Reading and Writing

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 349–379 | Cite as

Examining the structure of reading comprehension: do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist?

  • Deni Basaraba
  • Paul Yovanoff
  • Julie Alonzo
  • Gerald Tindal
Article

Abstract

Although the recent identification of the five critical components of early literacy has been a catalyst for modifications to the content of materials used to provide reading instruction and the tools used to examine student’s acquisition of early literacy skills, these skills have not received equal attention from test developers and publishers. In particular, a review of early literacy available measures for screening and monitoring students reveals a dearth of tools for examining different facets of reading comprehension. The purposes of this study were twofold: (a) to examine the relative difficulty of items written to assess literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension, and (b) to compare single factor and bifactor models of reading comprehension to determine if items written to assess students’ literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension abilities comprise unique measurement factors. Data from approximately 2,400 fifth grade students collected in the fall, winter, and spring of fifth grader were used to examine these questions. Findings indicated that (a) the relative difficulty of item types may be curvilinear, with literal items being significantly less challenging than inferential and evaluative items, and (b) literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension measurement factors explained unique portions of variance in addition to a general reading comprehension factor. Instructional implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords

Reading comprehension Assessment Elementary reading 

References

  1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Allington, R. L., Chodos, L., Domaracki, J., & Trueax, S. (1977). Passage dependency: Four diagnostic oral reading tests. The Reading Teacher, 30, 369–375.Google Scholar
  3. Alonzo, J., Basaraba, D., Tindal, G., & Carriveau, R. (2009). They read, but how well do they understand? An empirical look at the nuances of measuring reading comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alonzo, J., Liu, K., & Tindal, G. (2007). Examining the technical adequacy of reading comprehension measures in a progress monitoring assessment system. Technical report #41. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  5. Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2008). Examining the technical adequacy of fifth-grade reading comprehension measures in a progress monitoring assessment system. Technical report no. 0808. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  6. Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009). Alternate form and testretest reliability of easyCBM reading measures. Technical report no. 0906. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  7. Alonzo, J., Tindal, G., Ulmer, K., & Glasgow, A. (2006). easyCBM online progress monitoring assessment system. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Assessment Accountability. Available at http://easycbm.com.
  8. Anderson, R. C. (2004). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (5th ed., pp. 594–619). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  9. Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011a). easyCBM reading criterion related validity evidence: Oregon state test 20092010. Technical report no. 1103. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  10. Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011b). easyCBM reading criterion related validity evidence: Washington state test 20092010. Technical report no. 1101. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  11. Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., & Applegate, A. J. (2002). Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in informal inventories. The Reading Teacher, 56, 174–180.Google Scholar
  12. Ardoin, S. P., Williams, J. C., Christ, T. J., Klubnik, C., & Wellborn, C. (2010). Examining readability estimates’ predictions of students’ oral reading rate: Spache, Lexile, and Forcast. School Psychology Review, 39, 277–285.Google Scholar
  13. Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumption underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language & Communication, 21, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Fien, H., Seeley, J. R., Kame’enui, E. J., et al. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high-poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37.Google Scholar
  15. Basaraba, D., Travers, P., & Chaparro, E. (February, 2011). Application of Ehri’s theory: Instructional implications of students’ decoding skills. Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychology annual conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boulineau, T., Fore, C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bozdogan, H. (2000). Akaike’s information criterion and recent developments in information complexity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 62–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bruce, B., & Rubin, A. (1988). Readability formulas: Matching tool and task. In A. Davison & G. M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered (pp. 5–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., Lee, V. E., & LoGerfo, L. F. (2004). Social-class differences in summer learning between kindergarten and first grade: Model specification and estimation. Sociology of Education, 77, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bus, A. G., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29, 850–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Campbell, J. R. (2005). Single instrument, multiple measures: Considering the use of multiple item formats to assess reading comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 347–368). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Merrill.Google Scholar
  26. Chard, D. J., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1998). Word recognition: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (pp. 141–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chikalanga, I. (1992). A suggested taxonomy of inferences for the reading teacher. Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 697–709.Google Scholar
