Reading disorders, including reading comprehension disorders, are among the most common referrals for evaluation in schools. If that evaluation involves individually administered tests of reading, the examiner is faced with selecting at least one reading comprehension subtest that is inherently associated with specific task demands, such as a cloze procedure or a story retell procedure. This study explored the correlates of performance of these two types of reading comprehension measures in lower grades (i.e., grades 1–5) and upper grades (i.e., grades 6–12). Results revealed a moderate correlation between these two tasks and evidence that students with reading disorders may perform poorer on cloze reading comprehension measures than story retell measures in both grade groupings. Regression analyses revealed that variance in each reading comprehension task is associated with a unique grouping of predictor variables that are associated with the Big Five of Reading and short-term/working memory. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for the evaluation of students with suspected disabilities and research.
CattsH. W.ComptonD.TomblinJ. B.BridgesM. S. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025323
4.
CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
5.
ConradN. J.DeaconS. H. (2016). Children’s orthographic knowledge and their word reading skill: Testing bidirectional relations. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(4), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1183128
6.
CorteliaC.HorowitzS. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends, and emerging issues (3rd ed.). National Center for Learning Disabilities.
7.
CromleyJ. G.AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
8.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934
9.
CuttingL. E.ScarboroughH. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5
10.
DaaneM. C.CampbellJ. R.GriggW. S.GoodmanM. J.OranjeA. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading; (NCES 2006-469). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/2003521.pdf
11.
EllemanA. M.LindoE. J.MorphyP.ComptonD. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802539200
12.
FieldF. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
13.
FloydR.MeisingerE.GreggN.KeithT. (2012). An explanation of reading comprehension across development using models from Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory: Support for integrative models of reading. Psychology in the Schools, 49(8), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21633
14.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.CattsH. W.TomblinJ. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369–394). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
15.
GignacG. E.SzodoraiE. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
16.
GriffinM. M.SteinbrecherT. D. (2013). Large-scale datasets in special education research. In UrbanoR. C. (Ed.), International review of research in developmental disabilities (pp. 155–183). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407760-7.00004-9
17.
HudsonA.KohP. W.MooreK. A.Binks-CantrellE. (2020). Fluency interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties: A synthesis of research from 2000–2019. Education Sciences, 10(3), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030052
18.
JosephL. M. (Ed.), (2015). Understanding, assessing, and intervening on reading problems. National Association of School Psychologists.
KeenanJ. M.BetjemannR. S.OlsonR. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279
21.
KutnerM.GreenbergE.JinY.BoyleB.HsuY.DunleavyE. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy (NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007480_1.pdf
LandiN. (2010). An examination of the relationship between reading comprehension, higher-level and lower-level reading sub-skills in adults. Reading and Writing, 23(6), 701–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9180-z
MahonyD. L. (1994). Using sensitivity to word structure to explain variance in high school and college level reading ability. Reading and Writing, 6(1), 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027276
26.
MakiK. E.AdamsS. R. (2020). Specific learning disabilities identification: Do the identification methods and data matter?Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719826296
27.
MakiK. E.BurnsM. K.SullivanA. (2017). Learning disability identification consistency: The impact of methodology and student evaluation data. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000165
28.
MatherN.WendlingB. J. (2014). Examiner’s manual. In Woodcock-Johnson IV tests of achievement. Riverside Publishing.
29.
McGrewK. S.LaForteE. M.SchrankF. A. (2014). Technical manual. Woodcock-Johnson IV. Riverside.
30.
McGrewK. S.WendlingB. J. (2010). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive-achievement relations: What we have learned from the past 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 651–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20497
31.
MiciakJ.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK.VaughnS.TolarT. D. (2014). Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000037
32.
MiciakJ.TaylorW. P.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M. (2015). The effect of achievement test selection on identification of learning disabilities within a patterns of strengths and weaknesses framework. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000091
33.
MillerD. C.MaricleD. E. (2013). Essential of school neuropsychological assessment, (KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (Eds.), 3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
34.
MoghadamS. H.GhaderpourZ. Z. (2012). A review of the important role of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension performance. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66(7), 555–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.300
35.
NagyW. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to Be long-term and comprehensive. In HiebertE. H.KamilM. L. (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 27–44). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
36.
NationK.SnowlingM. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(Pt 3), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01250.x
37.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019; 2022). Nation’s report card. National assessment of educational progress. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading
38.
National Reading Panel (U.S.) & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/documents/report.pdf
39.
OslundE. L.ClemensN. H.SimmonsD. C.SmithS. L.SimmonsL. E. (2016). How vocabulary knowledge of middle-school students from low socioeconomic backgrounds influences comprehension processes and outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.013
RaynerK.FoormanB. R.PerfettiC. A.PesetskyD.SeidenbergM. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2 Suppl), 31–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004
44.
ReschlyA. L. (2010). Reading and school completion: Critical connections and Matthew effects. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560903397023
45.
ReschlyD. J. (2014). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000003
46.
SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.CarlsonC. D.FoormanB. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.265
47.
SchneiderW. J.McGrewK. S. (2018). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In FlanaganD. P.McDonoughE. M. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 73–163). The Guilford Press.
SchumnW. R.PrattK. K.HartensteinJ. L.JenkinsB. A.JohnsonG. A. (2013). Determining statistical significance (alpha) and reporting statistical trends: Controversies, issues, and facts. Comprehensive Psychology, 2(10), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.CP.2.10
50.
ShapiroE. S.FritschmannN. S.ThomasL. B.HughesC. L.McDougalJ. (2014). Concurrent and predictive validity of reading retell as a brief measure of reading comprehension for narrative text. Reading Psychology, 35(7), 644–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.790328
51.
SmartD.YoussefG. J.SansonA.PriorM.ToumbourouJ. W.OlssonC. A. (2017). Consequences of childhood reading difficulties and behaviour problems for educational achievement and employment in early adulthood. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 288–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12150
52.
SpencerM.WagnerR. K.PetscherY. (2019). The reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge of children with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: Evidence from a regression-based matching approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000274
53.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S.UllmanJ. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
54.
TorgesenJ. K.MathesP. G. (2000). A basic guide to understanding, assessing, and teaching phonological awareness. PRO-ED, Inc.
55.
UtchellL. A.SchmittA. J.McCallumE.McGoeyK. E.PiselliK. (2016). Ability of early literacy measures to predict future state assessment performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(6), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915621221
56.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock – Johnson III: Tests of achievement. Riverside Publishing.
