The present study used the mixed Rasch model (MRM) to identify subgroups of readers within a sample of students taking an EFL reading comprehension test. Six hundred and two (602) Chinese college students took a reading test and a lexico-grammatical knowledge test and completed a Metacognitive and Cognitive Strategy Use Questionnaire (MCSUQ) (Zhang, Goh, & Kunnan, 2014). MRM analysis revealed two latent classes. Class 1 was more likely to score highly on reading in-depth (RID) items. Students in this class had significantly higher general English proficiency, better lexico-grammatical knowledge, and reported using reading strategies more frequently, especially planning, monitoring, and integrating strategies. In contrast, Class 2 was more likely to score highly on skimming and scanning (SKSN) items, but had relatively lower mean scores for lexico-grammatical knowledge and general English proficiency; they also reported using strategies less frequently than did Class 1. The implications of these findings and further research are discussed.
AldersonJ. C. (1979). The cloze procedure and proficiency in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 219–227.
2.
AldersonJ. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In AldersonJ. C.UrquhartA. H. (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 122–135). New York: Longman.
3.
AldersonJ. C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
AndersonN. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 757–771).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
AndersonR. C.FreebodyP. (1983). Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In HutsonB. (Ed.), Advances in reading/language research (pp. 231–256). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
6.
AndrichD. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43,357–374.
7.
AryadoustV. (2015). Fitting a mixture Rasch model to EFL listening tests: The role of cognitive and background variables in explaining latent differential item functioning. International Journal of Testing –First Online.
8.
AryadoustV.GohC.LeeO. K. (2011). An investigation of differential item functioning in the MELAB listening test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8, 361–385.
9.
AryadoustV.GohC.LeeO. K. (2012). Developing an academic listening self-assessment questionnaire: A study of modeling academic listening. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54, 227–256.
10.
AryadoustV.LiuS. (2015). Predicting EFL writing ability from levels of mental representation measured by Coh-Metrix: A structural equation modeling study. Assessing Writing, 24, 35–58.
11.
BaghaeiP.CarstensenC. H. (2013). Fitting the mixed Rasch model to a reading comprehension test: Identifying reader types. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18, 1–13.
12.
BakerL.BrownA.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In PearsonP. D.BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP. (Eds.), Handbook of research in reading (pp. 353–394). White Plains, NY: Longman.
13.
BernhardtE. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York: Routledge.
14.
BrownA. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In SpiroR. J.BruceB. C.BrewerW.F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence and education (pp. 453–482). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
BrownA. L.ArmbrusterB.BakerL. (1986).The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In OrasanuJ. (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 49–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
BügelK.BuunkB. P. (1996). Sex differences in foreign language text comprehension: The role of interests and prior knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 15–31.
17.
CarrT. H.LevyB. A. (1990). Reading and its development: Component skills approaches. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
18.
CarrellP. L. (1989b). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121–131.
19.
Celce-MurciaM.Larsen-FreemanD. (1999).The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
20.
ChenY.-F.JiaoH. (2014). Exploring the utility of background and cognitive variables in explaining latent differential item functioning: An example of the PISA 2009 reading assessment. Educational Assessment, 19, 77–96.
21.
ChengL. (2008). The key to success: English language testing in China. Language Testing, 25, 15–38.
22.
ChiuM. M.McBride-ChangC. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 331–362.
23.
ClarkeM. A. (1978). Reading in Spanish and English: Evidence from adult ESL students. Language Learning, 29, 121–150.
24.
ClarkeM. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading – or when language competence interferes with reading performance. The Modern Language Journal, 64, 203–209.
25.
CohenA.BoltD. M. (2005). A mixture model analysis of differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42, 133–148.
26.
CumminsJ. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children. Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
27.
CumminsJ. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
28.
de LeeuwM.de LeeuwE. (1990). Read better, read faster (new edition). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
29.
EmbretsonS. E. (2007). Mixed Rasch models for measurement in cognitive psychology. In von DavierM.CarstensenC. H. (Eds.), Multivariate and mixture distribution Rasch models: Extensions and applications (pp. 235–253). New York: Springer Verlag.
30.
EngelhardG.Jr. (2012). Invariant measurement: Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: Routledge.
31.
FangZ. (2010). Complete guide to the College English Test Band 4. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
32.
GohC. M. C.ZhangL. M. (2013). Metacognitive theory and research in second language listening and reading: A comparative critical review. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, 396(12), 94–110.
33.
GottardoA.MuellerJ. (2009). Are first- and second- language factors related in predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 330–344.
34.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
35.
GrabeW. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
HiroyukiM.NakayamaA.HiromoriT. (2013). Exploring the development of individual difference profiles in L2 reading. System, 41, 994–1005.
37.
HongS.MinS.-Y. (2007). Mixed Rasch modeling of the self-rating depression scale: Incorporating latent class and Rasch rating scale models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 280–299.
38.
JeonE. H.YamashitaJ. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A Meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64, 160–212.
39.
JinY. (2008). Powerful tests, powerfulness test designers? Changes facing the College English Test. CELEA Journal, 31, 3–11.
40.
KhalifaH.WeirC. (2009). Examining reading: Research and practice in assessing second language reading. Studies in language testing, vol. 29. Cambridge: UCLES/ Cambridge University Press.
41.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
KodaK. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
KodaK. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57, 1–44.
44.
LauferB. (1992). Reading in a foreign language: How does L2 lexical knowledge interact with the readers’ general academic ability?Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 95–103.
45.
LeeY.-W.SchallertD. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the Threshold Hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713–739.
46.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 596–632.
47.
