How Individual Differences Interact With Task Demands in Text Processing

References

• Baer, J., Kutner, M., Sabatini, J., & White, S. (2009). Basic reading skills and the literacy of america’s least literate adults: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy (naal) supplemental studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Bean, T. W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders’ summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 16(4), 297–306. doi:10.1080/10862968409547523
   Google Scholar
• Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 206–219. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bråten, I., Gil, L., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). The role of different task instructions and reader characteristics when learning from multiple expository texts. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 95–122). Greenwich CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 14–21. doi:10.3102/0013189X010002014
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54(4), 968–979. doi:10.2307/1129901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver, R. P. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., & Marks, C. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 109–118. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.70.2.109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 389–406. doi:10.2307/747699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eason, S. H., Sabatini, J., Goldberg, L., Bruce, K., & Cutting, L. E. (2013). Examining the relationship between word reading efficiency and oral reading rate in predicting comprehension among different types of readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(3), 199–223. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.652722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A., & Lehman, B. (2011). Questions drive comprehension of text and multimedia. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 53–74). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Head, M. H., Readence, J. E., & Buss, R. R. (1989). An examination of summary writing as a measure of reading comprehension. Literacy Research and Instruction, 28(4), 1–11. doi:10.1080/19388078909557982
   Google Scholar
• Hornof, M. (2008). Reading tests as a genre study. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 69–73. doi:10.1598/RT.62.1.8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyönä, J., Lorch, J. R. F., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 44–55. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 310–321. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, B. A., Nicholls, A., & Kohen, D. (1993). Repeated readings: Process benefits for good and poor readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56(3), 303–327. doi:10.1006/jecp.1993.1037
   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. doi: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. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3), 440–466. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead, C. D. (1917). Results in silent versus oral reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(6), 367–368. doi:10.1037/h0067774
   Google Scholar
• Millis, K. K., Simon, S., & Tenbroek, N. S. (1998). Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 26(2), 232–246. doi:10.3758/BF03201136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). Improving adult literacy instruction: Options for practice and research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pintner, R. (1913). Oral and silent reading of fourth grade pupils. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4(6), 333–337. doi:10.1037/h0072491
   Google Scholar
• Raney, G. E. (2003). A context-dependent representation model for explaining text repetition effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 15–28. doi:10.3758/BF03196466
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raney, G. E., & Rayner, K. (1995). Word frequency effects and eye movements during two readings of a text. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 49(2), 151–173. doi:10.1037/1196-1961.49.2.151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J., & Clifton, J. C. (2012). Psychology of reading. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221. doi:10.3102/00346543066002181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23(4), 441–474. doi:10.1191/0265532206lt337oa
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., Bruce, K., Steinberg, J., & Weeks, J. (2015). SARA reading components tests, RISE forms: Technical adequacy and test design. ETS Research Report Series, 2015(2), 1–20. doi:10.1002/ets2.12076
   Google Scholar
• Samuels, S. J. (2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 24–46). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Santman, D. (2002). Teaching to the test?: Test preparation in the reading workshop. Language Arts, 79(3), 203–211.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., Cunningham, A. E., Cipielewski, J., & Siddequi, S. (1996). The role of inadequate print exposure as a determinant of reading comprehension problems. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 15–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00011-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
   Google Scholar
• Van Den Broek, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S., & White, M. (2011). When a reader meets a text: The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 123–140). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Van Den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087. doi:10.3758/BF03206376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidal-Abarca, E., Salmerón, L., & Mañá, A. (2011). Individual differences in task-oriented reading. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text revelance and learning from text (pp. 267–294). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85–120. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar