El objetivo de este trabajo consiste en presentar dos nuevas pruebas de memoria operativa (MO) y examinar su relación con la comprensión, el razonamiento y el rendimiento académico. En el primer estudio, se validó empíricamente el material de las dos pruebas. En el segundo estudio, se desarrollaron dos Pruebas de Memoria Operativa de Anáforas (una Morfosintáctica y otra Semántica), basadas en la resolución de anáforas pronominales. Se compararon las correlaciones de las nuevas medidas, respecto a la clásica Prueba de Amplitud Lectora (PAL) de Daneman y Carpenter (1980), tanto en una tarea de comprensión de textos como en una de razonamiento. Se planteó la hipótesis de que las nuevas medidas, y en particular la MO de Anáforas Semántica, obtendrían mejores correlaciones con la comprensión y el razonamiento que la prueba clásica de amplitud lectora. Los resultados confirmaron esta hipótesis. Con respecto al rendimiento académico las correlaciones más altas se lograron con la medida de MO morfosintáctica.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA. D. (1986). Working Memory.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
BaddeleyA. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 417–423.
3.
BaddeleyA. D. (2007). Working Memory, Thought, and Action.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BaddeleyA. D.HitchG. (1974). Working memory. En BowerG. A. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Nueva York: Academic Press.
5.
BaddeleyA. D.HitchG. (1994). Developments in the concepts of working memory.Neuropsychology, 8, 485–493.
6.
BaylissD. M.JarroldC.GunnD. M.BaddeleyA. D. (2003). The complexities of complex span: explaining individual differences in working memory in children and adults.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132 (1), 71–92.
7.
CacciariC.CarreirasM.Barbolini-CioniniC. (1997). When words have two genders: Anaphor resolution for Italian functionally ambiguous words.Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 517–532.
8.
CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills.Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.
9.
CainK.OakhillJ.LemmonK. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary Knowledge, and Memory capacity.Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–681.
10.
CaplanD.WatersG. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 77–126.
11.
CaponA.HandleyS.DennisI. (2003). Working memory and reasoning: An individual differences perspective.Thinking and Reasoning, 9 (3), 203–244.
12.
CarreirasM.GarnhamA.OakhillJ. V. (1993). The Use of superficial and meaning-based representations in interpreting pronouns: Evidence from Spanish.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 93–116.
13.
CarriedoN.RuciánM. (en preparación). Adaptación para niños de la Prueba de Amplitud Lectora. Trabajo de investigación presentado para la obtención del DEA, UNED, 2008.
14.
ConwayA. R. A.CowanN.BuntingM. F.TherriaultD. J.MinkoffS. R. B. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence.Intelligence, 30, 163–183.
15.
ConwayA. R. A.JarroldC.KaneM. J.MiyakeA.TowseJ. N. (2007). Variation in Working Memory.Oxford: oxford university Press.
16.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
17.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 561–583.
18.
DanemanM.HannonB. (2001). Using Working Memory Theory to investigate the construct validity of multiple- choice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2, 208–223.
19.
DanemanM.MerikleP. M. (1996). Working memory and comprehension: A meta-analysis.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422–433.
20.
ElosúaM. R.García-madrugaJ. A.GutiérrezF.LuqueJ. L.GarateM. (1997). Un estudio sobre las diferencias evolutivas en la memoria operativa: ¿Capacidad o eficiencia?Estudios de Psicología, 58, 15–27.
21.
ElosúaM. R.GutiérrezF.García-madrugaJ. A.LuqueJ. L.GárateM. (1996). Adaptación española del “Reading Span Test” de Daneman y Carpenter.Psicothema, 2, 383–395.
22.
EngleR. W.CantorJ.CarulloJ. J. (1992). Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: A test of four hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 972–992.
23.
FriedmanN. P.MiyakeA. (2004). The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability.Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 136–158.
24.
García-madrugaJ. A. (2006). Lectura y conocimiento.Barcelona: Paidós.
