文本阅读与阅读理解之间的关系是发展阶段、正字法深度和测量特征的函数:来自元分析的证据。

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Journal of Educational Psychology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1037/edu0000932
Molly Leachman, Alissa Wolters, Young-Suk Grace Kim
{"title":"文本阅读与阅读理解之间的关系是发展阶段、正字法深度和测量特征的函数:来自元分析的证据。","authors":"Molly Leachman, Alissa Wolters, Young-Suk Grace Kim","doi":"10.1037/edu0000932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We examined the relation between text reading fluency and reading comprehension, and moderators of the relation, including grade level, orthographic depth, and assessment task type (for text reading: text reading efficiency, accuracy, rate, sentence verification, maze; for reading comprehension: e.g., multiple-choice, oral retell, cloze), using a meta-analysis. Results from 401 studies (1,253 effect sizes; 266,880 participants) showed that across different types of text reading and reading comprehension tasks, text reading was strongly related with reading comprehension (<i>r</i> = .61, or .70 when correcting for measurement error) while text reading efficiency had a stronger relation (.65) than text reading accuracy (.59) or text reading rate (.54). Furthermore, the correlation differed by grade level and orthographic depth: .73 in primary grades, .69 in upper elementary grades, .59 in middle school, .54 in high school, and .44 for adults in deep orthographies, compared to .69 in primary grades, .52 in upper elementary grades, .42 in middle school, and .29 in high school in shallow orthographies. The maze and sentence verification tasks were more strongly related to measures of text reading than to reading comprehension measures. The magnitude of relation differed by measurement approaches: text reading measured by text reading efficiency and maze tasks had the strongest relation with reading comprehension; text reading had stronger relations with reading comprehension measured by the multiple-choice, the cloze task, and oral open-ended tasks than the written open-ended and retell tasks. The patterns of relations were the same when correcting for measurement error, although magnitudes were generally stronger.</p>","PeriodicalId":48459,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Psychology","volume":"117 3","pages":"508-528"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490762/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Relation Between Text Reading and Reading Comprehension Varies as a Function of Developmental Phase, Orthographic Depth, and Measurement Characteristics: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Molly Leachman, Alissa Wolters, Young-Suk Grace Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/edu0000932\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We examined the relation between text reading fluency and reading comprehension, and moderators of the relation, including grade level, orthographic depth, and assessment task type (for text reading: text reading efficiency, accuracy, rate, sentence verification, maze; for reading comprehension: e.g., multiple-choice, oral retell, cloze), using a meta-analysis. Results from 401 studies (1,253 effect sizes; 266,880 participants) showed that across different types of text reading and reading comprehension tasks, text reading was strongly related with reading comprehension (<i>r</i> = .61, or .70 when correcting for measurement error) while text reading efficiency had a stronger relation (.65) than text reading accuracy (.59) or text reading rate (.54). Furthermore, the correlation differed by grade level and orthographic depth: .73 in primary grades, .69 in upper elementary grades, .59 in middle school, .54 in high school, and .44 for adults in deep orthographies, compared to .69 in primary grades, .52 in upper elementary grades, .42 in middle school, and .29 in high school in shallow orthographies. The maze and sentence verification tasks were more strongly related to measures of text reading than to reading comprehension measures. The magnitude of relation differed by measurement approaches: text reading measured by text reading efficiency and maze tasks had the strongest relation with reading comprehension; text reading had stronger relations with reading comprehension measured by the multiple-choice, the cloze task, and oral open-ended tasks than the written open-ended and retell tasks. The patterns of relations were the same when correcting for measurement error, although magnitudes were generally stronger.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Psychology\",\"volume\":\"117 3\",\"pages\":\"508-528\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490762/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000932\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000932","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们通过荟萃分析检验了文本阅读流畅性与阅读理解之间的关系,以及这种关系的调节因素,包括年级水平、正字法深度和评估任务类型(文本阅读:文本阅读效率、准确性、速度、句子验证、迷宫;阅读理解:多项选择、口头复述、完形填空)。401项研究(1253个效应量,266880名参与者)的结果表明,在不同类型的文本阅读和阅读理解任务中,文本阅读与阅读理解密切相关(r = 0.61, or)。而文本阅读效率(0.65)与文本阅读准确性(0.59)或文本阅读率(0.54)的关系更强。此外,年级水平和正字法深度的相关性存在差异。小学73名。小学高年级69分。在中学,59岁。高中54岁,还有。在深度正字法中,成年人为44,相比之下。小学69年级。小学高年级52分。中学42岁,还有。高中时学的是浅层正字法。迷宫和句子验证任务与文本阅读测验的关系比与阅读理解测验的关系更强。不同的测量方法对这种关系的影响程度不同:通过文本阅读效率和迷宫任务测量的文本阅读与阅读理解的关系最强;文本阅读与多项选择、完形填空和口头开放性任务的阅读理解之间的关系比书面开放性任务和复述任务更强。在校正测量误差时,关系的模式是相同的,尽管幅度通常更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Relation Between Text Reading and Reading Comprehension Varies as a Function of Developmental Phase, Orthographic Depth, and Measurement Characteristics: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis.

We examined the relation between text reading fluency and reading comprehension, and moderators of the relation, including grade level, orthographic depth, and assessment task type (for text reading: text reading efficiency, accuracy, rate, sentence verification, maze; for reading comprehension: e.g., multiple-choice, oral retell, cloze), using a meta-analysis. Results from 401 studies (1,253 effect sizes; 266,880 participants) showed that across different types of text reading and reading comprehension tasks, text reading was strongly related with reading comprehension (r = .61, or .70 when correcting for measurement error) while text reading efficiency had a stronger relation (.65) than text reading accuracy (.59) or text reading rate (.54). Furthermore, the correlation differed by grade level and orthographic depth: .73 in primary grades, .69 in upper elementary grades, .59 in middle school, .54 in high school, and .44 for adults in deep orthographies, compared to .69 in primary grades, .52 in upper elementary grades, .42 in middle school, and .29 in high school in shallow orthographies. The maze and sentence verification tasks were more strongly related to measures of text reading than to reading comprehension measures. The magnitude of relation differed by measurement approaches: text reading measured by text reading efficiency and maze tasks had the strongest relation with reading comprehension; text reading had stronger relations with reading comprehension measured by the multiple-choice, the cloze task, and oral open-ended tasks than the written open-ended and retell tasks. The patterns of relations were the same when correcting for measurement error, although magnitudes were generally stronger.

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 Educational Psychology
Journal of Educational Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
2.00%
发文量
143
期刊介绍: The main purpose of the Journal of Educational Psychology® is to publish original, primary psychological research pertaining to education across all ages and educational levels. A secondary purpose of the Journal is the occasional publication of exceptionally important theoretical and review articles that are pertinent to educational psychology. Please note, the Journal does not typically publish reliability and validity studies of specific tests or assessment instruments.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信