Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnosing comprehension deficits through listening and reading

  • Part II The Research Front
  • Published:
Annals of Dyslexia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assessment of students with reading comprehension difficulties should include measurement of both listening and reading comprehension of extended discourse in order to begin to identify the reason or reasons for their deficits. The problems of developing an effective comprehension test are discussed. An experimental screening test, Profiles in Listening and Reading (PILAR), is presented as one approach to assessing comprehension. Its potential as a screening and diagnostic test is considered, using students’ profiles from two studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaron, P. G. 1987. Developmental dyslexia: Is it different from other forms of reading disability?Annals of Dyslexia 37:109–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, N. 1978. Why can’t Johnny read? Perhaps he’s not a good listener.Journal of Learning Disabilities 11:633–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R., and Franks, J. J. 1972. Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach.Cognitive Psychology 3:193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calfee, R., Spector, J., and Piontkowski, D. 1979. Assessing reading and language skills: An interactive system.Bulletin of the Orton Society 29, 129–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. F. In press a. Diagnostic assessment of listening and reading comprehension.In H. L. Swanson and B. Keogh (eds.).Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

  • Carlisle, J. F. In press b. The use of the sentence verification technique in diagnostic assessment of listening and reading comprehension.Learning Disabilities Research.

  • Carlisle, J. F. and Felbinger, L. 1989.Identification of comprehension deficits using a sentence verification test. Unpublished paper, Northwestern University.

  • Carroll, J. B. 1977. Developing parameters of reading comprehension.In J. T. Guthrie (ed).Cognition, Curriculum, and Comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., and Richman, B. 1971.Word Frequency Book. NY: American Heritage Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, M. E. 1980. Development of components of reading skill.Journal of Educational Psychology 72(5):767–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danks, J. and Pezdek, K. 1980.Reading and Understanding. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey, B. 1987. Postpassage questions: Task and reader effects on comprehension and metacomprehension processes.Journal of Reading Behavior 19(3):261–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durrell, D. D. 1955.Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty. NY: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durrell, D. D. 1970.Durrell Listening-Reading Series. NY: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S. and Thomas, C. C. 1987. Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students.Learning Disability Quarterly 10(2):93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farr, R. and Carey, R. F. 1986.Reading: What can be measured? (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., and Maxwell, L. 1988. The validity of informal reading comprehension measures.Remedial and Special Education 9(2):20–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • German, D., Johnson, B., and Schneider, M. 1985. Learning disability versus reading disability: A survey of practitioners diagnostic populations and test instruments.Learning Disability Quarterly 8:141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinchley, J. and Levy, B. H. 1988. Developmental and individual differences in reading comprehension.Cognition and Instruction 5(1):3–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, R. and Samuels, S. J. 1985. Reading and listening to expository text.Journal of Reading Behavior 27(3):185–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Idol, L. 1988. Johnny can’t read: Does the fault lie with the book, the teacher, or Johnny?Remedial and Special Education 9(1):8–25, 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jastak, S. and Wilkinson, G. S. 1984.The Wide Range Achievement Test—Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, P. 1983.Reading Comprehension Assessment: A cognitive basis. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, P. 1984. Assessment in reading.In P. D. Pearson (ed.).Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsen, B., Madden, R., and Gardner, E. F. 1976.Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Brown level: Manual for administering and interpreting. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibby, M. W. 1981. Test review: The Degrees of Reading Power.Journal of Reading 24(5):416–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, M. W. 1984. The search for subtypes of specific reading disability: Reflections from a cognitive perspective.Annals of Dyslexia 34:155–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGinitie, W. H. 1978.Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Level E (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maria, K. and MacGinitie, W. H. 1982. Reading comprehension disabilities: Knowledge structures and non-accommodating text processing strategies.Annals of Dyslexia 32:33–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium. 1982. Finding readability levels.School utilities Vol 2.

  • Paris, S. G. and Carter, A. Y. 1973. Semantic and constructive aspects of sentence memory in children.Developmental Psychology 9:109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. 1985.Reading Ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. and Roth, S. F. 1981. Some of the interactive processes in reading and their role in reading skill.In A. M. Lesgold and C. A. Perfetti (eds.).Interactive Processes in Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasool, J. M. and Royer, J. M. 1986. Assessment of reading comprehension using the Sentence Verification Technique: Evidence from narrative and descriptive texts.Journal of Educational Research 79(3):180–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, S. V. 1980. Skill hierarchies in reading comprehension.In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, and W. F. Brewer (eds.).Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royer, J. M. 1986.The sentence verification technique as a measure of comprehension: Validity, reliability, and practicality. University of Massachusetts, unpublished paper.

  • Royer, J. M., Greene, B. H., and Sinatra, G. W. February 1987. The sentence verification technique: A practical procedure for testing comprehension.Journal of Reading 414–422.

  • Royer, J. M., Hastings, C. N., and Hook, C. 1979. A sentence verification technique for measuring reading comprehension.Journal of Reading Behavior 11(4):355–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royer, J. M., Kulhavy, R. W., Lee, S., and Peterson, S. E. 1986. The relationship between reading and listening comprehension.Educational and Psychological Research 6:299–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, A. 1980. A theoretical taxonomy of the differences between oral and written language.In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, and W. F. Brewer (eds.).Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. S. 1974. Memory in reading and listening to discourse.Memory and Cognition 2(1A):95–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvia, J. and Ysseldyke, J. E. 1988.Assessment in Special and Remedial Education (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, S. J. 1987. Factors that influence listening and reading comprehension.In R. Horowitz and S. J. Samuels (eds.).Comprehending Oral and Written Language. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spearritt, D. 1972. Identification of subskills of reading comprehension by maximum likelihood factor analysis.Reading Research Quarterly 8:92–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J. 1980. Constructive processes in prose comprehension and recall.In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, and W. F. Brewer (eds.).Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. 1984. The interactive-compensatory model of reading: A confluence of developmental, experimental, and educational psychology.Remedial and Special Education 5(3):11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sticht, T. 1979. Applications of the audread model to reading evaluation and instruction.In L. B. Resnick and P. A. Weaver (eds.).Theory and Practice of Early Reading, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sticht, T. G. and James, H. J. 1984. Listening and reading.In P. D. Pearson (ed.).Handbook of Reading Research. NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. and Samuels, S. J. 1983. Children’s use of text structures in the recall of expository material.American Educational Research Journal 20:517–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. L. 1984.Assessment of Exceptional Students: Educational and psychological procedures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, R. L. 1973. Reading as reasoning.Reading Research Quarterly 9:135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, R. L. and Hagen, E. 1971.Cognitive Abilities Test. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valencia, S. W. and Pearson, P. D. 1988. Principles of classroom comprehension assessment.Remedial and Special Education 9(1):26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, T. A., Buckhalt, J. A., and Tomlin, J. E. 1988. A comparison of listening and reading performance with children in three educational placements.Journal of Learning Disabilities 21(8):493–502.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

    Joanne F. Carlisle

Authors
  1. Joanne F. Carlisle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The second research study reported was supported by a grant from Northwestern University Research Grants Committee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carlisle, J.F. Diagnosing comprehension deficits through listening and reading. Annals of Dyslexia 39, 159–176 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02656907

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02656907

Keywords

Search

Navigation