Relations Between Component Reading Skills, Inferences, and Comprehension Performance in Community College Readers

References

• ACT. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. Retrieved August, 2019, from https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/reading_summary.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing, 19(9), 933–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9024-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, P. A. (2000). Toward a model of academic development: Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge: The sequel. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 28–33, 44. doi:10.3102/0013189X029002028
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, P. A. (2003). Profiling the developing reader: The interplay of knowledge, interest, and strategic processing. In C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, J. V. Hoffman, & D. L. Schallert (Eds.), The fifty-first yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 47–65). National Reading Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, L. K., Jacovina, M. E., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Cohesive features of deep text comprehension processes. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2681–2686).
   Google Scholar
• Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006). Paying double: Inadequate high schools and community college remediation. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/remediation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• American Institutes for Research. (2006). New study of the literacy of college students finds some are graduating with only basic skills. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.air.org
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, S. L., & Lampi, J. P. (2017). PILLAR: A reading strategy for a new era of strategy instruction at the college level. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 43(3), 3–17.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, S. L., Stahl, N. A., & Kantner, M. J. (2016). Building better bridges: Understanding academic text readiness at one community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(11), 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1132644
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer, J. D., Cook, A. L., & Baldi, S. (2006). The literacy of America’s college students 2006: The national survey of America’s college students. American Institutes for Research.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental education in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2009(145), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.352
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S. W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, M. A., Ahmed, Y., Barth, A., & Francis, D. J. (2015). The relation of knowledge-text integration processes and reading comprehension in 7th-to 12th-grade students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(4), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1022650
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, M. A., Dennis, M., & Haefele-Kalvaitis, J. (1996). The effects of knowledge availability and knowledge accessibility on coherence and elaborative inferencing in children from six to fifteen years of age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61(3), 216–241. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.0015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning (CBAL): A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement, 8(2–3), 70–91. doi:10.1080/15366367.2010.508686
   Google Scholar
• Bettinger, E., & Long, B. T. (2005). Addressing the needs of under-prepared students in higher education: Does college remediation work? (NBER Working Paper No. W11325). Retrieved May, 2009, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=720411
   Google Scholar
• Blaum, D., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Britt, M. A. (2017). Thinking about global warming: Effect of policy-related documents and prompts on learning about causes of climate change. Discourse Processes, 54(4), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1136169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., & Gabrys, G. (2000). Teaching advanced literacy skills for the world wide web. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Webs we weave: Learning and teaching on the world wide web (pp. 73–90). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012761891-3/50007-2
   Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. M. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension. A theory of purposeful reading. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2007). Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In K. C. J. Oakhill (Ed.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 41–75). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers: Reading comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(5), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411410042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2014). Reading comprehension and vocabulary: Is vocabulary more important for some aspects of comprehension? LAnnee Psychologique, 114(4), 647–662. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503314004035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11(5–6), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008084120205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading 1320 comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1977). Inferences in comprehension. In D. LaBerge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension (pp. 243–263). Earlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Crisp, G., & Delgado, C. (2014). The impact of developmental education on community college persistence and vertical transfer. Community College Review, 42(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113516488
   Google Scholar
• Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Currie, N. K., & Cain, K. (2015). Children’s inference generation: The role of vocabulary and working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 137, 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.03.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179-211. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1402_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilliam, S., Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2007). Assessing the format of the presentation of text in developing a reading strategy assessment tool (R-SAT). Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Ferris & D. M. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 313– 1335 347). Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., CD, L., Shanahan, C., & Project READI. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (1998). Facilitating knowledge-based inferences in less-skilled readers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(2), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodara, M., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). An examination of the impact of accelerating community college students’ progression through developmental education. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(2), 246–276. doi:10.1080/00221546.2014.11777326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holschuh, J. P., & Paulson, E. J. (2013). The terrain of college developmental reading. In Executive summary and paper commissioned by the College Reading & Learning Association (pp. 1–18).
   Google Scholar
• Jaggars, S. S., & Stacey, G. W. (2014). What we know about developmental education outcomes. research overview. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, Oakcreek, WI..
   Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2003). The influence of reader’s prior knowledge on text comprehension and learning from text. In R. Nata (Ed.), Progress in Education (pp. 189-209). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopatich, R. D., Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Parker, C. P., & Ray, M. (2019). Understanding how language-specific and domain-general resources support comprehension. Discourse Processes, 56(7), 530–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1519358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaRusso, M., Kim, H. Y., Selman, R., Uccelli, P., Dawson, T., Jones, S., Donovan, S., & Snow, C. (2016). Contributions of academic language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning to deep reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(2), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1116035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavonier, N. (2016). Evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial reading courses at community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(6), 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1080200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell, & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Long, D. L., Golding, J. M., & Graesser, A. C. (1992). Test of the on-line status of goal related inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(5), 634–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90032-S
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1456. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyrén, P. E. (2009). Reporting subscores from college admission tests. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14(1), 4. doi:10.7275/960r-vc27
   Google Scholar
• Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2011). Assessing comprehension during reading with the reading strategy assessment Tool (RSAT). Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9064-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M. T., Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). The effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on Norwegian students’ document selection: A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMaster, K. L., Van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., White, M. J., Rapp, D. N., Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Carlson, S. (2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(1), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3801_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S. (2017). Self-explanation and reading strategy training (SERT) improves low-knowledge students’ science course performance. Discourse Processes, 54(7), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1101328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). New York, NY: Elsevier Science. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2
   Google Scholar
• McPeek, M., Altman, R., Wallmark, M., & Wingersky, B. C. (1976). An investigation of the feasibility of obtaining additional subscores on the GRE advanced psychology test (GRE Board Professional Report No. 74-4P). Educational Testing Service. ( ERIC Document No. ED163090).
   Google Scholar
• Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26(2–3), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2015). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): 2015 mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Nokes, J. D., & Dole, J. A. (2004). Helping adolescent readers through explicit strategy instruction. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 162–182). New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2013). Reading for understanding: How performance moderators and scenarios impact assessment design (ETS Research Report Series RR-15-17). ETS. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2013.tb02338.x
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., Sabatini, J., Bruce, K., Pillarisetti, S., & McCormick, C. (2012). Middle school reading assessment: Measuring what matters under an RTI framework. Reading Psychology Special Issue: Response to Intervention, 33(1–2), 162–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.631865
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., & Sheehan, K. M. (2009). Cognitively based assessment of, for and as learning: A 21st century approach for assessing reading competency (ETS Research Memorandum No. RM-09-04). ETS. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2009.tb02183.x
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., Wang, Z., & Sabatini, J. (2019). How much knowledge is too little? When a lack of knowledge becomes a barrier to comprehension. Psychological Science, 30(9), 1344–1351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619862276
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., Weeks, J., Sabatini, J., Halderman, L., & Steinberg, J. (2014). Designing reading comprehension assessments for reading interventions: How a theoretically motivated assessment can serve as an outcome measure. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9269-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & McCarthy, D. (2015). Inference processing in children: The contributions of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cooke, & R. F. Lorch Jr. (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 140-159). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Education at a glance 2018: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en
   Google Scholar
• Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C. A., & Adlof, S. M. (2012). Reading comprehension: A conceptual framework from word meaning to text meaning. In J. P. Sabatini, E. R. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 3–20). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
   Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. T. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189 –214). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C. A., Wlotko, E. W., & Hart, L. A. (2005). Word learning and individual differences in word learning reflected in event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1281. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525–556. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., Bruce, K., & Steinberg, J. (2013). SARA reading components tests, RISE form: Test design and technical adequacy. ETS Research Report Series, 2013(1), i–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2013.tb02315.x
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., Bruce, K., Steinberg, J., & Weeks, J. (2015). SARA reading components tests, RISE forms: Technical adequacy and test design (ETS RR-15-32). Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., Wang, Z., & Dreier, K. (2018). Scenario-based assessment of multiple source use. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bra?ten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), The handbook of multiple source use (pp. 447–465). New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., Weeks, J., & Wang, Z. (2019). Engineering a 21st Century reading comprehension assessment system utilizing scenario-based assessment techniques. International Journal of Testing. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1551224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., Weeks, J., O’Reilly, T., Bruce, K., Steinberg, J., & Chao, Z. (2019). SARA Reading Components Tests, RISE Forms: Technical Adequacy and Test Design, 3rd Edition. ETS Research Report Series 2019(1), 1-30.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J. P., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L. K., & Bruce, K. (2014). Integrating scenario‐based and component reading skill measures to understand the reading behavior of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J. P., Sawaki, Y., Shore, J. R., & Scarborough, H. S. (2010). Relationships among reading skills of adults with low literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(2), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409359343
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, M. (1988). Inferences in reading comprehension. In M. Daneman, G. E. Mackinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 177–188). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, N. A., & Armstrong, S. L. (2014). From content area reading to disciplinary literacy in postsecondary reading: Making the shift [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of International Reading Association, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, N. A., & Armstrong, S. L. (2018). Re-Claiming, re-inventing, and re-reforming a field: The future of college reading. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 48(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2017.1362969
   Google Scholar
• Traxler, M., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of psycholinguistics. Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Z., Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Weeks, J. (2019). Decoding and reading comprehension: A test of the decoding threshold hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 387–401. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fedu0000302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, G. L. (2008). A text readability continuum for postsecondary readiness. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(4), 602–632. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-832
   Google Scholar