Much of the literature on reading development focuses on measures of early literacy skills (e.g., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency). Elementary educators interested in improving students’ skills in these areas can draw on a wealth of research studies. However, many studies of early literacy skills have not addressed comprehension, obviously an important feature of literacy. The authors used a one-parameter Rasch model to examine the relative difficulty of different multiple-choice reading comprehension items assessing students’ literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension of fictional narratives. They also examined the difficulty of questions derived from concepts identified by state content standards as important components of reading comprehension, such as character, prediction, and plot sequence. The findings suggest a curvilinear relationship between literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension, with literal comprehension being the easiest and inferential and evaluative comprehension more challenging. The findings also indicate that assessment objectives differ on the basis of difficulty. Implications of these findings for practice are discussed.
Alonzo, J., Liu, K., & Tindal, G. ( 2007). Examining the technical adequacy of reading comprehension measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report #41) . Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
2.
Alonzo, J., Robinson, Q.L., & Tindal, G. ( 2008). Using school-wide response to intervention to close the achievement gap in reading. ERS Spectrum, 29, 1-9.
3.
Alonzo, J., Tindal, G., & Ketterlin-Geller, L.R. (2006). General outcome measures of basic skills in reading and math. In L. Florian (Ed.), Handbook of special education (pp. 307-318). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Alonzo, J., Tindal, G., Ulmer, K., & Glasgow, A. ( 2006). easyCBM online progress monitoring assessment system . Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Assessment Accountability. Available at http://easycbm.com
5.
Beghetto, R.A., & Ketterlin-Geller, L.R. (2006). Instructional leadership: Progress monitoring. In S. C. Smith & P. K. Piele (Eds.), School leadership: Handbook for excellence in student learning (pp. 302-317). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
6.
Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. ( 2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCCR Technical Report No. 1). Tallahassee: Florida Center for Reading Research.
7.
Carnine, D.W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E.J., & Tarver, S.G. ( 2004). Direct instruction reading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8.
Conley, D.T. ( 2008). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed and what we can do to get them ready. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Stieber, S. ( 2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement test. Educational Assessment, 7, 303-323.
10.
Davey, B. ( 1988). Factors affecting the difficulty of reading comprehension items for successful and unsuccessful readers. Journal of Experimental Education, 56, 67-75.
11.
Deno, S.L. ( 1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
12.
Deno, S.L. ( 2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurements. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
13.
Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.M. ( 1977). Data based program modification. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Leadership Training Institute/Special Education.
14.
Dewitz, P., & Dewitz, P.K. ( 2003). They read the words, but they can’t understand: Refining comprehension assessment. Reading Teacher, 55, 422-435.
15.
Francis, D., Santi, K., Barr, C., Fletcher, J., Varisco, A., & Foorman, B. ( 2008). Form effects on the estimation of students’ oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology , 46, 315-342.
16.
Good, R.H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2002). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
17.
Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward a proactive/prevention model of decision making for early literacy skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 326-336.
18.
Herber, H. ( 1970). Teaching reading in content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
Lapp, D., & Flood, J. ( 1983). Teaching reading to every child. New York: Macmillan.
Lord, F.M. ( 1983). Small N justifies Rasch model. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 51-61). New York: Academic Press.
23.
Magliano, J.P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A.C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615-629.
24.
Mezynski, K. ( 1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 53, 253-279.
25.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2006 ) Reading framework for the 2007 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Author .
26.
National Council on Educational Standards and Testing. ( 1992). Raising standards for American education: A report to Congress, the secretary of education, the National Education Goals Panel, and the American people. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
27.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. ( 2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
28.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. ( 1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
29.
Qian, D.D. ( 1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282-308.
30.
Snow, C.E. ( 2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
31.
Stothard, S.E., & Hulme, C. ( 1996). A comparison of reading comprehension and decoding difficulties in children. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 93-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
Taylor, S.E., Frackenpohl, H., & White, C.E. ( 1989). EDL core vocabularies in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. Orlando, FL: Steck-Vaughn.
33.
Tindal, G., & Marston, D. ( 1991). Classroom-based assessment. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
34.
Vacca, J., Vacca, R.T., & Gore, M.K. ( 1987). Reading and learning to read. Boston : Little, Brown.
35.
Yovanoff, P., Duesbery, L., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. ( 2005). Grade-level invariance of a theoretical causal structure predicting reading comprehension with vocabulary and oral reading fluency . Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(3), 4-12.
