En este trabajo se presenta un nuevo test de evaluación de la comprensión lectora llamado Test de Procesos de Comprensión (TPC) que, a diferencia de la mayoría de los test en español actuales, está basado en un análisis de procesos de comprensión contemplados en la mayoría de los modelos cognitivos actuales. El test es aplicable a escolares entre 11 y 16 años, de fácil aplicación y corrección. Los resultados empíricos muestran que el test cumple con los requisitos psicométricos estándar de homogeneidad, validez y fiabilidad, y muestra un alto poder para discriminar entre estudiantes de diferentes niveles escolares. Supone un avance metodológico en la elaboración de pruebas de evaluación fundamentadas en modelos cognitivos ampliamente aceptados.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckI. L.OmansonR. C.MckeownM. G. (1982). An instructional redesign of reading lessons: Effects on comprehension.Reading Research Quarterly, 17 (4), 462–481.
2.
BennettR. E.RockD. A.WangM. (1991). Equivalence of free-response and multiple-choice items.Journal of Educational Measurement, 28 (1), 77–92.
3.
BergC. A.SmithS. (1994). Assessing students' abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments.Science Education, 78 (6), 527–554.
4.
BrittonB. K.GülgözS. (1991). Using kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (3), 329–345.
5.
CampbellJ. R. (2005). Single instrument, multiple measures: Considering the use of multiple item formats to assess reading comprehension. En ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 347–368). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
6.
CordónL. A.DayJ. D. (1996). Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests.Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (2), 288–295.
7.
CotéN.GoldmanS. R.SaulE. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation.Discourse Processes, 25 (1), 1–53.
8.
CuetosF.RodríguezB.RuanoE. (1996). PROLEC (Batería de evaluaación de los procesos lectores).Madrid: TEA.
9.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450–466.
10.
DavisonA.KantorR. N. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations.Reading Research Quarterly, 17 (2), 187–209.
11.
DeLACruzM. V. (1997). ECL evaluación de la comprensión lectora.Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
12.
DoolittleA. E.ClearyT. A. (1987). Gender-based differential item performance in mathematics achievement items.Journal of Educational Measurement, 24 (2), 157–166.
13.
EmbretsonS.GorinJ. (2001). Improving construct validity with cognitive Psychology principles.Journal of Educational Measurement, 38 (4), 343–368.
14.
FarrR.PritchardR.SmittenB. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a mutiple-choice reading comprehension test.Journal of Educational Measurement, 27 (3), 209–226.
15.
GoldmanS. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future.Discourse Processes, 23 (3) 357–398.
16.
GraesserA. C. (en prensa). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. En McnamaraD. S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
GraesserA. C.GoodmanS. M. (1985). Implicit knowledge, question answering, and the representation of expository text. En BrittonB.BlackJ. B. (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 109–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
GraesserA. C.SingerM.TrabassoT. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative test comprehension.Psychological Review, 101 (3), 371–395.
19.
HudsonP.Lignugaris-KraftB.MillerT. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8 (2), 106–126.
20.
KatzS.LautenschlagerG. J. (2001). The contribution of passage and no-passage factor to item performance on the SAT reading task.Educational Assessment, 7 (2), 165–176.
21.
KatzS.LautenschlagerG. J.BlackburnA. B.HarrisF. H. (1990). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT.Psychological Science, 1 (2), 122–127.
22.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review, 95 (2), 163–182.
23.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
KintschW.KintschE. (2005). Comprehension. En ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and aassessment (pp. 71–91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
KintschW.KeenanJ. M. (1973). Reading rate ands retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of the sentences.Cognitive Psychology, 5 (3), 257–79.
26.
KintschW.RawsonK. A. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (1), 70–80.
27.
LázaroA. J. (1999). Prueba de comprensión lectora.Madrid: Tea Ediciones.
28.
LongD. L.OppyB. J.SeelyM. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20 (6), 1456–1470.
29.
LópezN.Alonso-TapiaJ. (1996). Main idea comprehension: Training teachers and effects on students.Journal of Research in Reading, 19 (2), 128–153.
30.
LublinerS.SmetanaL. (2005). The Effects of Comprehensive Vocabulary Instruction on Title I Students' Metacognitive Word-Learning Skills and Reading Comprehension.Journal of Literacy Research, 37 (2), 163–200.
31.
MaglianoJ. P.TrabassoT.GraesserA. C. (1999). Strategic Processing During Comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4), 615–629.
32.
MeyerB. J. F. (2003). Text coherence and readability.Topics in Language Disorders, 23 (3) 204–224.
33.
MurphyR. J. L. (1982). Sex differences in objective test performance.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52 (2), 213.
34.
OakhillJ.CainK.YuillN. (1998). Individual differences in children's comprehension skill: Toward an integrated model. En HulmeC.JoshiR. M. (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 343–367). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
OECD. (2002). Conocimientos y aptitudes para la vida. Resultados de PISA 2000.México: Santillana.
36.
OECD. (2005). Informe PISA 2003: Aprender para el mundo del mañana.Madrid: Grupo Santillana.
37.
PearsonP. D.HammD. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices-past, present, and future. En ParisScott G.StahlSteven A. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13–69). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38.
RamosJ. L.CuetosF. (1999). PROLEC-SE: evaluación de los procesos lectores en alumnos de tercer ciclo de educación primaria y secundaria.Madrid: TEA.
39.
RatcliffR.MckoonG. (1978). Priming in item recognition: Evidence for the propositional structure of sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17 (4), 403–418.
40.
SaenzL. M.FuchsL. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text.Remedial and Speecial Education, 23 (1), 31–41.
41.
SingerM.RitchotK. F. M. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing.Memory and Cognition, 24, 733–743.
42.
SteinN. L.TrabassoT. (1981). What's in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. En GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 213–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
SuárezA.MearaP. (1982). CLT prueba de comprensión lectora (cloze).Madrid: Tea Ediciones.
44.
TritesL.McgroartyM. (2005). Reading to learn and reading to integrate: New tasks for reading comprehension tests?Language Testing, 22 (2), 174–210.
45.
UríoC.ToroJ.CerveraM. (2000). Escala Magallanes de lecto-escritura TALE2000.Bilbao: Grupo Albor-Cohs.
46.
VanDENBerghH. (1990). On the construct validity of multiple-choice items for reading comprehension.Applied Psychological Measurement, 14 (1), 1–12.
47.
VanDENBroekP.LynchJ. S.NaslundJ.Ievers-LandisC. E.VerduinK. (2003). The development of comprehension of main ideas in narratives: Evidence from the selection of titles.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), 707–718.
48.
Van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension.Nueva York: Academic Press.
49.
Vidal-AbarcaE.GilabertR.AbadN. (2002). Una propuesta para hacer buenos textos expositivos: Hacia una tecnología del texto expositivo.Infancia y Aprendizaje, 25 (4), 499–514.
50.
Vidal-AbarcaE.ReyesH.GilabertR.CalpeJ. (2002). ETAT: Expository text analysis tool.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34 (1), 93–107.
51.
WardW. C. (1980). Construct validity of free-response and machine-scorable forms of a test.Journal of Educational Measurement, 17 (1), 11–29.
52.
WardW. C. (1982). A comparaison of free-response and multiple-choice forms of verbal aptitude test.Applied Psychological Measurement, 6 (1) 1–11.
