Abstract
The newly developed reading-storage type of test was compared to the paraphrase type of test to determine the extent to which each test was sensitive to the comprehension of prose passages as opposed to word memorization. Comprehension was manipulated using passages that were difficult to comprehend without the aid of context cues, and memorization was manipulated by administering the tests without the opportunity to read the passages. The average gain from the No Context to Context condition was greater for the reading-storage test, thus suggesting that it was more sensitive to comprehension than the paraphrase test. The average gain from the Non-Reading to No Context condition was greater for the paraphrase test, thus suggesting that the paraphrase test was more sensitive to word memorization than the reading-storage test. These data suggested that the completely objective, reading-storage test deserves further research, and that paraphrase questions may not be as valid as intuition would suggest.