Referencias

• Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C. & Mckeown, M. G. (1982). An instructional redesign of reading lessons: Effects on comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17 (4), 462–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A. & Wang, M. (1991). Equivalence of free-response and multiple-choice items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28 (1), 77–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg, C. A. & Smith, S. (1994). Assessing students' abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments. Science Education, 78 (6), 527–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britton, B. K. & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (3), 329–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. R. (2005). Single instrument, multiple measures: Considering the use of multiple item formats to assess reading comprehension. En S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 347–368). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Cordón, L. A. & Day, J. D. (1996). Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (2), 288–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coté, N., Goldman, S. R. & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25 (1), 1–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B. & Ruano, E. (1996). PROLEC (Batería de evaluaación de los procesos lectores). Madrid: TEA.
   Google Scholar
• Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450–466.
   Google Scholar
• Davison, A. & Kantor, R. N. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17 (2), 187–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De LA Cruz, M. V. (1997). ECL evaluación de la comprensión lectora. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
   Google Scholar
• Doolittle, A. E. & Cleary, T. A. (1987). Gender-based differential item performance in mathematics achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24 (2), 157–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embretson, S. & Gorin, J. (2001). Improving construct validity with cognitive Psychology principles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38 (4), 343–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farr, R., Pritchard, R. & Smitten, B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a mutiple-choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27 (3), 209–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23 (3) 357–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C. (en prensa). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. En D. S. Mcnamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C. & Goodman, S. M. (1985). Implicit knowledge, question answering, and the representation of expository text. En B. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 109–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative test comprehension. Psychological Review, 101 (3), 371–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson, P., Lignugaris-Kraft, B. & Miller, T. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8 (2), 106–126.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, S. & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2001). The contribution of passage and no-passage factor to item performance on the SAT reading task. Educational Assessment, 7 (2), 165–176.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, S., Lautenschlager, G. J., Blackburn, A. B. & Harris, F. H. (1990). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT. Psychological Science, 1 (2), 122–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95 (2), 163–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. En S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and aassessment (pp. 71–91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. & Keenan, J. M. (1973). Reading rate ands retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of the sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5 (3), 257–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (1), 70–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lázaro, A. J. (1999). Prueba de comprensión lectora. Madrid: Tea Ediciones.
   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), 1456–1470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López, N. & Alonso-Tapia, J. (1996). Main idea comprehension: Training teachers and effects on students. Journal of Research in Reading, 19 (2), 128–153.
   Google Scholar
• Lubliner, S. & Smetana, L. (2005). The Effects of Comprehensive Vocabulary Instruction on Title I Students' Metacognitive Word-Learning Skills and Reading Comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 37 (2), 163–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T. & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic Processing During Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4), 615–629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, B. J. F. (2003). Text coherence and readability. Topics in Language Disorders, 23 (3) 204–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, R. J. L. (1982). Sex differences in objective test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52 (2), 213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakhill, J., Cain, K. & Yuill, N. (1998). Individual differences in children's comprehension skill: Toward an integrated model. En C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 343–367). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2002). Conocimientos y aptitudes para la vida. Resultados de PISA 2000. México: Santillana.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2005). Informe PISA 2003: Aprender para el mundo del mañana. Madrid: Grupo Santillana.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D. & Hamm, D. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices-past, present, and future. En Scott G. Paris & Steven A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13–69). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Ramos, J. L. & Cuetos, F. (1999). PROLEC-SE: evaluación de los procesos lectores en alumnos de tercer ciclo de educación primaria y secundaria. Madrid: TEA.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, R. & Mckoon, G. (1978). Priming in item recognition: Evidence for the propositional structure of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17 (4), 403–418.
   Google Scholar
• Saenz, L. M. & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Speecial Education, 23 (1), 31–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, M. & Ritchot, K. F. M. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory and Cognition, 24, 733–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, N. L. & Trabasso, T. (1981). What's in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. En R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 213–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Suárez, A. & Meara, P. (1982). CLT prueba de comprensión lectora (cloze). Madrid: Tea Ediciones.
   Google Scholar
• Trites, L. & Mcgroarty, M. (2005). Reading to learn and reading to integrate: New tasks for reading comprehension tests? Language Testing, 22 (2), 174–210.
   Google Scholar
• Urío, C., Toro, J. & Cervera, M. (2000). Escala Magallanes de lecto-escritura TALE2000. Bilbao: Grupo Albor-Cohs.
   Google Scholar
• Van DEN Bergh, H. (1990). On the construct validity of multiple-choice items for reading comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14 (1), 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van DEN Broek, P., Lynch, J. S., Naslund, J., Ievers-Landis, C. E. & Verduin, K. (2003). The development of comprehension of main ideas in narratives: Evidence from the selection of titles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), 707–718.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Nueva York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R. & Abad, N. (2002). Una propuesta para hacer buenos textos expositivos: Hacia una tecnología del texto expositivo. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 25 (4), 499–514.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal-Abarca, E., Reyes, H., Gilabert, R. & Calpe, J. (2002). ETAT: Expository text analysis tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34 (1), 93–107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ward, W. C. (1980). Construct validity of free-response and machine-scorable forms of a test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17 (1), 11–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, W. C. (1982). A comparaison of free-response and multiple-choice forms of verbal aptitude test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6 (1) 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar