Issues in Identifying Poor Comprehenders.

Pub Date : 2014-12-01 DOI:10.4074/S0003503314004072
Janice M Keenan, Anh N Hua, Chelsea E Meenan, Bruce F Pennington, Erik Willcutt, Richard K Olson
{"title":"Issues in Identifying Poor Comprehenders.","authors":"Janice M Keenan,&nbsp;Anh N Hua,&nbsp;Chelsea E Meenan,&nbsp;Bruce F Pennington,&nbsp;Erik Willcutt,&nbsp;Richard K Olson","doi":"10.4074/S0003503314004072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Studies of poor comprehenders vary in the selection criteria and tests that they use to define poor comprehension. Could these differences play a role in determining findings about poor comprehension? This study assessed the extent to which differences in selection methods affect who gets identified as poor comprehenders, and examined how their cognitive profiles differ. Over 1,500 children, ages 8 - 19, took multiple tests of reading comprehension, listening comprehension, single word reading and nonword reading. Poor comprehension was defined by performing in the low-tail and by discrepancies either with word or nonword reading. Odds of any two selection methods identifying the same individuals were generally low, and depended on type of comprehension test more than modality, as well as selection criteria, and comprehender's age. Poor comprehenders selected by the different methods were found to vary in IQ, working memory, but not attention. The findings show that differences across studies in tests and selection criteria used to define poor comprehension are not insignificant and can have substantial consequences for what is meant by poor comprehension and its associated deficits.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4074/S0003503314004072","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503314004072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

Studies of poor comprehenders vary in the selection criteria and tests that they use to define poor comprehension. Could these differences play a role in determining findings about poor comprehension? This study assessed the extent to which differences in selection methods affect who gets identified as poor comprehenders, and examined how their cognitive profiles differ. Over 1,500 children, ages 8 - 19, took multiple tests of reading comprehension, listening comprehension, single word reading and nonword reading. Poor comprehension was defined by performing in the low-tail and by discrepancies either with word or nonword reading. Odds of any two selection methods identifying the same individuals were generally low, and depended on type of comprehension test more than modality, as well as selection criteria, and comprehender's age. Poor comprehenders selected by the different methods were found to vary in IQ, working memory, but not attention. The findings show that differences across studies in tests and selection criteria used to define poor comprehension are not insignificant and can have substantial consequences for what is meant by poor comprehension and its associated deficits.

分享
查看原文
识别不良理解者的问题。
对理解能力差的研究在选择标准和测试上各不相同,这些标准和测试用来定义理解能力差。这些差异会在决定理解能力差的结果中发挥作用吗?这项研究评估了选择方法的差异在多大程度上影响了谁被认定为理解能力差的人,并检查了他们的认知概况有何不同。1500多名8 - 19岁的儿童参加了阅读理解、听力理解、单词阅读和非词阅读的多项测试。理解能力差的定义是表现在低尾,以及单词或非单词阅读的差异。任何两种选择方法识别相同个体的几率通常都很低,并且更多地取决于理解测试的类型而不是方式,以及选择标准和理解者的年龄。研究发现,通过不同方法选出的理解能力差的人在智商、工作记忆方面存在差异,但在注意力方面没有差异。研究结果表明,不同研究在测试和用于定义理解能力差的选择标准上的差异并非微不足道,而且可能对理解能力差及其相关缺陷的含义产生重大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信