Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Testing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rost, D. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Assessing different components of reading comprehension: fact or fiction?

Detlef H. Rost

Philipps-University Marburg

The starting point of this study was the debate about the structure of L1 reading comprehension. Kalb, Rabenstein and Rost (1979a; 1979b) claim to assess several different subskills of reading comprehension with the test battery Lesen und Verstehen - Diagnose (Reading and Comprehension- Assessment) (RuC-A) they designed specially for this purpose. To check this, 220 second-grade German elementary-school pupils were tested with the RuC-A. The results show medium-to-high correlations for the eight subtests (0.56 ≤ r ≤ 0.85), and some correlation coefficients are nearly as high as the corresponding subtest reliabilities. Corrected for attenuation, they reach 0.66 ≤ rk ≤ 0.99. Depending on the theoretical perspective, factor analyses (with the reliabilities of the subtests as communalities) yield either one broad factor, 'General reading competence' (accounting for 85% of the nonchance variance) or, at most, two factors, 'inferential reading comprehension' and 'vocabulary' (accounting unrotated for 85% and 6%, rotated for 55% and 36% of the reliable variance). As in other comparable L1 reading compre hension tests, RuC-A apparently cannot measure several clearly distinguish able components of reading comprehension. A reliable and valid diagnosis of typical L1 reading comprehension profiles is not possible.

Language Testing, Vol. 10, No. 1, 79-92 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/026553229301000105
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Language TestingHome page
E. E. Jang
Cognitive diagnostic assessment of L2 reading comprehension ability: Validity arguments for Fusion Model application to LanguEdge assessment
Language Testing, January 1, 2009; 26(1): 031 - 73.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
M.-Y. Song
Do divisible subskills exist in second language (L2) comprehension? A structural equation modeling approach
Language Testing, October 1, 2008; 25(4): 435 - 464.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
Y.-W. Lee
Examining passage-related local item dependence (LID) and measurement construct using Q3 statistics in an EFL reading comprehension test
Language Testing, January 1, 2004; 21(1): 74 - 100.
[Abstract] [PDF]