LiF.CohenA. S.KimS. H.ChoS. J. (2009). Model selection methods for mixture dichotomous IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 353–373.
LinacreM. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean?Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.
50.
LinacreJ. M. (2013). WINSTEPS [computer program]. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com.
51.
MarkhamP. L. (1985). The rational deletion cloze and global comprehension in German. Language Testing, 35, 423–430.
52.
MezynskiK. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research2, 253–279.
53.
McGeownS.GoodwinH.HendersonN.WrightP. (2012). Gender differences in reading motivation: Does sex or gender identity provide a better account?Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 328–336.
54.
MislevyR.HuangC.-W. (2007). Measurement models as narrative structures. In von DavierM.CarstensenC. H. (Eds.), Multivariate and mixture distribution Rasch models: Extensions and applications (pp. 15–35). New York: Springer Verlag.
NuttalC. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Heinemann Educational.
57.
OlsonC. B.LandR. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 41, 269–303.
58.
O’MalleyJ. M.ChamotA. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
ParisS. G.JacobsJ. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083–2093.
60.
ParisS. G.LipsonM. Y.WixsonK. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–248.
61.
ParisS.G.WasikB.TurnerJ. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In BarrR.. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609–640). New York: Longman.
62.
ParisS. G.WinogradP. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In JonesB. F.IdolL. (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
63.
PearsonP. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In IsrealS. E.DuffyG. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 3–31). New York: Routledge.
64.
PhakitiA. (2003). A closer look at gender differences in strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, 53, 649–702.
65.
PhakitiA. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) strategic competence model over time in EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 25, 237–272.
66.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
PughA. K. (1978). Silent reading. London: Heinemann Educational.
68.
PurpuraJ. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69.
PurpuraJ. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70.
QianD. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective, Language Learning, 52, 513–536.
71.
QianD. D.SchedlM. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measures for assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21, 28–52.
72.
RaschG. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.
73.
RaynerK.PallatsekA. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
74.
RostJ. (1990). Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 271–282.
75.
RostJ.CarstensenC. H.von DavierM. (1997). Applying the mixed Rasch model to personality questionnaires. In RostJ.LangeheineR. (Eds.), Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences (pp. 324–332). New York: Waxmann.
76.
RostJ.von DavierM. (1994).A conditional item fit index for Rasch models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 171–182.
77.
SamuelsS. J.LaBergeD. (1983). A critique of ‘A theory of automaticity’ in reading: Looking back: A retrospective analysis of the LaBerge-Samuels reading model. In GentileL.KamilM. L.BlanchardJ. (Eds.), Reading research revisited (pp. 34–56). Columbus, OH: C. E. Merrill.
78.
ShanahanT.KamilM. L.TobinA. W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 229–255.
79.
ShiotsuT.WeirC. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24, 99–128.
80.
StanovichK. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford.
TercanliogluL. (2004). Postgraduate students’ use of strategies in L1 and ESL contexts: Links to success. International Educational Journal5, 562–570.
83.
UrquhartS.WeirC. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. Longman: Addison Wesley/Longman.
84.
von DavierM. (2001a). WINMIRA [computer program]. Groningen, the Netherlands: ASC-Assessment Systems Corporation. USA and Science Plus Group.
85.
von DavierM. (2001b). WINMIRA user manual. Groningen, the Netherlands: ASC-Assessment Systems Corporation. USA and Science Plus Group.
86.
WendenA. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 515–537.
87.
WeirC. J. (1983). Identifying the language needs of overseas students in tertiary education in the United Kingdom. (Unpublished PhD thesis), Institute of Education, University of London.
88.
WeirC. J. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
89.
WeirC.HawkeyR.GreenA.DeviS. (2012). The cognitive processes underlying the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS. In TaylorL.WeirC. (Eds.), IELTS Collected Papers 2: Research in reading and listening assessment (pp. 212–269). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
90.
WeirC.HawkeyR.GreenA.ÜnaldiA.DeviS. (2012). The relationship between the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS and the reading experiences of students in their first year of study at a British university. In TaylorL.WeirC. (Eds.), IELTS Collected Papers 2: Research in reading and listening assessment (pp. 37–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
91.
WeirC. J.KhalifaH. (2008). A cognitive processing approach towards defining reading comprehension. Cambridge English for Speakers of Other Languages, 31, 2–10.
92.
YangH. Z.WeirC. J. (1998). Validation study of the National College English Test. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
93.
ZhangD. (2012). Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 558–575.
94.
ZhangL. M. (2014). A structural equation modeling approach to investigating test takers’ strategy use and their EFL reading test performance. Asian EFL Journal, 16, 153–188.
95.
ZhangL. M.AryadoustV.ZhangL. J. (2014) Development and validation of the test takers’ metacognitive awareness reading questionnaire. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(1), 37–51.
96.
ZhangL. M.GohC. M. C.KunnanA. J. (2014). Analysis of test takers’ metacognitive and cognitive strategy use and EFL reading test performance: A multi-sample SEM approach. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11, 76–120.
97.
ZhangL. M.ZhangL. J. (2013). Relationships between Chinese college test takers’ strategy use and EFL reading test performance: A structural equation modeling approach. RELC Journal, 44, 35–57.
98.
ZhengY.ChengL. (2008). Test review: College English Test (CET) in China. Language Testing, 25, 408–417.
99.
ZickerM. J.GibbyR. E.RobieC. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 168–190.
100.
ZubkovicB. R. (2011). Reading skills in early adolescence: Student profiles. DruštvenaIstraživanja, 20, 189–210.
101.
ZumboB. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223–233.