  29. Christ, T. J., & Ardoin, S. P. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Passage equivalence and probe-set development. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davey, B. (1988). Factors affecting the difficulty of reading comprehension items for successful and unsuccessful readers. Journal of Experimental Education, 56, 67–75.Google Scholar
  32. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.Google Scholar
  33. Dimino, J., Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Blake, G. (1990). Story grammar: An approach for promoting at-risk secondary students’ comprehension of literature. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264.Google Scholar
  35. Duran, N. D., McCarthy, P. M., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Using temporal cohesion to predict temporal coherence in narrative and expository texts. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Durkin, D. (1989). Teaching them to read (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  37. Fien, H., Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Mercier Smith, J. L., Kame’enui, E. J., & Thomas Beck, C. (2008). Using nonsense word fluency to predict reading proficiency in kindergarten through second grade for English learners and native English speakers. School Psychology Review, 37, 391–408.Google Scholar
  38. Fitzgerald, T. P., & Fitzgerald, E. F. (1978). A cross-cultural study of three measures of comprehension at the primary and intermediate levels. Educational Research Quarterly, 3, 84–89.Google Scholar
  39. Fox, E. (2002). The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational text. Review of Educational Research, 79, 197–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Francis, D. J., Santi, K. L., Barr, C., Fletcher, J. M., Varisco, A., & Foorman, B. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students’ oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1999). Does the text matter in a multiple-choice test of comprehension? The case for the construct validity of TOEFL’s mini talks. Language Testing, 16(2), 2–32.Google Scholar
  42. Gernsbacher, M. A., Robertson, R. R., Palladino, P., & Werner, N. K. (2004). Managing mental representations during narrative comprehension. Discourse Processes, 5, 53–72.Google Scholar
  43. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. K. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gibbons, R. D., Bock, R. D., Hedeker, D., Weiss, D. J., Segawa, E., Bhaumik, D. K., et al. (2006). Full information item bifactor analysis of graded response data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gibbons, R. D., & Hedeker, D. R. (1992). Full-information item bifactor analysis. Psychometrika, 57, 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Good, R. H., Baker, S. K., & Peyton, J. A. (2009). Making sense of nonsense word fluency: Determining adequate progress in early first-grade reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 33–56. doi:10.1080/1058/3560802491224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2011). DIBELS next assessment manual. Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.Google Scholar
  48. Good, R., Simmons, D., & Kame’enui, E. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Reading Studies, 5, 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Harn, B. A., Stoolmiller, M., & Chard, D. J. (2008). Measuring the dimensions of alphabetic principle on the reading development of first graders: The role of automaticity and unitization. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Herber, H. L. (1970). Teaching reading in the content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  53. Kendall, J. R., Mason, J. M., & Hunter, W. (1980). Which comprehension? Artifacts in the measurement of reading comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 73, 233–236.Google Scholar
  54. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  57. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1983). Teaching reading to every child. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  59. Lawrence, J. F. (2011). English vocabulary trajectories of students whose parents speak a language other than English: Steep trajectories and sharp summer setback. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9305-z.
  60. Leu, D. J., & Kinzer, C. K. (1999). Effective literacy instruction (K-8) (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  61. Masson, M. E., & Miller, J. A. (1983). Working memory and individual differences in comprehension and memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 314–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McCoach, D. B., O’Connell, A. A., Reis, S. M., & Levitt, H. A. (2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model on children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McCormick, S. (1992). Disabled readers’ erroneous responses to inferential comprehension questions: Description and analyses. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 54–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McNamara, D. S. (1997). Comprehension skill: A knowledge-based account. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 508–513). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  65. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of reading comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus: Statistical Analysis with latent variables (version 5.21). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  67. Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248–265). Oxford, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for instruction: Reports of the subgroups. NIH publication no. 00-4754. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Also available on-line: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm.
  69. National Research Council. (1998). Organizational strategies for kindergarten and the primary grades. In C. E. Snow, M. S. Burns, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  70. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Reading first, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).Google Scholar
