Abstract
The present study employed a think-aloud method to explore the origin of a centrality deficit (i.e., poor recall of central ideas) found in poor comprehenders (PC). Moreover, utilizing the diverse think-aloud responses, we examined the overall quality of text processing employed by PC during reading, in order to shed more light on the cognitive underpinnings underlying their poor comprehension and memory after reading. To address these goals, adolescents with good and poor comprehension, matched on reading (decoding) skills, were asked to state aloud whatever comes to their mind during the reading of two expository texts. After reading, the participants freely recalled text ideas and answered multiple-choice questions on the texts. Results indicated that PC exhibited lower performance than good comprehenders (GC) on the recall and comprehension tasks. The think-aloud protocols indicated that PC generated fewer responses than GC that reflect high-level, deep text processing, and more responses that reflect low-level, surface text processing. Furthermore, compared to GC, PC reinstated fewer prior text ideas, with this reduction being significantly greater for central than for peripheral ideas. Finally, the proportions of deep processing responses in general were positively associated with participants’ performance on recall and comprehension tasks. These findings suggest that PC exhibit poor text comprehension and memory, particularly of central ideas, because they construct a low-quality, poorly-connected text representation during reading, and produce fewer, less-elaborated retrieval cues for subsequent text comprehension and memory. This explanation is further illuminated in the context of previous findings and theoretical accounts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Responses were also scored as valid-plausible or invalid-implausible ones. However, we analyzed only the valid responses, because the proportions of invalid responses were low (> 3%) and similar in the two groups.
The number of central and peripheral units was not equal, because an unequal number of lowest central and highest peripheral units received identical scores and were included or excluded together in the analyses.
Information units presented in the think-aloud setting were occasionally larger than the original units, in order to reduce the amount of interruptions (reduced to 36, 31, and 27 units in Self-starvation, the Coca plant, and the Prophetess from Delphi, respectively) and avoid units which were too short for formulating a proper response. Nevertheless, all statistical analyses were conducted based on the original parsing of information units.
Responses which included a repetition or a paraphrase of one text word were classified as ‘no response’, because they appeared as artificial attempts to provide some response by force rather than authentic, spontaneous attempts to process the text.
Means in this ANOVA reflected aggregated proportions of four categories of think-aloud responses.
Similar sets of regressions were also conducted with each individual category of think-aloud responses. However, the effects with most response categories did not reach significance, possibly due to an insufficient amount of data obtained for regression analyses in each individual category. We did find that the amount of connective inferences positively predicted participants’ performance in the recall task (p < .001), as was captured by the intra-text connections construct (see Table 4), and the amount of irrelevant associations negatively predicted participants’ accuracy on the comprehension questions (p = .01).
References
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(5), 932–939. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.5.932.
Bowyer-Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2005). Assessing children’s inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of Education Psychology, 75(2), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904x22674.
Britton, B. K., Meyer, B. J., Hodge, M. H., & Glynn, S. M. (1980). Effects of the organization of text on memory: Tests of retrieval and response criterion hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(5), 620–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.5.620.
Britton, B. K., Muth, K. D., & Glynn, S. M. (1986). Effects of text organization on memory: Test of a cognitive effort hypothesis with limited exposure time. Discourse Processes, 9(4), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638528609544652.
Brown, T. E. (1996). Brown attention-deficit disorder scales for adolescents and adults. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Brown, A. L., Palincsar, A. S., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Instructing comprehension-fostering activities in interactive learning situations. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 255–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128873.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(5–6), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008084120205.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2007). Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequence. In K. Cain & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written text: A cognitive perspective (pp. 41–75). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850–859. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196414.
Carlisle, J. F. (1999). Free recall as a test of reading comprehension for student with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511148.
Cirilo, R. K., & Foss, D. J. (1980). Text structure and reading time for sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5271(80)90560-5.
Cragg, L., & Nation, K. (2006). Exploring written narrative in children with poor reading comprehension. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology., 26(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500340991.
Curran, C. E., Kintsch, E., & Hedberg, N. (1996). Learning-disabled adolescents’ comprehension of naturalistic narratives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 494–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.494.
Denton, C. A., Enos, M., York, M. J., Francis, D. J., Barnes, M. A., Kulesz, P. A., et al. (2015). Text processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational text. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.105.
Denton, C. A., York, M. J., Francis, D. J., Haring, C., Ahmed, Y., & Bidulescu, A. (2017). An investigation of an intervention to promote inference generation by adolescent poor comprehenders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12134.
Drum, P. A. (1985). Retention of text information by grade, ability, and study. Discourse Processes, 8(1), 21–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538509544606.
Eamon, D. B. (1978). Selection and recall of topical information in prose by better and poorer readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(2), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.2307/747476.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.3.371.
Hansen, C. L. (1978). Story retelling used with average and learning disabled readers as a measure of reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1(3), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510938.
Hua, A. N., & Keenan, J. M. (2014). The role of text memory in inferencing and in comprehension deficits. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(6), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.926906.
Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2011). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties: Nature, causes, and treatments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408673.
Hyönä, J., & Niemi, P. (1990). Eye movements in repeated reading of a text. Acta Psychologies: International Journal of Psychonomics, 73(3), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(90)90026-c.
Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Literary reading activities of good and weak students: A think aloud study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173568.
Jitendra, A. K., Kay, H. M., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690003400302.
Keenan, J., & Brown, P. (1984). Children’s reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in a text. Child Development, 55(4), 1556–1569. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130026.
King, A. (2007). Beyond literal comprehension: A strategy to promote deep understanding of text. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 267–290). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Laing, S. P., & Kamhi, A. G. (2002). The use of think-aloud protocols to compare inferencing abilities in average and below-average readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350050401.
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(4), 778–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.778.
Long, D. L., & Prat, C. S. (2002). Working memory and Stroop interference: An individual differences investigation. Memory & Cognition, 30(2), 294–301. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195290.
Long, D. L., Wilson, J., Hurley, R., & Prat, C. S. (2006). Assessing text representations with recognition: The interaction of domain knowledge and text coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.816.
Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2103_02.
Matsunaga, M. (2007). Familywise error in multiple comparisons: Disentangling a knot through a critique of O’Keefe’s arguments against alpha adjustment. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(4), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450701641409.
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance instructions on surface and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(4), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.3200/jexe.74.4.291-310.
McGee, A., & Johnson, H. (2003). The effect of inference training on skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 23(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410303220.
Meyer, B. J. (1975). Identification of the structure of prose and its implications for the study of reading and memory. Journal of Reading Behavior, 7(1), 7–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967509547120.
Meyer, B. J., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 72–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/747349.
Miller, A. C., & Keenan, J. M. (2009). How word decoding skill impacts text memory: The centrality deficit and how domain knowledge can compensate. Annals of Dyslexia: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the International Dyslexia Association, 59(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-0025-x.
Miller, A. C., & Keenan, J. M. (2011). Understanding the centrality deficit: Insight from foreign language learners. Memory & Cognition, 39(5), 873–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9686-8.
Miller, A. C., Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Willicutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2013). Reading comprehension in children with ADHD: Cognitive underpinnings of the centrality deficit. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(3), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9686-8.
Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26(2–3), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545042.
Oakhill, J. (1982). Constructive processes in skilled and less skilled comprehenders’ memory for sentences. British Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01785.x.
Oakhill, J. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1984.tb00842.x.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ray, M. N., & Meyer, B. J. (2011). Individual differences in children’s knowledge of expository text structures: A review of literature. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 67–82.
Schiff, R., & Kahta, S. (2009). Single-word reading test (unpublished test). Haddad Center for Research in Dyslexia and Reading Disorders, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Seipel, B., Carlson, S. E., & Clinton, V. E. (2017). When do comprehender groups differ? A moment-by-moment analysis of think-aloud protocols of good and poor comprehenders. Reading Psychology, 38(1), 39–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2016.1216489.
