A commonly held view is that cloze tests may well provide a quick measure of something reading related, but that they are not suitable for assessments of understanding of ideas beyond the sentence boundary. The present article presents challenges to this view. It is argued that word gaps can be carefully selected so that filling them in requires proper understanding of the ideas of the text. The reliability and validity of such a comprehension-focused cloze test was demonstrated in a study of 204 Danish adults attending reading courses or general education. The quick (10 min) cloze comprehension test correlated strongly (r = .84) with a standard (30 min) question-answering comprehension test. Only a small part of this correlation was accounted for by decoding ability or vocabulary. The cloze test was somewhat more sensitive to decoding ability than the question-answering comprehension test was, and it provided a better fit to the participants’ self-reported reading difficulties.
AldersonJ. C. (1979). The Cloze procedure and proficiency in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 219-227.
2.
ArnbakE. (2001). Læsetekster for unge og voksne [Texts for young adults and adults]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.
3.
ArnbakE.ElbroC. (1999). Læsning, læsekurser og uddannelse. Om unge og voksnes funktionelle læsefærdighed i uddannelse og på læsekurser vurderet med et nyt materiale [Reading, reading courses, and education. On functional literacy in young adults and adults in education and in reading courses measured by a new test]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Centre for Reading Research and Danish Ministry of Education.
4.
Austen (1813). Pride and prejudice, London, UK:T. Egerton, Whitehall.
5.
BormuthJ. R. (1967). Cloze readability procedure (CSEIP Occasional Report 1). Los Angeles: University of California.
6.
BridgeC. A.WinogradP. N. (1982). Readers’ awareness of cohesive relationships during Cloze comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 299-312.
7.
CainK.PatsonN.AndrewsL. (2005). Age- and ability-related differences in young readers’ use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language, 32, 877-892.
8.
CarlisleJ.RiceM. (2004). Assessment of reading comprehension. In StoneA.SillimanE.EhrenB.ApelK. (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 521-555). New York, NY: Guilford.
9.
CuttingL. E.ScarboroughH. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277-299.
10.
Danish Ministry of Education (2006). Visitationstest til ordblindeundervisning for voksne [Screening of dyslexia among adults]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.
11.
ElbroC. (2010). Dyslexia as disability or handicap: When does vocabulary matter?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 469-478.
12.
ElbroC.ArnbakE. (2002). Components of reading comprehension as predictors of educational achievement. In HjelmquistE.von EulerC. (Eds.), Dyslexia and literacy (pp. 69-83). London, UK: Whurr.
13.
ElbroC.MøllerS.NielsenE. M. (1995). Functional reading difficulties in Denmark. A study of adult reading of common texts. Reading and Writing, 7, 257-276.
14.
FarrR.CareyR. F. (1986). Reading: What can be measured?Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
15.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.CattsH. W.TomblinJ. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369-394). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
GevaE.RyanE. B. (1985). Use of conjunctions in expository texts by skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 331-346.
17.
GreeneB. B. (2001). Testing reading comprehension of theoretical discourse with Cloze. Journal of Research in Reading, 24, 82-98.
HallidayM. A. K.HasanR. (1976). Cohesion in english. Hong Kong: Longman.
20.
KarlsenB.GardnerE. F. (1995). Stanford diagnostic reading test (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
21.
KeenanJ. M.BetjemannR. S.OlsonR. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281-300.
22.
KintschW.YarbroughJ. C. (1982). Role of rhetorical structure in text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 828-834.
23.
NationK.SnowlingM. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359-370.
24.
OllerJ. W.JonzJ. (1994). Why Cloze procedure? In OllerJ. W.JonzJ. (Eds.), Cloze and coherence (pp. 1-20). Lewisburg, PA: Associated University Press.
25.
PearsonP. D.HammD. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices—past, present, and future. In ParisS. G.StahlS.A. (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
SeymourP. H. K.AroM.ErskineJ. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143-174.
27.
ShanahanT.KamilM. (1984). The relationship of concurrent and construct validities of Cloze. In NilesJ. A.HarrisL. A. (Eds.), Changing perspectives on research in reading/language processing and instruction (pp. 252-256). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
28.
ShanahanT.KamilM.TobinA. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 229-255.
29.
SingerM. (2007). Inference processing in discourse comprehension. In GaskellG. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 343-359). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
Spear-SwerlingL. (2004). Fourth graders’ performance on a state-mandated assessment involving two different measures of reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 25, 121-148.
31.
TaylorW. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415-433.
32.
Touchstone (2001). The degrees of reading power program: DRP in brief. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
33.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
