title: Assessing Comprehension During Reading with the Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (RSAT).
abstract: Comprehension emerges as the results of inference and strategic processes that support the construction of a coherent mental model for a text. However, the vast majority of comprehension skills tests adopt a format that does not afford an assessment of these processes as they operate during reading. This study assessed the viability of the Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (RSAT), which is an automated computer-based reading assessment designed to measure readers' comprehension and spontaneous use of reading strategies while reading texts. In the tool, readers comprehend passages one sentence at a time, and are asked either an indirect ("What are your thoughts regarding your understanding of the sentence in the context of the passage?") or direct (e.g., why X?) question after reading each pre-selected target sentence. The answers to the indirect questions are analyzed on the extent that they contain words associated with comprehension processes. The answers to direct questions are coded for the number of content words in common with an ideal answer, which is intended to be an assessment of emerging comprehension. In the study, the RSAT approach was shown to predict measures of comprehension comparable to standardized tests. The RSAT variables were also shown to correlate with human ratings. The results of this study constitute a "proof of concept" and demonstrate that it is possible to develop a comprehension skills assessment tool that assesses both comprehension and comprehension strategies.
authors.affiliation: Northern Illinois University.
authors.forename: Joseph P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Magliano
authors.forename: Keith K
authors.initials: KK
authors.lastname: Millis
authors.forename: Irwin
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Levinstein
keywords: ASSESSMENT; COMPREHENSION ASSESSMENT; COMPREHENSION PROCESSES AND STRATEGIES
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):199-204
references.pmid: 17695345
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1988 Apr;95(2):163-82
references.pmid: 3375398
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 May;36(2):222-33
references.pmid: 15354687
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 May;36(2):213-21
references.pmid: 15354686
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1996 Feb;30(1):1-38
references.pmid: 8660781
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1994 Jul;101(3):371-95
references.pmid: 7938337
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jul;99(3):440-66
references.pmid: 1502273
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1986 Jan;12(1):108-15
references.pmid: 2949046
references.citation: Contemp Educ Psychol. 2001 Jan;26(1):25-43
references.pmid: 11161638
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2006 May;38(2):211-7
references.pmid: 16956096
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2002 May;34(2):181-8
references.pmid: 12109010