{"title":"What's format got to do with it? A comparison of three syntactic comprehension measures","authors":"Jessie Leigh Nielsen, Rikke Vang Christensen, Mads Poulsen","doi":"10.1111/1467-9817.12438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Studies of syntactic comprehension and reading comprehension use a wide range of syntactic comprehension tests that vary considerably in format. The goal of this study was to examine to which extent different formats of syntactic comprehension tests measure the same construct.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Sixty-nine Grade 4 students completed multiple tests of decoding, vocabulary, fluid-reasoning skill, reading comprehension and three tests of syntactic comprehension: the TROG-2, a sentence repetition test and a whodunnit test.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There was limited shared variance between the syntactic comprehension tests, indicating that they only partially tapped into the same construct. Furthermore, the TROG-2 was more highly correlated with fluid-reasoning skill than the other syntax tests. Finally, the TROG-2 and the whodunnit test explained additional variance in reading comprehension after controls, while sentence repetition did not.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>There are important differences between syntactic comprehension tests. This has consequences both for the interpretation of previous studies of syntactic comprehension and reading comprehension and for the design of future studies as the choice of syntactic comprehension measure may directly influence the results of the study.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47611,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Reading","volume":"47 1","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Reading","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9817.12438","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Studies of syntactic comprehension and reading comprehension use a wide range of syntactic comprehension tests that vary considerably in format. The goal of this study was to examine to which extent different formats of syntactic comprehension tests measure the same construct.
Methods
Sixty-nine Grade 4 students completed multiple tests of decoding, vocabulary, fluid-reasoning skill, reading comprehension and three tests of syntactic comprehension: the TROG-2, a sentence repetition test and a whodunnit test.
Results
There was limited shared variance between the syntactic comprehension tests, indicating that they only partially tapped into the same construct. Furthermore, the TROG-2 was more highly correlated with fluid-reasoning skill than the other syntax tests. Finally, the TROG-2 and the whodunnit test explained additional variance in reading comprehension after controls, while sentence repetition did not.
Conclusions
There are important differences between syntactic comprehension tests. This has consequences both for the interpretation of previous studies of syntactic comprehension and reading comprehension and for the design of future studies as the choice of syntactic comprehension measure may directly influence the results of the study.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Research in Reading provides an international forum for researchers into literacy. It is a refereed journal, principally devoted to reports of empirical studies in reading and related fields, and to informed reviews of relevant literature. The journal welcomes papers researching issues related to the learning, teaching and use of literacy in a variety of contexts; papers on the history and development of literacy; papers about policy and strategy for literacy as related to children and adults. Journal of Research in Reading encourages papers within any research paradigm and from researchers in any relevant field such as anthropology, cultural studies, education, history of education, language and linguistics, philosophy, psychology and sociology.