Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-26T00:07:00.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2010

Kyle Perkins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fields of reading comprehension per se and second language reading comprehension are vast indeed, and an attempt to survey them will, of necessity, be attenuated in a chapter of this size. As a consequence, I will limit my discussion to six areas: 1) general comments concerning areas of interest in reading research and assessment, 2) the adaptation of a suitable first-language reading comprehension model for second-language assessment, 3) the reliance on a top-down model of reading comprehension, 4) the validity of multiple-choice reading comprehension tests, 5) research on behavioral anchoring, and 6) the testing of reading comprehension in a CAT (Computer Adaptive Testing) context.

Type
Assessing Language Abilities
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 18 , March 1998 , pp. 208 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Assessment Systems Corporation. 1992. RASCAL Rasch Analysis Program (Version 3.5)(computer program). St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.Google Scholar
Boldt, R. F. and Perkins, K.. In preparation. Interpreting TOEFL scores using anchors. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Connor, U. and Read, C.. 1978. Passage dependency in ESL reading comprehension tests. Language Learning. 28.149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. and Furby, L.. 1970. How should we measure “change”—Or should we? Psychological Bulletin. 74.68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, R. and Smith, C. B.. 1970. The effects of test item validity on total test reliability and validity. In Schick, G. and May, M. M. (eds.) Reading: Process and pedagogy: 19th yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Volume 1. Milwaukee: Marquette University Reading Center. 122–134.Google Scholar
Freedle, R. and Kostin, I.. 1991. The prediction of SAT reading comprehension item difficulty for expository prose passages. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. [ETS Research Report RR-91–59.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gantzer, J. 1996. Do reading tests match reading theory? College ESL. 6.1.29–48.Google Scholar
Grabe, W. 1991. Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly. 25.375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A.. 1987. The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Katz, S. and Lautenschlager, G. J.. 1995. The SAT reading task in question: Reply to Freedle and Kostin. Psychological Science. 6.2.126–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review. 95.163–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kintsch, W. and Miller, J. R.. 1984. Readability: A view from cognitive psychology. In Flood, J. (ed.) Understanding reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 220–232.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J. 1993. Foundations of a new test theory. In Frederiksen, N., Mislevy, R. J., and Bejar, I. (eds.) Test theory for a new generation of tests. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum. 13–39.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J. 1996. Test theory reconceived. Journal of Educational Measurement. 33.379–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, D. 1990. Connectionism: A case for modularity. In Balota, D., d'Arcais, G. Flores, and Rayner, K. (eds.) Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum. 331–343.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. 1985. Reading ability. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.) Human abilities: An information-processing approach. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. 59–81.Google Scholar
Perkins, K. and Brutten, S. R.. In preparation. The effect of proficiency level on item difficulty, reliability, reproducibility, and dimensionality in a second language reading comprehension test. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
Perkins, K. and Gass, S. M.. 1996. An investigation of patterns of discontinous learning: Implications for ESL measurement. Language Testing. 13.63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, K. and Jones, B.. 1985. Measuring passage contribution in ESL reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly. 19.137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyrczak, F. 1972. Objective evaluation of the quality of multiple-choice test items designed to measure comprehension of reading passages. Reading Research Quarterly. 8.62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. and Bertera, J. H.. 1979. Reading without a fovea. Science. 206.468–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A.. 1989. The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosenblatt, L. M. 1986. The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education. 20.4.122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shermis, M. D. 1989. HyperCAT (computer program). Indianapolis: Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, Testing Center.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. 1980. Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly. 16.32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. 1991. Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. and Pearson, P. D. (eds.) Handbook of reading research. Volume 2. New York: Longman. 418–452.Google Scholar
Tuinmann, J. J. 1973–1974. Determining the passage dependency of comprehension questions in 5 major tests. Reading Research Quarterly. 9.206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. and Perkins, K.. 1995. Cognition and conation in second language acquisition theory. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 33.2.142–164.Google Scholar
Young, R., Shermis, M. D., Brutten, S. R. and Perkins, K.. 1996. From conventional to computer-adaptive testing of reading comprehension. System. 24.23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. 1994. Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition. 20.920–933.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R., Langston, M. C. and Graesser, A. C.. 1995. The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science. 6.292–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R., Langston, M. C. and A, G.. Radvansky. In press. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin.Google Scholar