They Read, but How Well Do They Understand?: An Empirical Look at the Nuances of Measuring Reading Comprehension

Autor/inn/en	Alonzo, Julie; Basaraba, Deni; Tindal, Gerald; Carriveau, Ronald S.
Titel	They Read, but How Well Do They Understand?: An Empirical Look at the Nuances of Measuring Reading Comprehension
Quelle	In: Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35 (2009) 1, S.34-44 (11 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1534-5084
DOI	10.1177/1534508408330082
Schlagwörter	Reading Comprehension; Phonological Awareness; Emergent Literacy; Evaluation; Reading Achievement; Educational Improvement; Item Response Theory; Elementary Schools; Reading Difficulties; Grade 3; Pilot Projects; Statistical Inference; Statistics + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Leseverstehen; Frühleseunterricht; Evaluierung; Leseleistung; Teaching improvement; Unterrichtsentwicklung; Item-Response-Theorie; Elementary school; Grundschule; Volksschule; Reading difficulty; Leseschwierigkeit; School year 03; 3. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 03; Pilot project; Modellversuch; Pilotprojekt; Inferential statistics; Schließende Statistik; Statistik
Abstract	Much of the literature on reading development focuses on measures of early literacy skills (e.g., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency). Elementary educators interested in improving students' skills in these areas can draw on a wealth of research studies. However, many studies of early literacy skills have not addressed comprehension, obviously an important feature of literacy. The authors used a one-parameter Rasch model to examine the relative difficulty of different multiple-choice reading comprehension items assessing students' literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension of fictional narratives. They also examined the difficulty of questions derived from concepts identified by state content standards as important components of reading comprehension, such as character, prediction, and plot sequence. The findings suggest a curvilinear relationship between literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension, with literal comprehension being the easiest and inferential and evaluative comprehension more challenging. The findings also indicate that assessment objectives differ on the basis of difficulty. Implications of these findings for practice are discussed. (Contains 3 tables.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10