This research reports the development and evaluation of a Korean Author Recognition Test (KART), designed as a measure of print exposure among young adults. Based on the original, English-language version of the Author Recognition Test (ART), the KART demonstrates significant relationships with offline measures of language ability, as well as online measures of word recognition. In particular, KART scores were related to participants’ responses on the Comparative Reading Habits (CRH) checklist, suggesting that KART is a valid measure of print exposure. In addition, KART scores showed reliable correlations with offline measures of vocabulary knowledge and language comprehension. Finally, results from a lexical decision task showed that KART scores modulated the magnitude of the word familiarity effect, such that the effect was smaller for participants with higher KART scores The results suggest that the ART is a language-universal task that measures print exposure, which is useful for explaining individual differences in language comprehension abilities and word recognition processes.
AchesonD. J.WellsJ. B.MacDonaldM. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 278–289.
2.
BartkoJ. J. (1966). The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological Reports, 19, 3–11.
3.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999999-0). Available from https://cran.r-project.org/
4.
BurtJ. S.FuryM. B. (2000). Spelling in adults: The role of reading skills and experience. Reading and Writing, 13, 1–30.
5.
ChallJ. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
6.
ChateauD.JaredD. (2000). Exposure to print and word recognition processes. Memory & Cognition, 28, 143–153.
7.
ChenS. Y.FangS. P. (2015). Developing a Chinese version of an Author Recognition Test for college students in Taiwan. Journal of Research in Reading, 38, 344–360.
8.
ChoiW.LowderM. W.FerreiraF.HendersonJ. M. (2015). Individual differences in the perceptual span during reading: Evidence from the moving window technique. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 2463–2475.
9.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1990). Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skill in children: A quick measure of reading experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 733–740.
10.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 264–274.
11.
DiependaeleK.LemhöferK.BrysbaertM. (2013). The word frequency effect in first-and second-language word recognition: A lexical entrenchment account. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 843–863.
12.
EnnisP. H. (1965, September). Adult book reading in the United States (National Opinion Research Center Report No.105). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
FischerF. W.ShankweilerD.LibermanI. Y. (1985). Spelling proficiency and sensitivity to word structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 423–441.
14.
FletcherK. L.ReeseE. (2005). Picture book reading with young children: A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 25, 64–103.
15.
GernsbacherM. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281.
16.
GescheiderG. A. (1985). Psychophysics: Method and theory (LeeK., Trans.). Seoul, Korea: Yangyounggak.
17.
GrantA.WilsonA. M.GottardoA. (2007). The role of print exposure in reading skills of postsecondary students with and without reading disabilities. Exceptionality Education International, 17, 175–194.
18.
GreaneyV. (1980). Factors related to amount and type of leisure time reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 337–357.
19.
HirschE. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge of words and the world. American Educator, 27(1), 10–13.
20.
JastakS.WilkinsonG. S. (1984). The wide range achievement test—Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak.
21.
KangB. M.KimH. K. (2009). Token frequency of Korean: Analyze of 15 million words in Sejong corpus. Seoul, Korea: Hankookmunhwasa.
22.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
23.
LeeE.KimA.KangY.PartS.YangI.ChoS. (2014). Korean vocabulary for middle school students 3. Seoul, Korea: Erumenb.
24.
LeeJ. (2015). Human rights law. Seoul, Korea: Hongmoonsa.
25.
LeeN. (2014). The history of feminism and the appearance of the gender concept. In Korean Women Studies Institute (Ed.), Gender and society (pp. 213–214). Gyeonggi-do, Korea: Dongnyok.
26.
LowderM. W.GordonP. C. (2017). Print exposure modulates the effects of repetition priming during sentence reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1935–1942.
27.
Martin-ChangS. L.GouldO. N. (2008). Revisiting print exposure: Exploring differential links to vocabulary, comprehension and reading rate. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 273–284.
28.
MolS. E.BusA. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267–296.
29.
MooreM.GordonP. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: Item response theory analysis of the Author Recognition Test. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1095–1109.
30.
National Institute of Korean Language. (2000). Standard Korean language dictionary. Seoul, Korea: Doosan Dong-A Co., Ltd.
31.
OsanaH. P.LacroixG. L.TuckerB. J.IdanE.JabbourG. W. (2007). The impact of print exposure quality and inference construction on syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 888–902.
32.
ParisS. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 184–202.
33.
ParkT. (2003). Subjective frequency estimates of Korean words and frequency effect on word recognition. Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 349–366.
34.
PaulhusD. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
35.
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://www.r-project.org/
36.
RodrigoV.McQuillanJ.KrashenS. (1996). Free voluntary reading and vocabulary knowledge in native speakers of Spanish. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 648–650.
37.
ShinD. (2015). Eagle owl, the emperor of night. In BangM.HwangJ.ShinS.KimS.SeoE.LeeS.LeeS-J. (Eds.), Korean language 5 (pp. 213–214). Seoul, Korea: Jihak Publishing Company.
38.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
39.
StanovichK. E.CunninghamA. E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition, 20, 51–68.
40.
StanovichK. E.CunninghamA. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211–229.
41.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402–433.
42.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F.HarrisonM. R. (1995). Knowledge growth and maintenance across the life span: The role of print exposure. Developmental Psychology, 31, 811–826.
43.
Vander BekenH.BrysbaertM. (2018). Studying texts in a second language: The importance of test type. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 1062–1074.
44.
VellutinoF. R.TunmerW. E.JaccardJ. J.ChenR. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32.
45.
WestR. F.StanovichK. E. (1991). The incidental acquisition of information from reading. Psychological Science, 2, 325–330.
46.
WestR. F.StanovichK. E.MitchellH. R. (1993). Reading in the real world and its correlates. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 35–50.
47.
YeomM. (2015). “Guernica,” the masterpiece of Picasso. In BangM.HwangJ.ShinS.KimS.SeoE.LeeS.LeeS-J. (Eds.), Korean language 5 (pp. 202–203). Seoul, Korea: Jihak Publishing Company.
48.
ZillN.WingleeM. (1990). Who reads literature? The future of the United States as a nation of readers. Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.
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.
