Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 199–204 | Cite as

Assessing the format of the presentation of text in developing a Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (R-SAT)

  • Sara GilliamEmail author
  • Joseph P. Magliano
  • Keith K. Millis
  • Irwin Levinstein
  • Chutima Boonthum
Articles From the SCiP Conference


We are constructing a new computerized test of reading comprehension called the Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (R-SAT). R-SAT elicits and analyzes verbal protocols that readers generate in response to questions as they read texts. We examined whether the amount of information available to the reader when reading and answering questions influenced the extent to which R-SAT accounts for comprehension. We found that R-SAT was most predictive of comprehension when the readers did not have access to the text as they answered questions.


Reading Comprehension Latent Semantic Analysis Target Sentence Reading Strategy Direct Question 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, R., &Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanation: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.Cognitive Science,13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Christian, P. (1998, March). Soundex—can it be improved?Computers in Genealogy, 6(5).Google Scholar
  3. Cordón, L. A., &Day, J. D. (1996). Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests.Journal of Educational Psychology,88, 288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coté, N., &Goldman, S. R. (1999). Building representations of informational text: Evidence from children’s think-aloud protocols. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman(Eds.),The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Ericsson, K. A., &Simon, H. A. (1993).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory.Psychological Review,99, 122–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Magliano, J. P., &Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis.Cognition & Instruction,21, 251–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Gilliam, S., Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2006).Assessing the Reading Strategy Assessment Tool. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
  9. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2005).Developing the Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (R-SAT). Presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Society for Computers in Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Magliano, J. P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Millis, K. K., Muñoz, B. D., &McNamara, D. S. (2002). Using latent semantic analysis to assess reader strategies.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,34, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., &Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36, 222–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Millis, K. K., Kim, H. J., Todaro, S., Magliano, J. P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., &McNamara, D. S. (2004). Identifying reading strategies using latent semantic analysis: Comparing semantic benchmarks.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Millis, K. K., Magliano, J. P., &Todaro, S. (2006). Measuring discourse-level processes with verbal protocols and latent semantic analysis.Scientific Studies of Reading,10, 251–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Millis, K. [K.], Magliano, J [P.]., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Todaro, S., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). Assessing and improving comprehension with Latent Semantic Analysis. In T. Landaulet, D. S. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (edEds.),Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Muñoz, B., Magliano, J. P., Sheridan, R., &McNamara, D. S. (2006). Typing versus thinking aloud when reading: Implications for computer-based assessment and training tools.Behavior Research Methods,38, 211–217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pressley, M., &Afflerbach, P. (1995).Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Snow, C. E. (2002).Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Pittsburgh: Rand.Google Scholar
  18. Todaro, S., Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2006).Understanding factors that influence the content and form of verbal protocols: The roles of the reader and the text. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  19. Trabasso, T., &Magliano, J. P. (1996a). Conscious understanding during comprehension.Discourse Processes,21, 255–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Trabasso, T., &Magliano, J. P. (1996b). How do children understand what they read and what can we do to help them? In M. Graves, P. van den Broek, & B. Taylor (Eds.),The first R: A right of all children (pp. 158–181). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Whitney, P., &Budd, D. (1996). Think-aloud protocols and the study of comprehension.Discourse Processes,21, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zwaan, R. A., &Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction.Discourse Processes,21, 289–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Gilliam
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joseph P. Magliano
    • 1
  • Keith K. Millis
    • 1
  • Irwin Levinstein
    • 2
  • Chutima Boonthum
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthern Illinois UniversityDek alb
  2. 2.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolk

Personalised recommendations