格式有什么关系?三种句法理解测量方法的比较

IF 2 2区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Research in Reading Pub Date : 2023-10-05 DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12438
Jessie Leigh Nielsen, Rikke Vang Christensen, Mads Poulsen
{"title":"格式有什么关系?三种句法理解测量方法的比较","authors":"Jessie Leigh Nielsen,&nbsp;Rikke Vang Christensen,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"What's format got to do with it? A comparison of three syntactic comprehension measures\",\"authors\":\"Jessie Leigh Nielsen,&nbsp;Rikke Vang Christensen,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

研究背景 对句法理解和阅读理解的研究使用了大量的句法理解测试,这些测试的形式差异很大。本研究的目的是考察不同形式的句法理解测试在多大程度上测量了相同的结构。 方法 69 名四年级学生完成了解码、词汇、流畅推理能力、阅读理解等多项测试,以及三项句法理解测试:TROG-2、句子重复测试和侦探小说测试。 结果 句法理解测试之间的共享方差有限,这表明它们只是部分地挖掘了同一结构。此外,与其他句法测试相比,TROG-2 与流畅推理能力的相关性更高。最后,TROG-2 和whodunnit 测试能解释对照组之后阅读理解能力的额外差异,而句子重复则不能。 结论 句法理解测试之间存在重要差异。这既影响了对以往句法理解和阅读理解研究的解释,也影响了未来研究的设计,因为句法理解测试方法的选择可能会直接影响研究结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What's format got to do with it? A comparison of three syntactic comprehension measures

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
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.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information What we have learned about learning to read in a digital age and children's contemporary reading experiences Evidence-based support provided to struggling readers in later primary years in the UK: A scoping review Using orthographic support to reduce the impact of noise on oral vocabulary learning in adults
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1