Sinclair, J., Taylor, P. J., & Hobbs, S. J. (2013). Alpha level adjustments for multiple dependent variable analyses and their applicability: A review. International Journal of Sports Science and Engineering, 7(1), 17–20.
Singer, M., & Kintsch, W. (2001). Text retrieval: A theoretical exploration. Discourse processes, 31(1), 27–59. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3101_2.
Smiley, S. S., Oakley, D. D., Worthen, D., Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1977). Recall of thematically relevant material by adolescent good and poor readers as function of written versus oral presentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(4), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.4.381.
Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2012). Annual research review: The nature and classification of reading disorders–a commentary on proposals for DSM-5. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(5), 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02495.x.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). In R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing II: An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children, Vol. 2, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.8.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structure in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 77–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90005-6.
Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(5), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(85)90048-8.
Trabasso, T., & Van Den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(5), 612–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(85)90049-x.
Trabasso, T., Van den Broek, P., & Suh, S. Y. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638528909544717.
Van den Broek, P. (1988). The effects of causal relations and hierarchical position on the importance of story statements. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(88)90045-9.
Van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory for narrative texts: Inferences and coherence. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 539–548). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087. https://doi.org/10.3754/bf03206376.
Van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A ‘‘landscape’’ view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van den Broek, P., & Trabasso, T. (1986). Causal networks versus goal hierarchies in summarizing text. Discourse Processes, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638528609544628.
Van Neste, J., Hayden, A., Lorch, E. P., & Milich, R. (2015). Inference generation and story comprehension among children with ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(2), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9899-0.
Weber, R. (2007). Responses to Matsunaga: To adjust or not to adjust alpha in multiple testing: That is the question: Guidelines for alpha adjustment as response to O’Keefe’s and Matsunaga’s critiques. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(4), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450701641391.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale-III (WAIS III). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (1992). Gray oral reading tests: GORT-3. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 404–425. https://doi.org/10.2307/747913.
Worden, P. E., & Nakamura, G. V. (1982). Story comprehension and recall in learning-disabled versus normal college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 633–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.5.633.
Yeari, M., Elentok, S., & Schiff, R. (2017a). Online and offline inferential and textual processing of poor comprehenders: Evidence from a probing method. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 155, 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.10.011.
Yeari, M. & Lev, N. (2020). Processing and memory of central and peripheral ideas in reading comprehension by poor comprehenders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1-19. doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1759073
Yeari, M., Oudega, M., & van den Broek, P. (2017b). The effect of highlighting on processing and memory of central and peripheral text information: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(4), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12072.
Yeari, M., Vakil, E., Schifer, L., & Schiff, R. (2019). The origin of the centrality deficit in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 41(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2018.1501000.
Yeari, M., van den Broek, P., & Oudega, M. (2015). Processing and memory of central versus peripheral information as a function of reading goals: Evidence from eye-movements. Reading and writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28(8), 1071–1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9561-4.
Yeari, M., Yeari, M., & Lavie, A. (2020). The cognitive underpinnings of poor text comprehension and memory in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A think-aloud study. Submitted to Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice.
Yuill, N., & Joscelyne, T. (1988). Effect of organizational cues and strategies on good and poor comprehenders’ story understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.152.
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1988). Effects of inference awareness training on poor reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350020105.
Funding
This research was supported by a Grant Number 485/15 from the Israel Science Foundation to Menahem Yeari.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
The following table specifies in more detail the coding schema developed to classify participants’ responses into different think-aloud categories. Following the table, there are several more general coding rules.
