RULE: Development of a reading comprehension measure (Kucheria et al., 2018)

Purpose: There is a lack of quick, reliable, and valid standardized reading comprehension assessments appropriate for postsecondary readers. We attempted to address this gap by designing Read, Understand, Learn, & Excel (RULE), a reading comprehension measure that employs sentence verification and recall tasks to assess reading comprehension. This article describes the exploratory study undertaken to construct RULE and then examines the preliminary concurrent validity and alternate form reliability of this measure.Method: The RULE measure was first developed by designing reading stimuli, test items for the sentence verification task, and directions for the recall test for 2 forms based on previous work (Griffiths, Sohlberg, Kirk, Fickas, & Biancarosa, 2016). Thirty undergraduate students who identified themselves as typical readers were administered the RULE measure as well as the Nelson–Denny Reading Test (Brown, Fishco, & Hanna, 1993). Students also completed questionnaires and participated in informal interviews to provide information regarding study and learning habits and academic background.Results: There was preliminary evidence of alternate form reliability between the sentence verification task sets of 2 chapters of RULE (r = .38, p < .05). Preliminary evidence for concurrent validity between RULE and the Nelson–Denny Reading Test was provided by correlation coefficients in the low to moderate range (.03–.38).Conclusion: RULE design and preliminary findings of concurrent validity and alternate form reliability provide “proof of concept” for an ecologically valid testing format that assesses comprehension skills appropriate for the postsecondary level. Suggestions for strengthening validity and reliability of the tool are provided, and clinical contributions of RULE are discussed.Supplemental Material S1. Comparison between Read, Understand, Learn, & Excel (RULE) measures and alternative measures of reading comprehension. Supplemental Material S2. Comparison between Read, Understand, Learn, & Excel (RULE) measures and Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI; Weinstein, Palmer, & Acee, 2016) Information processing scale.Kucheria, P., Sohlberg, M. M., Yoon, H., Fickas, S., & Prideaux, J. (2018). Read, Understand, Learn, & Excel (RULE): Development and feasibility of a reading comprehension measure for postsecondary learners. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0221

目的：鉴于缺乏适用于高等学府读者快速、可靠且有效的标准化阅读理解评估工具，本研究旨在填补这一空白，设计了一种名为阅读、理解、学习与卓越（RULE）的阅读理解评估方法。该方法通过句子验证和回忆任务来评估阅读理解能力。本文详细描述了构建RULE的探索性研究，并检验了该评估工具的初步同时效度和交替形式信度。方法：RULE评估工具的初版是基于先前的研究（Griffiths, Sohlberg, Kirk, Fickas, & Biancarosa, 2016）设计的阅读刺激、句子验证任务的测试项目和回忆测试的指导。30名自认为为典型读者的本科生接受了RULE评估以及Nelson–Denny阅读测试（Brown, Fishco, & Hanna, 1993）。学生还完成了问卷调查并参与了非正式访谈，以提供有关学习和学习习惯以及学术背景的信息。结果：初步证据表明，RULE的两个章节的句子验证任务集合之间具有交替形式信度（r = .38, p < .05）。RULE与Nelson–Denny阅读测试之间的初步同时效度由低到中等的相关系数（.03–.38）提供。结论：RULE的设计及其在同时效度和交替形式信度方面的初步发现，为一种生态效度高的测试格式提供了“概念验证”，该格式评估了适用于高等教育水平的理解技能。本文还提供了增强工具效度和信度的建议，并讨论了RULE在临床方面的贡献。补充材料S1：阅读、理解、学习与卓越（RULE）评估工具与阅读理解替代措施的对比。补充材料S2：阅读、理解、学习与卓越（RULE）评估工具与学习与学习策略问卷（LASSI；Weinstein, Palmer, & Acee, 2016）信息处理量表的对比。Kucheria, P., Sohlberg, M. M., Yoon, H., Fickas, S., & Prideaux, J. (2018). 阅读、理解、学习与卓越（RULE）：为高等教育学习者设计的阅读理解评估工具的开发与可行性。美国言语-语言病理学杂志。高级在线发布。https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0221