On-line assessment of comprehension processes

Spanish Journal of Psychology

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 308-319

  Martínez, Tomás ^a   Vidal Abarca, Eduardo ^a   Gil, Laura ^a   Gilabert, Ramiro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Assessment of reading processes; Comprehension test; Moving window technique in comprehension; On line reading measurement

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; EYE MOVEMENT; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; LANGUAGE TEST; LEARNING; METHODOLOGY; ONLINE SYSTEM; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; READING; SEMANTICS; STUDENT; TEACHING;

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHILD; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE TESTS; LEARNING; ONLINE SYSTEMS; QUESTIONNAIRES; READING; SEMANTICS; STUDENTS;

EID: 67449084954     PISSN: 11387416     EISSN: 19882904     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1138741600001700     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aaronson, D. & Ferres, S. (1983). Lexical categories and reading tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(5), 675-699.
2. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bugbee, A. C., Jr. (1996). The equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computer-based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 282-299.
4. Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative effect. A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19-35.
5. Cataldo, M. G. & Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of educational psychology, 92(4), 791-799. (Pubitemid 33204885)
6. Choi, I., Kim, K. S. & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper- based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20(3), 295-320.
7. Cordón, L. A. & Day, J. D. (1996). Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests. Journal of educational psychology, 88(2), 288-295. (Pubitemid 126087136)
8. Entin, E. B. & Klare, G. R. (1985). Relationships of measures of interest, prior knowledge, and readability to comprehension of expository passages. En B. Hutson (Ed.) Advances in Reading/Language Research (pp. 9-38). Greenwich: JAI Press.
9. Evans, L. D., Tannehill, R. & Martin, S. (1995). Children's reading skills: A comparison of traditional and computerized assessment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 27(2), 162-165.
10. 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.
11. Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 357-398.
12. Goldman, S. R. & Saul, E. U. (1990). Applications for tracking reading behavior on the macintosh. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 22(6), 526-532.
13. Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative test comprehension. Psychological Review, (101), 371-395. (Pubitemid 24976808)
14. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological review, 87(4), 329-354.
15. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228-238.
16. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
17. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Kintsch, W. & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. En S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment, (pp. 71-92). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
19. Kobrin, J.L. & Young, J.W. (2003). The cognitive equivalence of reading comprehension test items via computerized and paper-and-pencil administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(2), 115-140. (Pubitemid 36567737)
20. Koriat, A. & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103(3), 490-517. (Pubitemid 126432208)
21. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Ozurur, Y. & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate assessment tools. En D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107- 136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., The NIU R-SAT Development Team, Levinstein, I. B. & Boonthum, C. (En prensa). Comprehension strategies and performance with the reading strategies assessment tool (R-SAT). Journal of Educational Psychology.
23. Maguire, K. B., Knobel, M. M., Knobel, B. L. & Sedlaček, L. G. (1991). Computer-adapted PPVT-R: A comparison between standard and modified versions within an elementary school population. Psychology in the Schools, 28(3), 199-205.
24. Martinez, T., Vidal-Abarca, E., Sellés, M. P. & Gilabert, R. (2008). Evaluación de las estrategias y los procesos de comprensión: El test de procesos de comprensión (TPC). [Evaluation of comprehension stratragies and processes: The test of Comprehension Processes]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 31(3), 319-332.
25. McNamara, D. S. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247-288.
26. McNamara, D. S., O'Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M. & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students' reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147-171. (Pubitemid 44877313)
27. Mead, A. D. & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 449-458.
28. Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 349-363.
29. Metcalfe, J. & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(4), 530-542. (Pubitemid 37514231)
30. Myers, S. S. (1991). Perfomance in reading comprehension -product or process? Educational Review, 43(3), 257-272.
31. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L. C. & Hughes, C. (1988). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
33. Ramos, J. L. & Cuetos, F. (1999). PROLEC-SE: evaluación de los procesos lectores en alumnos de tercer ciclo de educación primaria y secundaria. [PROLEC-SE: evaluation of reading processes for students of third cycle of primary and secondary school]. Madrid: TEA.
34. Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23(4), 441-474. (Pubitemid 44680207)
35. Schraw, G. & Roedel, T.D. (1994). Test difficulty and judgment bias. Memory & cognition, 22(1), 63-69. (Pubitemid 24047122)
36. Thiede, K. W. & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 25(4), 1024-1037.
37. Trites, L. & McGroarty, M. (2005). Reading to learn and reading to integrate: New tasks for reading comprehension tests? Language Testing, 22(2), 174-210 (Pubitemid 40505381)
38. Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R., Martínez, T. & Sellés, M. P. (2007). Test de estrategias de comprensión. [Test of Comprehension Strategies]. Madrid: Instituto Calasanz de Ciencias de la Educación.
39. Vispoel, W. P., Boo, J. & Bleiler, T. (2001). Computerized and paper- and-pencil versions of the rosenberg self-esteem scale: A comparison of psychometric features and respondent preferences. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(3), 461-474. (Pubitemid 33273857)
40. Wise, S. L. & Plake, B. S. (1989). Research on the effects of administering tests via computers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(3), 5-10.