Psychometric models of individual differences in reading comprehension: A reanalysis of Freed, Hamilton, and Long (2017)

Goring, Sara Anne; Schmank, Christopher J.; Kane, Michael J.; Conway, Andrew R. A.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2021.104221

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A typical example is Freed et al (2017). These authors used the Nelson-Denny reading comprehension test (Forms F and G) and a reading When Goring et al (2021) reanalyzed the data, they obtained a reliability of .47 for both comprehension tests, and also an intercorrelation of .47 between the two tests. When entered into a factor analysis with more than 20 other language tests, the two tests for reading comprehension did not form a distinct factor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validated tests for language research with university students whose native language is English: Tests of vocabulary, general knowledge, author recognition, and reading comprehension

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present five studies aimed at developing an L1 vocabulary test for English-speaking university students. Such a test is useful as an indicator of crystallized intelligence and because vocabulary size correlates well with reading comprehension. In the first study, we tested 100 written words with four answer alternatives, based on Nation's Vocabulary Size Test. Analysis suggested two factors, which we interpreted as the possible existence of two types of difficult words: unknown words for general knowledge and unknown words for specialized knowledge. In Study 2, we attempted to develop a vocabulary test for each type of word, and these tests were then validated in Study 3. Since the test for general words proved too easy for the target population, we improved it in a fourth study by creating and testing more difficult items. Finally, a fifth study was conducted to validate the new test. Unexpectedly, Study 5 found a high correlation (r = .82) between the general knowledge vocabulary test and the specialized knowledge vocabulary test, suggesting that they measure the same latent factor, contrary to our initial assumption. Both tests have high reliability (r > .85) and correlate well (r > .4) with general knowledge, author recognition, and reading comprehension. In addition, a collection of other language tests was used and improved to verify the validity of the vocabulary tests. An exploratory factor analysis of all tests identified three factors (text comprehension, crystallized intelligence, and reading speed), with the vocabulary tests loading on the factor crystallized intelligence, which in turn correlates with reading comprehension. Structural equation modeling confirmed the interpretation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validated tests for language research with university students whose native language is English: Tests of vocabulary, general knowledge, author recognition, and reading comprehension

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These authors used the Nelson-Denny reading comprehension test (Forms F and G) and a comprehension test they designed themselves, based on 10 texts with 10 multiple choice questions each (4 response alternatives). When Goring et al (2021) reanalyzed the data, they obtained reliability of .47 for both comprehension tests, and an intercorrelation of .47 between both tests as well.…”

Section: New Text Comprehension Testmentioning

confidence: 96%

Validated tests for language research with university students: Tests of vocabulary, general knowledge, author recognition, reading comprehension, reading frequency, attention check

Vermeiren

Vandendaele

Brysbaert³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present five studies aimed at developing a new vocabulary test for university students. Such a test isuseful as an indication of crystallized intelligence and because vocabulary size correlates well withreading comprehension. In the first study, a list of 100 words based on Nation’s Vocabulary Size Test waspresented to 195 participants and compared to other tests of crystallized intelligence. Analysis suggestedthe presence of two distinct factors, which we interpreted as evidence for the possible existence of twotypes of difficult words: Unfamiliar words for general knowledge and unfamiliar words for specializedknowledge. In the subsequent studies we tried to develop vocabulary tests for each type of words, at thesame time trying out various reading comprehension tests to use as validation criterion. However, in thefinal study a high correlation (r =.82) was found between our two vocabulary tests, indicating that theymeasure the same latent factor, contrary to our initial assumption. Both tests have high reliability (r >.85) and correlate well (r > .4) with general knowledge, author recognition, and reading comprehension.As part of our research efforts, a collection of new and existing tests was used and (often) improved toverify the validity of the vocabulary tests. An exploratory factor analysis on all tests established 3 factors(text comprehension, crystallized intelligence, and reading rate), with the vocabulary tests loading on thefactor of crystallized intelligence, which in turn correlated with reading comprehension. Structuralequation modeling corroborated the interpretation. We end by providing an overview of the differenttests that were developed or improved throughout the studies. They are freely available for researchpurposes at https://osf.io/ef3s4/.

show abstract

“…Further information about the use of factor analysis and how best to extract the number of factors can be found in Auerswald and Moshagen ( 2019 ), Sellbom and Tellegen ( 2019 ), or Goretzko et al ( 2021 ).…”

Section: The Basics Of Individual Differences Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing and evaluating tasks to measure individual differences in experimental psychology: a tutorial

Brysbaert

2024

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental psychology is witnessing an increase in research on individual differences, which requires the development of new tasks that can reliably assess variations among participants. To do this, cognitive researchers need statistical methods that many researchers have not learned during their training. The lack of expertise can pose challenges not only in designing good, new tasks but also in evaluating tasks developed by others. To bridge the gap, this article provides an overview of test psychology applied to performance tasks, covering fundamental concepts such as standardization, reliability, norming and validity. It provides practical guidelines for developing and evaluating experimental tasks, as well as for combining tasks to better understand individual differences. To further address common misconceptions, the article lists 11 prevailing myths. The purpose of this guide is to provide experimental psychologists with the knowledge and tools needed to conduct rigorous and insightful studies of individual differences.

show abstract

Psychometric models of individual differences in reading comprehension: A reanalysis of Freed, Hamilton, and Long (2017)

Cited by 13 publications

References 73 publications

Validated tests for language research with university students whose native language is English: Tests of vocabulary, general knowledge, author recognition, and reading comprehension

Validated tests for language research with university students whose native language is English: Tests of vocabulary, general knowledge, author recognition, and reading comprehension

Validated tests for language research with university students: Tests of vocabulary, general knowledge, author recognition, reading comprehension, reading frequency, attention check

Designing and evaluating tasks to measure individual differences in experimental psychology: a tutorial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About