Category | Definition | Coding highlights | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
Connecting inferences | Explaining an idea by stating a different idea or several ideas that appeared previously in the text | Information that appeared in previous ideas, even if the response includes just a few words Ambiguous referential responses that do not include a clarification of the references (e.g., “This”, “He”, “Because of that”), are not coded as Connecting inferences When a response refers to several ideas, the connection is determined to the idea that includes the explicit words stated in the response. If there is no such idea, the connection is determined to the last idea that represents the information in the response | Indicate the number(s) of the idea(s) to which the connection is made An Evaluative comment that uses a connection to previous ideas is coded as Connecting inference rather than as Evaluative comment (e.g., “a strange principle but applicable to modern society”, expressing an evaluative comment about the principle, but connecting the explanation to a previous idea) A response that includes Connecting inference and Evaluative comment that do not share the same content is coded separately in both categories A response that uses prior knowledge to clarify the connection to previous ideas is coded as Connecting inference, rather than as Elaborative inference or as both categories |
Elaborative inferences | Explaining an idea by using information from prior knowledge that did not appear explicitly in the text | Relevant explanatory or elaborativeinformation that did not appear previously in the text If the information is not relevant to the text content, the response is coded as Association An association which is related to the text content (e.g., “anorexia is an illness” in Self-starving, “drugs” in Coca, “tall plant” in Coca) | A knowledge-based expansion which is mentioned to clarify the connection with previous ideas is coded as Connecting inference A response that includes knowledge-based information, which is beyond the connection to previous ideas, is coded as Elaborative inference as well An evaluative comment that uses previous knowledge is coded as Elaborative inference |
Predictive Inferences | Stating what will happen later in the text | The participant predicts information that will appear later in the text | The use of predictive words like “probably” or “apparently” are not necessarily coded as Predictive inference, unless it refers to what will come later in the text |
Metacognitive comments | Reflecting the degree of understanding or other cognitive processes | Responses that include comments about comprehension like “I don’t understand”, “the text is hard for me”, “the idea is unclear”, “don’t understand the word”, “that’s more sensible”, “ah, that’s what I thought” Reflections about other cognitive processes (e.g., “I was not concentrating”, “I’m trying to remember what was mentioned before”) | Retrospective comments (“I knew this would happen”) are coded as Metacognitive comments, rather than as Predictive inferences Reflections about rhetorical or structural functions at text level (e.g., “they give an example for the use of coca plant”) or idea level (e.g., “they explain about the plant”) are coded as Metacognitive comments Reflections at decoding level (e.g., “How do you read this word?”) are not coded as Metacognitive comment, but rather as No response |
Text repetitions | Repeating the idea using the exact same words | A response should repeat at least 2 words (independent of the number of words in the idea) A repetition of one word is coded as No response A minimal change in word inflection or structure is still coded as Text repetition (“they made a pilgrimage” instead of “pilgrimage”) | A response is coded as Text repetition only if it lacks connecting, elaborative, and/or predictive inferences A text repetition which is used as part of an associative description or expression of opinion, is coded as Association (e.g., “It reminds me that I learned in literature about the city of Delphi”) or Evaluative comment If a response includes a text repetition which is not part of an association or opinion, then it is coded as both categories |
Paraphrases | Repeating the gist of an idea using different words | A response should include a paraphrase of at least 2 words (independent of the number of words in the idea) A paraphrase of one word is coded as No response Use of synonymous words (lots instead of a large quantity) | A response that includes both paraphrasing (of at least two words) and text repetition is coded as Paraphrase A response is coded as Paraphrase only if it lacks connecting, elaborative, and/or predictive inferences Limited use of elementary prior knowledge for paraphrasing (“done in America and Europe” paraphrased as “done all over the world”) is coded as Paraphrase, rather than Elaborative inference |
Associations | Expanding an idea using information from prior knowledge which is irrelevant to the text content or to the understanding of the text | Stating information that doesn’t appear in the text, but is not relevant to the text content or does not contribute to the understanding of the text Referring to personal matters or to matters that digress from the text content | A repeated use of an association should be carefully checked whether it advances the participant’s understanding of the text |
Evaluative comments | An affective or any subjective opinion on the text | Expressing subjective impression of the text (e.g., “boring”, “hard”, “long”) that doesn’t relate to specific knowledge or content Expanding the text based on beliefs or emotions, which are not justified by specific prior knowledge (“She must have really made it up”, “I don’t believe it’s true”) Expressing curiosity or criticism Agreeing or disagreeing with the text content | If an evaluative comment includes use of prior knowledge to explain it, then the knowledge-based information is coded as Elaborative inference if it is relevant, or Association if it is not relevant to the text content An evaluative comment which includes a connection to previous idea(s) is coded as Connecting inference An evaluative comment which includes text repetition or paraphrases is coded as Evaluative comment |
Supplementary general comments
-
An information unit in a response that matches both the first four, high-level response categories and the last four, low-level response categories is coded according to the high-level response category.
