Connecting cognitive theory and assessment: Measuring individual differences in reading comprehension

School Psychology Review

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 315-325

  Van Den Broek, Paul ^a   Espin, Christine A ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84868666414     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (71)

1. Ardoin, S. P., Suldo, S. M., Witt, J., Aldrich, S., & McDonald, E. ( 2005). Accuracy of readability estimates' predictions of CBM performance. School Psychology Review, 20, 1-22.
2. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. ( 2012). Reading comprehension development from seven to fourteen years: Implications for assessment. In J. P. Sabatini, E. R. Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 59-76). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
3. Christ, T. J. ( 2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimates of standard error of slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128-133.
4. Christ, T. J., & Ardoin, S. P. ( 2009a). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Standard errors associated with progress monitoring outcomes from DIBELS, AIMSweb, and an experimental passage set. School Psychology Review, 38, 266-283.
5. Christ, T. J., & Ardoin, S. P. ( 2009b). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Passage equivalence and selection. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 55-75.
6. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. ( 1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
7. Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277-299. (Pubitemid 44212819)
8. De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. ( Eds.). ( 2004). Explanatory item response models. A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. New York, NY: Springer.
9. Deno, S. L. ( 1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
10. Ferstl, E. C. ( 2007). The functional neuroanatomy of text comprehension: What's the story so far? In F. Schmalhofer & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes ( 53-102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Ferstl, E. C., Neumann, J., Bogler, C., & von Cramon, D. Y. ( 2008). The extended language network: A meta analysis of neuroimaging studies on text comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 29, 581-593.
12. Goldman, S. R., Golden, R., & van den Broek, P. ( 2007). Why are computational models of text comprehension useful? In F. Schmalhofer & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Higherlevel language processes in the brain (pp. 27-52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Graesser, A. C., & Clark, L. F. ( 1985). Structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
14. Hintze, J. M., & Christ, T. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204-217. (Pubitemid 39051386)
15. Kane, M. T. ( 1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.
16. Kane, M. T. ( 2001). Concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319-342.
17. Kane, M. T. ( 2011). Validating score interpretations and uses: Messick lecture, Language Testing Research Colloquium, Cambridge, 2010. Language Testing, 29, 3-17. doi:10.1177/0265532211417210
18. Keenan, J. M. ( 2012). Measure for measure: Challenges in assessing reading comprehension. In J. P. Sabatini, E. R. Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability ( pp. 77-87). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
19. Keenan, J. M., & Betjemann, R. S. (2006). Comprehending the Gray Oral Reading Test without reading it: Why comprehension tests should not include passageindependent items. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 363-380. (Pubitemid 44563701)
20. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. ( 2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281-300.
21. Keenan, J. M., & Meenan C. E. ( in press). Test differences in diagnosing comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
22. Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., & Fulton, S. ( 2011). What we have been missing: The role of goals in reading comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Relevance instructions and goalfocusing in text learning ( pp. 375-394). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
23. Kintsch, W. ( 1988a). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24. Kintsch, W. ( 1988b). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
25. Kintsch, W. ( 2012). Psychological models of reading comprehension and their implications for assessment. In J. P. Sabatini, E. R. Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 21-38). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
26. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. ( 1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
27. LaBerge, D., & Samuels.S. J. 1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
28. Lemarié, J., Lorch, R. F., Jr., Eyrolle, H., & Virbel, J. ( 2008). A text-based and reader-based theory of signaling. Educational Psychologist, 43, 27-48.
29. Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778-784. (Pubitemid 36016527)
30. Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lemarié, J., & Grant, R. A. ( 2011). Signaling hierarchical and sequential organization in expository text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 267284.
31. Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. ( 1995). Effects of organizational signals on text processing strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 537-544.
32. McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. ( 2010). Exploring how relevancy instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals, and text processing: A mixed-methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 229-241.
33. McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Kambe, G. ( 2005). The effect of relevance instructions on reading time and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 88-102.
34. McMaster, K. L., van den Broek, P. W., Espin, C. A., White, M. J., Rapp, D. N., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S. ( 2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22( 1), 100-111.
35. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. ( 1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287.
36. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43. (Pubitemid 126311608)
37. Messick, S. ( 1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement ( 3rd ed., pp. 13-103). National Council on Measurement in Education, American Council on Education. MacMillan: New York.
