Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The overall aim of the current investigation was to develop and validate the initial version of the Minnesota Inference Assessment (MIA). MIA is a web-based measure of inference processes in Grades K–2. MIA leverages the affordances of different media to evaluate inference processes in a nonreading context, using age-appropriate fiction and nonfiction videos coupled with questioning. We evaluated MIA’s technical adequacy in a proof-of-concept study. Taken together, the results support the interpretation that MIA shows promise as a valid and reliable measure of inferencing in a nonreading context for students in Grades K–2. Future directions involve further development of multiple, parallel forms that can be used for progress monitoring in K–2.

Keywords

inference assessment comprehension

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. AERA.

Barnes

M. A.

Dennis

Haefele-Kalvaitis

(1996). The effects of knowledge availability and knowledge accessibility on coherence and elaborative inferencing in children from six to fifteen years of age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 216–241.

Barth

A. E.

Barnes

Francis

Vaughn

York

(2015). Inferential processing among adequate and struggling adolescent comprehenders and relations to reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 28(5), 587–609.

Biancarosa

Kennedy

P. C.

Carlson

S. E.

Yoon

Seipel

Liu

Davison

M. L.

(2019). Constructing subscores that add validity: A case study of identifying students at risk. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(1), 65–84.

Cain

Oakhill

J. V.

(1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11(5–6), 489–503.

Carlson

S. E.

Seipel

McMaster

(2014). Development of a new reading comprehension assessment: Identifying comprehension differences among readers. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 40–53.

Christ

T. J.

Aranas

Y. A.

Kember

J. M.

Kiss

A. J.

McCarthy-Trentman

Monaghen

B. D.

. . .White

M. J.

(2014). Formative assessment system for teachers technical manual: EarlyReading, CBMReading, aReading, aMath, and earlyMath. Formative Assessment System for Teachers.

Everitt

Skrondal

(2010). The Cambridge dictionary of statistics. Cambridge University Press.

Graesser

A. C.

(2015). Deeper learning with advances in discourse science and technology. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 42–50.

10.

Graesser

A. C.

Franklin

S. P.

(1990). QUEST: A cognitive model of question answering. Discourse Processes, 13(3), 279–303.

11.

Kendeou

(2015). A general inference skill. In O’Brien

E. J.

Cook

A. E.

Lorch

R. F.

Jr (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 160–181). Cambridge University Press.

12.

Kendeou

Bohn-Gettler

White

M. J.

Van Den Broek

(2008). Children’s inference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(3), 259–272.

13.

Kendeou

McMaster

K. L.

Butterfuss

Kim

Bresina

Wagner

(2020). The inferential language comprehension (iLC) framework: Supporting children’s comprehension of visual narratives. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12, 256–273.

14.

Kintsch

(1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.

15.

Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). The dimensionality of language ability in young children. Child Development, 86(6), 1948–1965.

16.

Language and Reading Research Consortium, Muijselaar

M. M

. (2018). The dimensionality of inference making: Are local and global inferences distinguishable? Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(2), 117–136.

17.

Linacre

J. M.

(2019, May). Reliability and separation of measures. https://www.winsteps.com/winman/reliability.htm

18.

Luo

(2019). xxIRT: Item response theory and computer-based testing in R (R package version 2.1.2). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=xxIRT

19.

MacGinitie

W. H.

MacGinitie

R. K.

(1989). Gates–MacGinitie reading tests. Riverside.

20.

Magliano

J. P.

Kopp

McNerney

M. W.

Radvansky

G. A.

Zacks

J. M.

(2012). Aging and perceived event structure as a function of modality. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19(1–2), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.633159

21.

Magliano

J. P.

Radvansky

G. A.

Copeland

D. E.

(2007). Beyond language comprehension: Situation models as a form or autobiographical memory. In Schmalhofer

Perfetti

(Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 379–391). Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

McMaster

K. L.

Van den Broek

Espin

C. A.

White

M. J.

Rapp

D. N.

Kendeou

. . . Carlson

(2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(1), 100–111.

23.

McNamara

D. S.

(2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1–30.

24.

McNamara

D. S.

Magliano

J. P.

(2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In Ross

(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). Elsevier Science.

25.

Rasch

(1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut.

26.

R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

27.

Semel

Wiig

Secord

(2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals–4 (CELF-4). PsychCorp

28.

Wiig

E. H.

Semel

E. M.

Secord

(2003). CELF 5: Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals. Pearson/PsychCorp

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.26 MB

0.04 MB

0.02 MB

0.03 MB

Development and Validation of the Minnesota Inference Assessment

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material