-
Questions that appear in responses (“Which messages?”, “What do the mountains look like?”) are considered as statements and coded accordingly. A response that includes only question words (What, Why, Where) is coded as No response. Critical questions (e.g., “why… would men do this?”, “To call the city?”) are coded as Evaluative comments.
-
Visualizing responses (“I see a picture of…”, “I imagine…”, “I thought about the words…”) are considered as statements and coded accordingly (e.g., “I imagined someone shooting up drugs” in Coca is coded as Association; “I imagined a prophetess sitting on a chair” in Prophetess of Delphi is coded as text repetition).
-
When a participant refers to his or her preceding response using general words such as “the same” or “like I just said”, the preceding response is coded again in relation to the current idea.
-
Do not ascribe intentions to the participants regarding information that have not actually been stated, unless it is totally clear and implied by his/her words. Avoid using your own knowledge or understanding of the text to interpret participant responses.
Appendix 2
An example of one of the experimental texts divided into information units. Underlined are the central units and the peripheral units are in italics. The remaining units are those that received intermediate centrality scores and were not included in the analyses.
The coca plant
-
The coca plant is a common bush in South America.
-
It is a domesticated bush, which reaches a height of 2–3 m.
-
This plant has a variety of uses, some of which were widespread in the past and some that are common today.
-
In ancient times, coca leaves were used mainly as a pain medication.
-
Chewing the coca leaves increased the sensitivity threshold of the sufferer.
-
However, the sufferer did not reach a state of unconsciousness or lose the sense of touch.
-
Also, coca leaves alleviate headaches and dizziness.
-
These pains were caused by living in the oxygen-low environment of the high Andes peaks, since the peaks of the Andes mountains can reach up to 7000 m.
-
The Andean population also used coca leaves as a nutritional supplement.
-
Coca leaves contain a large amount of proteins and vitamins, and therefore the Andean people often consumed them.
-
In addition to the coca leaves, the Andean population also consumed other food products, such as quinoa.
-
These plants are able to grow in the harsh conditions of the Andes.
-
The coca plant also had symbolic and religious meanings among the Andean population.
-
Researchers believe that Andeans believed they had to chew coca leaves when performing religious ceremonies, so that their prayers would be answered.
-
These ceremonies were aimed at local gods, whose identity was different from region to region.
-
Coca leaves also have uses today.
-
It was found that they contain chemicals that have a strong effect on the human brain.
-
These substances include alkaloids and cocaine.
-
This substance is produced from the dangerous cocaine drug.
-
In 1884, cocaine was isolated from the coca plant.
-
Since then it has been associated with the euphoria it evokes.
-
Dependence on cocaine also causes the user to give up food, drink and other necessary activities.
-
Other materials found in Coca are used, among other things, for the production of the Coca-Cola beverage.
-
The drink was invented by a pharmacist named John S. Pemberton in 1886.
-
Today it is the best-selling drink in the United States.
-
Coca-Cola has a lot of political power, and has a great impact on the American economy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yeari, M., Lantin, S. The origin of centrality deficit in text memory and comprehension by poor comprehenders: a think-aloud study. Read Writ 34, 595–625 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10083-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10083-9