Evaluation of comprehension strategies and processes: Test of comprehension processes;Evaluación de las estrategias y procesos de comprensión: El test de procesos de comprensión

Infancia y Aprendizaje

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 319-332

  Martínez, Tomás ^a   Vidal Abarca, Eduardo ^a   Sellés, Pilar ^a   Gllabert, Ramiro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Evaluation test; Reading comprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 54749155518     PISSN: 02103702     EISSN: 15784126     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1174/021037008785702956     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. BECK, I. L., OMANSON, R. C. & MCKEOWN, M. G. (1982). An instructional redesign of reading lessons: Effects on comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(4), 462-481.
2. BENNETT, R. E., ROCK, D. A. & WANG, M. (1991). Equivalence of free-response and multiple-choice items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28 (1), 77-92.
3. BERG, C. A. & SMITH, S. (1994). Assessing students' abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments. Science Education, 78 (6), 527-5 54.
4. BRITTON, B. K. & GÜLGÖZ, S. (1991). Using kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (3), 329-345.
5. CAMPBELL, J. R. (2005). Single instrument, multiple measures: Considering the use of multiple item formats to assess reading comprehension. En S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 347-368). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
6. CORDÓN, L. A. & DAY, J. D. (1996). Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (2), 288-295.
7. COTÉ, N., GOLDMAN, S. R. & SAUL, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25 (1), 1-53.
8. CUETOS, F., RODRÍGUEZ, B. & RUANO, E. (1996). PROLEC (Batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores). Madrid: TEA.
9. DANEMAN, M. & CARPENTER, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450-466.
10. DAVISON, A. & KANTOR, R. N. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 77(2), 187-209.
11. DE LA CRUZ, M. V. (1997). ECL evaluación de la comprensión lectora. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
12. DOOLITTLE, A. E. & CLEARY, T. A. (1987). Gender-based differential item performance in mathematics achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24 (2), 157-166.
13. EMBRETSON, S. & GORIN, J. (2001). Improving construct validity with cognitive Psychology principles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 343-368.
14. FARR, R., PRITCHARD, R. & SMITTEN, B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a mutiple-choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27 (3), 209-226.
15. GOLDMAN, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23 (3) 357-398.
16. GRAESSER, A. C. (en prensa). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. En D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. GRAESSER, A. C. & GOODMAN, S. M. (1985). Implicit knowledge, question answering, and the representation of expository text. En B. Britton&J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text(pp. 109-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. GRAESSER, A. C., SINGER, M. & TRABASSO, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative test comprehension. Psychological Review, 101 (3), 371-395.
19. HUDSON, P., LIGNUGARIS-KRAFT, B. & MILLER, T. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8(2), 106-126.
20. KATZ, S. & LAUTENSCHLAGER, G. J. (2001). The contribution of passage and no-passage factor to item performance on the SAT reading task. Educational Assessment, 7 (2), 165-176.
21. KATZ, S., LAUTENSCHLAGER, G. J., BLACKBURN, A. B. & HARRIS, F. H. (1990). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT. Psychological Science, 1 (2), 122-127.
22. KINTSCH, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review:, 95 (2), 163-182.
23. KINTSCH, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
24. KINTSCH, W. & KINTSCH, E. (2005). Comprehension. En S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. KINTSCH, W. & KEENAN, J. M. (1973)- Reading rate ands retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of the sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5 (3), 257-79.
26. KINTSCH, W. & RAWSON, K. A. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology. 97(1), 70-80.
27. LÁZARO, A. J. (1999). Prueba de comprensión lectora. Madrid: Tea Ediciones.
28. LONG, D. L., OPPY, B. J. & SEELY, M. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing, Joumal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20 (6), 1456-1470.
29. LÓPEZ, N. & ALONSO-TAPIA, J. (1996). Main idea comprehension: Training teachers and effects on students. Journal of Research in Reading, 19(2), 128-153.
30. LUBUNER, S. & SMETANA, L. (2005). The Effects of Comprehensive Vocabulary Instruction on Title I Students' Metacognitive Word-Learning Skills and Reading Comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 37 (2), 163-200.
31. MAGLIANO, J. P., TRABASSO, T. & GRAESSER, A. C. (1999). Strategic Processing During Comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4), 615-629.
32. MEYER, B. J. F. (2003). Text coherence and readability. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(0) 204-224.
33. MURPHY, R.J. L. (1982). Sex differences in objective test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52 (2), 213.
34. OAKHILL, J., CAIN, K. & YUILL, N. (1998). Individual differences in children's comprehension skill: Toward an integrated model. En C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 343-367). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. OECD. (2002). Conocimientos y aptitudes para la vida. Resultados de PISA 2000. Mexico: Santillana.
36. OECD. (2005). Informe PISA 2003: Aprender para el mundo del mañana. Madrid: Grupo Santillana.
37. PEARSON, P. D. & HAMM, D. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices-past, present, and future. En Scott G. Paris & Steven A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13-69). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. RAMOS, J. L. & CUETOS, F. (1999). PROLEC-SE: evaluación de los procesos lectores en alumnos de tercer ciclo de educación primaria y secundaria. Madrid: TEA.
39. RATCLIFF, R. & MCKOON, G. (1978). Priming in item tecognition: Evidence for the prepositional structure of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17 (4), 403-418.
40. SAENZ, L. M. & FUCHS, I. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23 (1), 31-41.
41. SINGER, M. & RITCHOT, K. F. M. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory and Cognition, 24, 733-743.
42. STEIN, N. L. & TRABASSO, T. (1981). What's in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. En R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 213-267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. SUAREZ, A. & MEARA, P. (1982). CLT prueba de comprensión lectora (cloze). Madrid: Tea Ediciones.
44. TRITES, L. & MCGROARTY, M. (2005). Reading to learn and reading to integrate: New tasks for reading comprehension tests? Language Testing, 22 (2), 174-210.
45. URÍO, C., TORO, J. & CERVERA, M. (2000). Escala Magallanes de lato-escritura TALE2000. Bilbao: Grupo Albor-Cohs.
46. VAN DEN BERGH, H. (1990). On the construct validity of multiple-choice items for reading comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(1), 1-12.
47. VAN DEN BROEK, P., LYNCH, J. S., NASLUND, J., IEVERS-LANDIS, C. E. & VERDUIN, K. (2003). The development of comprehension of main ideas in narratives: Evidence from the selection of titles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), 707-718.
48. VAN DIJK, T. A. & KINTSCH, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Nueva York: Academic Press.
49. VIDAL-ABARCA, E., GILABERT, R. & ABAD, N. (2002). Una propuesta para hacer buenos textos expositivos: Hacia una tecnología del texto expositivo. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 25 (4), 499-514.
50. VIDAL-ABARCA, E., REYES, H., GILABERT, R. & CALPE, J. (2002). ETAT: Expository text analysis tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34 (1), 93-107.
51. WARD, W. C. (1980). Construct validity of free-response and machine-scorable forms of a test. Journal ofEducational Measurement, 27(1), 11-29.
52. WARD, W. C. (1982). A comparaison of free-response and multiple-choice forms of verbal aptitude test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6(1) 1-11.