Cognitive processing of reading comprehension items with and without text;Kognitive verarbeitung von leseverständnisitems mit und ohne text

Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychologie

Volumn 28, Issue 1-2, 2014, Pages 21-30

  Schroeder, Sascha ^a   Tiffin Richards, Simon P ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Construct validity; Reading comprehension; Reading processes

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894352144     PISSN: 10100652     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1024/1010-0652/a000121     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Anger, H., Bargmann, R. & Voigt, M. (1972). Verstandiges Lesen 7-9. Weinheim: Beltz.
2. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42. (Pubitemid 38397485)
3. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G. & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
4. Coleman, C., Lindstrom, J., Nelson, J., Lindstrom, W. & Gregg, K. N. (2010). Passageless comprehension on the Nelson-Denny reading test: Well above chance for university students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 244-249.
5. Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
6. Daneman, M. & Hannon, B. (2001). Using working memory theory to investigate the construct validity of multiple-choice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 208-223. (Pubitemid 33595898)
7. Freedle, R. & Kostin, I. (1994). Can multiple-choice reading tests be construct-valid? Psychological Science, 5, 107-110.
8. Hannon, B. & Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 103-128.
9. Heller, K. A. & Perleth, C. (2000). Kognitiver Fahigkeitstest fur 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision. Weinheim: Beltz.
10. Katz, S., Lautenschlager, G., Blackburn, A. & Harris, F. (1990). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT. Psychological Science, 1, 122-127.
11. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Ozuru, Y. & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (S. 107-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Pearson, P. & Hamm, D. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices - past, present, and future. In S. Paris & S. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (S. 13-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Preston, R. C. (1964). Ability of students to identify correct response before reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 58, 181-183.
15. Richter, T. & Christmann, U. (2002). Lesekompetenz: Prozessebenen und interindividuelle Unterschiede. In N. Groeben & B. Hurrelmann (Hrsg.), Lesekompetenz: Bedingungen, Dimensionen, Funktionen (S. 25-58). Weinheim: Juventa.
16. Rost, D. H. & Sparfeldt, J. R. (2007). Leseverstandnis ohne Lesen? Zur Konstruktvalditat von multiple-choice-Leseverstandnisaufgaben. Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychologie, 21, 305-314.
17. Schroeder, S. (2011). What readers have and do: Effects of students' verbal ability and reading time components on comprehension with and without text availability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 877-896.
18. Sparfeldt, J., Kimmel, R., Lowenkamp, L., Steingraber, A. & Rost, D. H. (2012). Not read, but nevertheless solved? Three experiments on PIRLS multiple choice reading comprehension test items. Educational Assessment, 17, 214-232.
19. Weis, R. H. (1998). Grundintelligenztest Skala 2 (CFT-20) mit Wortschatztest (WS) und Zahlenfolgentest (ZF). Gottingen: Hogrefe.