., & Prash, A. J. (1999). Developing a valid and reliable porfolio assessment In the primary grades. Applied Measurements in Education, 17, 111-132.
49. Shin, J., Deno, S., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education, 34, 164-172.
50. Silliman, E., & Wilkinson, L. C. (2004). Collaboration for language and literacy learning: Three challenges. In E. Silliman & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools (pp. 3-38). New York: Guilford Press.
51. Simmons, D., Kuykendall, K., Cornachione, C., & Kame'enui, E. (2000). Implementation of a school-wide reading improvement model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 92-100.
52. Snow, C. (2002, February 23). The centrality of language in literacy development. Paper presented at the Katherine G. Butler Symposium on Child Language: Innovations In Research and Practice, San Jose, CA.
53. Snow, C. (2003). Assessment of reading comprehension. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 192-206). New York: Guilford Press.
54. Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
55. Snyder, L. (2002, August). Report of the Summer Literacy Academy assessment pilot study. Laboratory Technical Paper, Center for hyphen language Research, University of Colorado at Borlder.
56. Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences In acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 1-29.
57. Stanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading. New York: Guilford Press.
58. Stenner, A. J. (2000). Measuring reading ability, readability and reading comprehension. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.
59. Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2003). 2003 state special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolls, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes Report.
60. Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 217-234.
61. Valencia, S., & Wixson, K. (2000). Policy oriented research on literacy standards and assessment. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 909-935). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Wade-Stein, D., & Kintsch, E. (2004). Summary Street®: Interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 333-362.
63. Wise, B. (2004, November 4). Past and present research with talking computers in Colorado. Part of a symposium at the annual meeting of the International Dyslexia Association on Computers & Reading Disabilities Research & Research-Based Applications, Philadelphia.
64. Wise, B., Cole, R., van Vuuren, S., Schwartz, S., Snyder, L., & Ngampatipatpong, N. (in press). Learning to read with a virtual tutor: Foundational exercises and interactive books. In C. Kinzer & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Interactive literacy education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Wise, B., & Snyder, L. (2002). Clinical judgments In identifying and teaching children with language-based reading difficulties. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 653-692). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Woods, M., & Moe, W. (1999). Analytical reading inventory (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.