Measuring Comprehension Growth in Young Children: Problems and Pitfalls Patricia Mathes, Ph.D. Southern Methodist University Institute for Reading Research November 12, 2004 Washington, DC © SMU Institute for Reading Research
The Problem Few, if any, measures adequately measure if children, who are still beginning readers, are making growth in their ability to comprehend text, beyond their ability to decode that text. © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Role of Decoding Early measures of comprehension are highly correlated to measures of word reading. © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Correlations among outcome variables 1. SAT 9 Comp. 2. Oral Read Rate .62 3. Word Efficiency .61 .91 4. Word Ident. .60 .79 .82 5. Passage Comp. .58 .73 .74 .82 6. TPRI comp. .28 .33 .32 .39 .45 7. NonW Effic. .48 .79 .82 .76 .66 .27 8. Word Attack .43 .59 .65 .80 .71 .32 .76 9. Verbal IQ .22 .02 .04 .15 .18 .04 .10 .16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Time Matters Measures that appear to have promise, also require additional time. If comprehension is only one of many outcomes being assessed, then each assessment cannot take long or children become fatigued. © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Examples from Research Intervention 1: Comprehensive small group intervention incorporating: Phonemic awareness, Alphabetic knowledge and skills, Text fluency, vocabulary, and Comprehension strategy work. © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Comprehension Strand Browse the Book and Set purpose Self-monitoring Retelling – sequencing Main idea Story grammar (narrative) Knowledge Charting (expository) © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Outcomes Study 1: Word Attack 112 Word Identification 105 Effect Size Study 1: Word Attack 112 Word Identification 105 Passage Comprehension 99 Study 2: Word Attack 110 .76 Word Identification 107 .51 Passage Comprehension 95 .21 Means © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Percent of Children who achieved scores below 30th percentile Intervention Typical Practice Study 1 Passage Comprehension 12% (2%) 24% Study 2 Comprehension 15% (3%) 29% © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Examining Passage Comprehension © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Examining Passage Comprehension © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Examining Passage Comprehension © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Examining Passage Comprehension Less common spelling patterns © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Examining Passage Comprehension © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Examining Passage Comprehension © SMU Institute for Reading Research
Conclusions Woodcock Passage Comprehension may not be sensitive. Decoding difficulty increases quickly, but not level of meaning processing. Researchers should be using other measures. But what should these measures be? © SMU Institute for Reading Research