Mature readers were given cloze tests on two paragraphs of varying difficulty presented in three formats: regular, the paragraph as the author wrote it (with cloze deletions); scrambled, the same paragraph and deletions, but the sentences were presented in scrambled order; and isolated, in which each sentence was read in isolation. No significant differences between the regular and scrambled formats were found. Isolated performance was significantly lower than regular, but by only 10 to 1570. Performance in the isolated format indicated acceptable comprehension. The results served as a basis for examining the importance and function of intersentential processes in comprehension. Conclusions about cloze as a measure of reading comprehension were also offered.
References
1.
BakerL.Processing temporal relationships in simple stories: Effects of input sequence. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17, 559–572.
2.
BeckerA. L.A tagmemic approach to paragraph analysis. College Composition and Analysis, 1965, 16, 237–242.
3.
BloomerR. H.The cloze procedure as a remedial reading exercise. Journal of Developmental Reading, 1962, 5, 173–181.
4.
BormuthJ. R.On the theory of achievement test items, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
5.
BormuthJ. R.Empirical determination of the instructional reading level. In FigurelJ.A. (Ed.), Reading and RealismNewark, DE: International Reading Association, 1969a.
6.
BormouthJ. R.Factor validity of cloze tests as a measure of reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 1969b, 4, 358–368.
7.
BormuthJ. R.Comparable cloze and multiple-choice comprehension test scores. Journal of Reading, 1967, 10, 291–299.
8.
BormuthJ. R.Comparisons among cloze test scoring methods. In FigurelJ. F. (Ed.), Reading and inquiryNewark, DE: International Reading Association, 1965.
9.
BormuthJ. R.CarrJ.ManningJ.PearsonD.Children's comprehension of between- and within-sentence syntactic structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 349–357.
10.
BrownE. R.Bases of reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 1970, 6, 49–74.
11.
BurtonN. G.LickliderJ. C.R.Long-range constraints in the statistical structure of printed English. American Journal of Psychology, 1955, 68, 650–653.
CarrollJ. B.CartonA. S.WildsC. P.An investigation of ‘cloze’ items in the measurement of achievement in foreign languages. Laboratory for Research in Instruction, Harvard University, 1959.
14.
ChamberlainT. C.Studies for students: the method of multiple working hypotheses. Journal of Geology, 1897, 5, 837–848.
15.
DaleE.ChallJ. S.A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 1948, 27, 11–20 and 37–54.
16.
EricksonL.HansenL. H.Performance on cloze passages in and out of context. In NackeP.L.NelliE. (Eds.), Interaction: Research and practice for college-adult readingClemson, SC: National Reading Conference, 1974.
17.
FillenbaumS.JonesL. V.RappaportA.The predictability of words and their grammatical classes as a function of rate of deletion from a speech transcript. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1963, 2, 186–194.
18.
FinnP. J.Word frequency, information theory, and cloze performance: A transfer feature theory of processing in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 1977–1978, 13, 508–537.
19.
FlemingJ. T.OhnmachtF. W.NilesJ. A.Effects of selected deletion strategies and varying contextual constraint on cloze performance. In NackeP. L. (Ed.) Diversity in Mature Reading: Theory and ResearchClemson, SC: National Reading Conference, 1973.
20.
GoodmanK. S.Analysis of oral reading, miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 1969, 5, 9–30.
21.
GoodmanK. S.A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English Journal, 1965, 42, 39–44.
22.
GoodmanY. M.BurkeC. L.Reading miscue inventory. New York: MacMillan, 1972.
23.
JarvellaR. J.Syntactic processing of connected speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1971, 10, 409–416.
24.
JenkinsonM. E.Selected processess and difficulties in reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago, 1957.
25.
KibbyM. W.Passage readability affects the oral reading strategies of disabled readers. The Reading Teacher, 1979, 32, 390–396.
26.
KoenF.BeckerA.YoungR.The psychological reality of the paragraph. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8, 49–53.
27.
LesgoldA. M.CurtisM. E.RothS. F.Reading ability and discourse processing rate. Unpublished paper reported in C. A. Perfetti, & A. M. Lesgold Discourse comprehension and sources of individual differences. In JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehensionHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.
28.
MacginitieW. H.Contextual constraint in English prose paragraphs. Journal of Psychology, 1961, 51, 121–130.
29.
OhnmachtF. W.WeaverW. W.KohlerE. T.Cloze and closure: A factorial study. The Journal of Psychology, 1970, 74, 205–217.
PerfettiC. A.LesgoldA. M.Discourse comprehension and sources of individual differences. In JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehensionHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.
32.
RamansaukasS.The responsiveness of cloze readability measures to linguistic variables operating over segments of text longer than a sentence. Reading Research Quarterly, 1972, 8, 72–91.
33.
RankinE. F.Jr.CulhaneJ. W.Comparable cloze and multiple-choice comprehension test scores. Journal of Reading, 1969, 13, 193–198.
34.
RuddellR. B.An investigation of the effect of the similarity of oral and written patterns of language structure on reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1963.
35.
RyanE. G.SemmelM. I.Reading as a constructive language process. Reading Research Quarterly, 1969, 5, 59–83.
36.
SchneyerJ.Use of the cloze procedure for improving reading comprehension. Reading Teacher, 1965, 19, 174–179.
37.
SimonsH. D.Reading comprehension: The need for a new perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 1971, 6, 338–363.
38.
SmithF.Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to readNew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.
39.
TaylorW. L.Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 1953, 30, 415–433.
40.
TaylorW. L.‘Cloze’ readability scores as indices of individual difference in comprehension and aptitude. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1957, 41, 19–26.
41.
TreismanA. M.Verbal responses and contextual constraints in language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1965, 4, 118–128.
42.
TuinmanJ. J.BlantonW. E.GrayG.A note on cloze as a measure of comprehension. The Journal of Psychology, 1975, 90, 159–162.
43.
WeaverW.KingstonA. J.A factor analysis of the cloze procedure and other measures of reading and language ability. Journal of Communication; 1963, 13, 152–161.
44.
WhaleyW. J.An Analysis of readers' use of story schema, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1979.