38. Messick, S. ( 1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23, 13-23.
39. Messick, S. ( 1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
40. Mislevy, R. J., & Sabatini, J. P. ( 2012). How research on reading and research on assessment are transforming reading assessment (or if they aren't, how they should). In J. P. Sabatini, E. R. Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 119-134). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
41. Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Barron-Ruiz, A. ( 1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 488-496.
42. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359-370. (Pubitemid 127455951)
43. Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. ( 2011). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 91-121.
44. O'Brien, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. ( 1992). Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 777-784.
45. Pearson P., & Hamm, D. ( 2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices-past, present, and future. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Perfetti, C. A., & Adlof, S. M. ( 2012). Reading comprehension: A conceptual framework from word meaning to text meaning. In J. P. Sabatini, E. R. Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 3-20). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
47. Perfetti, C. A., & Frishkoff, G. A. ( 2008). The neural bases of text and discourse processing. In B. Stemmer & H. A. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the neuroscience of language (pp. 165-174). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.
48. Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. ( 2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189-214). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
49. Perfetti, C. A., Yang, C.-L., & Schmalhofer, F. ( 2008). Comprehension skill and word-to-text processes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 303-318.
50. Poney, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Axtell, P. K. (2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute using curriculum based measurement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 326-338. (Pubitemid 43706121)
51. Prat, C. S., Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. ( 2011). Individual differences in the neural basis of causal inferencing. Brain and Language, 116, 1-13.
52. Rapp. D. N., & van den Broek, P. ( 2005). Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 276-279.
53. Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. ( 2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289-312.
54. Rupp, A. A. ( 2012). Psychological versus psychometric dimensionality in reading assessment. In J. P. Sabatinin, E. R. Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how to assess reading ability (pp. 135-151). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
55. Sabatini, J. P., Albro, E. R., & O'Reilly, T. (Eds.). ( 2012). Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
56. Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Weinert, F. E. ( 1989). Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance: A comparison of high- and low-aptitude children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 306-312.
57. Tolar, T. D., Barth, A. E., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., & Vaughn, S. ( 2012). Psychometric properties of maze tasks in middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 131-146.
58. Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. W. ( 1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630.
59. van den Broek, P. ( 1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inferences and coherence. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 539-588). New York, NY: Academic Press.
60. van den Broek, P. ( 2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453-456.
61. van den Broek, P. W. ( 2012). Individual and developmental differences in reading comprehension: Assessing cognitive processes and outcomes. In J. P. Sabatini, E. R. Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 39-58). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
62. van den Broek, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S., & White, M. J. ( 2011). When a reader meets a text: The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension. In M. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 123-140). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
63. van den Broek, P. W., Helder, A., & Van Leijenhorst, L. ( in press). Sensitivity to structural centrality: Developmental and individual differences in reading comprehension skills. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
64. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Jr., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers' goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081-1087. (Pubitemid 34169324)
65. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299-316. (Pubitemid 40758057)
66. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartman, E. ( 1995). The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch, Jr., & E. J. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in text comprehension (pp. 353-373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. van den Broek, P., White, M. J., Kendeou, P., & Carlson, S. ( 2009). Reading between the lines: Developmental and individual differences in cognitive processes in reading comprehension. In R. K. Wagner, C. Schatschneider, & C. Phythian-Sence (Eds.), Beyond decoding: The behavioral and biological foundations of reading comprehension (pp. 107-123). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
68. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. ( 1998/2004 The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the on-line construction of a memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (Reprinted in R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau [Eds.], Theoretical models and processes of reading [1244-1269]. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association)
69. Wayman, M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Tichá, R., & Espin, C. A. ( 2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85-120.
70. Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848-872. (Pubitemid 128656070)
71. Wolfe, M. B. W. ( 2005). Memory for narrative and expository text: Independent influences of semantic associations and text organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 359-364.