  71. Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children’s reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Otero, J., Léon, J. A., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2002). The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  74. Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 815–860). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  75. Pearson, P. D., & Hamm, D. N. (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. 13–70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  76. Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  77. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoart (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167–208). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rupley, W. H., & Blair, T. R. (1983). Reading diagnosis and remediation: Classroom and clinic (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  82. Rupley, W. H., & Willson, V. L. (1996). Content, domain, and word knowledge: Relationship to comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 419–432.Google Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Saéz, L., Park, B., Nese, J. F., Jamgochian, E., Lai, C-F., Anderson, D., et al. (2011). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (grades 37), 20092010 version. Technical report #1005. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  85. Sarroub, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1998). Two steps forward, three steps back: The stormy history of reading comprehension assessment. The Clearinghouse, 72, 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Shinn, M. R., & Shinn, M. M (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading MAZE for use in general outcomes measurement. Retrieved August 25, 2011 from http://www.aimsweb.com/uploads/pdfs/scoring_maze.pdf.
  87. Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Simms, L. J., Grös, D. F., Watson, D., & O’Hara, M. W. (2008). Parsing the general and specific components of depression and anxiety with bifactor modeling. Depression and Anxiety, 25, E34–E46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Smith, S. B., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1998). Phonological awareness: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (pp. 61–128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  90. Snider, V. E. (Fall 1988). The role of prior knowledge in reading comprehension: A test with LD adolescents. Direct Instruction News, 6–11.Google Scholar
  91. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  92. Stothard, S. E., & Hulme, C. (1996). A comparison of reading comprehension and decoding difficulties in children. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 93–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  93. Swanson, H. L., & O’Connor, R. E. (2009). The role of working memory and fluency training on reading comprehension in children who are dysfluent readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 548–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sweet, A. P. (2005). Assessment of reading comprehension: The RAND reading study group vision. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  95. Tal, N. F., Siegel, L. S., & Maraun, M. (1994). The role of question type and reading ability in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Taylor, S. E., Frackenpohl, H., & White, C. E. (1989). EDL core vocabularies in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. Orlando, FL: Steck-Vaughn.Google Scholar
  98. Tuinman, J. J. (1973). Determining the passage dependency of comprehension questions in 5 major tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 9, 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tun, P. A. (1989). Age differences in processing expository and narrative text. Journal of Gerontology, 44, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Vacca, J., Vacca, R. T., & Gove, M. K. (1987). Reading and learning to read. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.Google Scholar
  101. Vacca, J. L., Vacca, R. T., Gove, M. K., Burkey, L. C., Lenhart, L. A., & McKeon, C. A. (2009). Reading and learning to read (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  102. van den Bergh, H. (1990). On the construct validity of multiple-choice items for reading comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. P., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001a). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. van den Broek, P., Tzeng, Y., Risden, K., Trabasso, T., & Basche, P. (2001b). Inferential questioning: Effects of comprehension of narrative texts as a function of grade and timing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  106. Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 230–244). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  107. Wood, R., Wilson, D. T., Gibbons, R., Schilling, S., Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (2003). TESTFACT 4 for windows: Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis (computer software). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
  108. Yovanoff, P., Duesbery, L., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2005). Grade-level invariance of a theoretical causal structure predicting reading comprehension with vocabulary and oral reading fluency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Zvoch, K. (2009). A longitudinal examination of the academic year and summer learning rates of full- and half-day kindergarteners. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14, 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Zwaan, R. A., & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zwaan, R. A., Radvansky, G. A., Hilliard, A. E., & Curiel, J. M. (1998). Constructing multidimensional situation models during reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deni Basaraba
    • 1
  • Paul Yovanoff
    • 2
  • Julie Alonzo
    • 3
  • Gerald Tindal
    • 3
  1. 1.Center on Teaching and LearningUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education and Human DevelopmentSouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  3. 3.Behavioral Research and TeachingUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations