Keenan Janice M, Hua Anh N, Meenan Chelsea E, Pennington Bruce F, Willcutt Erik, Olson Richard K
University of Denver.
University of Colorado, Boulder.
Annee Psychol. 2014 Dec 1;114(4):753-777. doi: 10.4074/S0003503314004072.
Studies of poor comprehenders vary in the selection criteria and tests that they use to define poor comprehension. Could these differences play a role in determining findings about poor comprehension? This study assessed the extent to which differences in selection methods affect who gets identified as poor comprehenders, and examined how their cognitive profiles differ. Over 1,500 children, ages 8 - 19, took multiple tests of reading comprehension, listening comprehension, single word reading and nonword reading. Poor comprehension was defined by performing in the low-tail and by discrepancies either with word or nonword reading. Odds of any two selection methods identifying the same individuals were generally low, and depended on type of comprehension test more than modality, as well as selection criteria, and comprehender's age. Poor comprehenders selected by the different methods were found to vary in IQ, working memory, but not attention. The findings show that differences across studies in tests and selection criteria used to define poor comprehension are not insignificant and can have substantial consequences for what is meant by poor comprehension and its associated deficits.
关于阅读理解能力差的人的研究在用于定义阅读理解能力差的选择标准和测试方面存在差异。这些差异会在确定有关阅读理解能力差的研究结果中发挥作用吗?本研究评估了选择方法的差异在多大程度上影响被认定为阅读理解能力差的人,并研究了他们的认知特征有何不同。1500多名8至19岁的儿童参加了阅读理解、听力理解、单字阅读和非字阅读的多项测试。阅读理解能力差是通过在低分数段的表现以及与单字阅读或非字阅读的差异来定义的。任何两种选择方法识别出相同个体的几率通常较低,并且更多地取决于阅读理解测试的类型而非方式,以及选择标准和被试者的年龄。通过不同方法选择出的阅读理解能力差的人在智商、工作记忆方面存在差异,但在注意力方面没有差异。研究结果表明,在用于定义阅读理解能力差的测试和选择标准方面,不同研究之间的差异并非微不足道,并且可能对阅读理解能力差意味着什么及其相关缺陷产生重大影响。