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, 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":"{\"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}","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

Journal of Research in Reading Multiple-

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

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.