Assessing different components of reading comprehension: fact or fiction?

Abstract

The starting point of this study was the debate about the structure of L1 reading comprehension. Kalb, Rabenstein and Rost (1979a; 1979b) claim to assess several different subskills of reading comprehension with the test battery Lesen und Verstehen - Diagnose (Reading and Comprehension- Assessment) (RuC-A) they designed specially for this purpose. To check this, 220 second-grade German elementary-school pupils were tested with the RuC-A. The results show medium-to-high correlations for the eight subtests (0.56 ≤ r ≤ 0.85), and some correlation coefficients are nearly as high as the corresponding subtest reliabilities. Corrected for attenuation, they reach 0.66 ≤ r k ≤ 0.99. Depending on the theoretical perspective, factor analyses (with the reliabilities of the subtests as communalities) yield either one broad factor, 'General reading competence' (accounting for 85% of the nonchance variance) or, at most, two factors, 'inferential reading comprehension' and 'vocabulary' (accounting unrotated for 85% and 6%, rotated for 55% and 36% of the reliable variance). As in other comparable L1 reading compre hension tests, RuC-A apparently cannot measure several clearly distinguish able components of reading comprehension. A reliable and valid diagnosis of typical L1 reading comprehension profiles is not possible.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 52 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.