Inferential processing among adequate and struggling adolescent comprehenders and relations to reading comprehension

Reading and Writing

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 587-609

  Barth, Amy E ^a   Barnes, Marcia ^b   Francis, David ^c   Vaughn, Sharon ^b   York, Mary ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Adolescent students; Inferences; Local and global coherence; Reading comprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927616765     PISSN: 09224777     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-014-9540-1     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ackerman, B. P. (1984). The effects of storage and processing complexity on comprehension repair in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,37, 303–334.
2. Ackerman, B. P., & McGraw, M. (1991). Constraints on the causal inferences of children and adults in comprehending stories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,51, 364–394.
3. Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1991). Effects of centrality on retrieval of text-based concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,17, 932–939.
4. Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,19, 1061–1070.
5. Baker, L. (1984). Spontaneous versus instructed use of multiple standards for evaluating comprehension: Effects of age, reading proficiency, and type of standard. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,38, 289–311.
6. Barnes, M. A., Faulkner, H., Wilkinson, M., & Dennis, M. (2004). Meaning construction and integration in children with hydrocephalus. Brain and Language,89, 47–56.
7. 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.
8. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Elbro, C. (2003). The ability to learn new word meanings from context by school-age children with and without language comprehension difficulties. Journal of Child Language,30, 681–694.
9. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–681.
10. Casteel, M. A., & Simpson, G. B. (1991). Textual coherence and the development of inferential generation skills. Journal of Research in Reading,14, 116–129.
11. Cohen, J. (1968). Multiple regression as a general data-analytic system. Psychological Bulletin,70, 426–443.
12. Compton, D., Miller, A., Elleman, A., & Steacy, L. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading,18, 55–73.
13. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,99, 311–325.
14. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,17, 245–262.
16. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D., & Kulikowich, J. (2011). Coh-metrix: Providing multi-level analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher,40, 223–234.
17. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review,101, 371–395.
18. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. Karasinski, C., & Ellis-Weismer, S. (2010). Comprehension of inferences in discourse processing by adolescents with and without language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,53, 1268–1279.
20. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman brief intelligence test, second edition (K-BIT-2). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessment.
21. Kendeou, P., Smith, E., & O’Brien, E. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,39, 854–865.
22. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction integration model. Psychological Review,95, 163–182.
23. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base stricture of sentences. Cognitive Psychology,93, 411–428.
25. Long, D. L., & Chong, J. L. (2001). Comprehension skill and global coherence: A paradoxical picture of poor comprehenders’ ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,27, 1424–1429.
26. MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading test (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
27. Magliano, J., & Radvansky, G. (2001). Goal coordination in narrative comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 372–376.
28. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Spreading activation versus compound cue accounts of priming: Mediated priming revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 1155–1172.
29. O’Brien, E. J., Albrecht, J. E., Hakala, C. M., & Rizzella, M. L. (1995). Activation and suppression of antecedents during reinstatement. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,21, 626–634.
30. O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Gueraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,36, 979–991.
31. O’Brien, E., Cook, A. E., & Peracchi, K. A. (2004). Updating situation models: Reply to Zwan and Madden (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,18, 777–784.
32. Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing,18, 657–686.
33. Pike, M. M., Barnes, M. A., & Barron, R. W. (2010). The role of illustrations in children’s inferential comprehension. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,105, 342–355.
34. Rizella, M. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (2002). Retrieval of concepts in script-based texts and narratives: The influence of general world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,28, 780–790.
35. Singer, M., Andrusiak, P., Reisdorf, P. E., & Black, N. L. (1992). Individual differences in bridging inferences processes. Memory and Cognition,20, 539–548.
36. Singer, M., & Kintsch, W. (2001). Text retrieval: A theoretical exploration. Discourse Processes,31, 27–59.
37. Singer, M., & Leon, J. (2007). Psychological studies of higher language processes: Behavioral and empirical studies. In F. Schmalhofer & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 9–25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
38. Texas Educational Agency. (2003). Texas assessment of knowledge and skills (TAKS). Austin, TX: Authors.
39. Texas Educational Agency. (2004). TAKS: Texas assessment of knowledge and skills. Information booklet: Reading, grade 6—Revised. Author. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/taks/booklets/reading/g6e.pdf on December 19, 2007.
40. Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
41. Van den Broek, P., Rapp, D., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes,39, 299–316.
42. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A ‘landscape’ view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In B. Bruce & A. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In S. R. Goldman & H. van Oostendorp (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
44. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies and discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
45. Vanderwood, M. L., McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., & Keith, T. A. (2002). The contribution of general and specific cognitive abilities to reading achievement. Learning and Individual Differences,13, 159–188.
46. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J., Rashotte, C., & Pearson, N. (2010). Test of sentence reading efficiency (TOSRE). Austin, TX: PRO-ED Inc.
47. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
48. Yuill, N., Oakhill, J. V., & Parkin, A. J. (1989). Working memory, comprehension ability, and the resolution of text anomaly. British Journal of Psychology,80, 351–361.
49. Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. (1992). Effects of passage type on comprehension monitoring and recall in good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior,24, 373–391.
50. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin,123, 162–185.