García-madrugaJ. AFernández CorteT. (2008). Memoria Operativa, Comprensión Lectora y Razonamiento en la Educación Secundaria.Anuario de Psicología, 39, 133–157.
27.
García-madrugaJ. A.GárateM.ElosúaM. R.LuqueJ. L.GutiérrezF. (1997). Comprensión lectora y memoria operativa: un estudio evolutivo.Cognitiva, 9 (1), 99–132.
28.
García-madrugaJ. A.GutiérrezF.CarriedoN.LuzónJ. M.VilaJ. O. (2005).Working memory and propositional reasoning: Searching for new working memory tests. En GirottoV.Johnson-LairdP. N. (Eds.), The shape of reason. Essays in honour of Paolo Legrenzi (pp. 69–89). Londres: Psychology Press.
29.
García-madrugaJ. A.GutiérrezF.CarriedoN.LuzónJ. M.VilaJ. O. (2007). Checking the Role of Central Executive in Propositional Reasoning, Thinking and Reasoning, 13 (4), 370–393.
30.
GarnhamA. (2001). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora.Hove: Psychology Press.
31.
GarnhamA.OakhillJ. V.EhrlichM. F.CarreirasM. (1995). Representations and Processes in the interpretation of pronouns: New evidence from Spanish and French.Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 41–62.
32.
GarrodS.FreudenthalD.BoyleE. (1994). The Role of different types of anaphor in the on-line resolution of sentence in Discourse.Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 39–68.
33.
GathercoleS. E.BaddeleyA. D. (1993). Working Memory and Language.Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
Gutiérrez-martínezF.García-madrugaJ. A.CarriedoN.VilaJ. O.LuzónJ. M. (2005). Dos pruebas de Amplitud de Memoria Operativa para el Razonamiento, Cognitiva, 17, 183–207.
35.
HannonB.DanemanM. (2001). A New Tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 103–128.
36.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1983). Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (2006). How we reason.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension.Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
39.
KaneM. J.EngleR. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 637–671.
40.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition.Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.
41.
KyllonenP. C.ChristalR. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity?Intelligence, 14, 389–433.
42.
MarkovitsH.DoyonC.SimoneauM. (2002). Individual differences in working memory and conditional reasoning with concrete and abstract content.Thinking and Reasoning, 8 (2), 97–107.
43.
MiyakeA. (2001). Individual Differences in Working Memory: Introduction to the Special Section.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130 (2), 163–168.
44.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis.Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4 (1), 49–100.
45.
MiyakeA.ShahP. (1999). Toward unified theories of working memory: Emerging general consensus, unresolved theoretical isssues, and future research directions. En MiyakeA.ShahP. (Eds.), Models of Working Memory (pp.442–481). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
MorrisR. G. (2005). Thinking in Working Memory. En HolyoakK. J.MorrisonR. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 457–473). Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.
OberauerK.SübH.-M.WilhelmO.SanderN. (2007). Individual Differences in Working Memory capacity and Reasoning ability. En ConwayA. R. A.JarroldC.KaneM. J.MiyakeA.TowseJ. N. (Eds.), Variation in Working Memory (pp. 49–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
RadvanskyG. A.CopelandD. E. (2004). Reasoning, Integration, Inference Alteration and text comprehension.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 133–141.
SaitoS.MiyakeA. (2004). On the nature of forgetting and the processing-storage relationship in reading span performance.Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 425–443.
52.
UnsworthN.EngleR. (2006). Verbal working and short-term memory spans and their relation to fluid abilities: Evidence from list-length effects.Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 68–80.
53.
Vidal-AbarcaE.GilabertR.MartínezT.SellésP.AbadN.FerrerC. (2007). Test de Estrategias de Comprensión.Madrid: ICCE.
54.
WhitneyP.ArnettP. A.DriverA.BuddD. (2001). Measuring Central Executive Functioning: What's in a Reading Span?Brain and Cognition, 45, 1–14.
55.
YuillN.OakhillJ.ParkinA. (1989). Working memory, comprehension ability and the resolution of text anormaly.The British Journal of Psychology, 80, 351–36.
