Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differential Competencies Contributing to Children's Comprehension of Narrative and Expository Texts

Best, Rachel M., Floyd, Randy G., Mcnamara, Danielle S.·2008·Reading Psychology
DOI 10.1080/02702710801963951
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined the influences of reading decoding skills and world knowledge on third graders' comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Children read a narrative text and an expository text. Comprehension of each text was assessed with a free recall prompt, three cued recall prompts, and 12 multiple-choice questions. Tests from the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001 Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S. and Mather, N. 2001. Woodcock–Johnson III, Itasca, IL: Riverside. [Google Scholar]) were used to assess reading decoding skills and world knowledge. Comprehension was better for the narrative text than the expository text, and the effects of reader competencies depended on text genre. Comprehension of the narrative text was most influenced by reading decoding skills. In contrast, expository text comprehension was most influenced by world knowledge.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02702710801963951

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. 1998, Phonics take-home reader, grade 2
  2. Afflerbach P., 1986, National reading conference yearbook, 35. Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers and researchers, 30
  3. Baker S., 2002, Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Prevention and remedial approaches, 731
  4. Cain K., 1996, Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention, 167
  5. Curtis M. E., 1980, Journal of Educational Psychology., 90, 294
  6. 2006, Get a Fact Sheet for your community
  7. Givón T., 1993, English grammar. A function-based approach (2 vols.)
  8. 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.103 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Langer J. A., 1986, Perspectives in Reading Research and Instruction
  10. McGrew K. S., 2001, Technical manual. Woodcock-Johnson III
  11. McNamara D. S., 2003, Coh-Metrix: Automated cohesion and coherence scores to predict text readability and facilitate comprehension
  12. Perfetti C. A., 1985, Reading ability
  13. Spiro R. J., 1980, On investigating children's transition from narrative to expository discourse: the multi-dimensional nature of psychological classification
  14. Stein N. L., 1981, Advances in the psychology of instruction, vol. 2, 213
  15. Sweet A. P., Rethinking reading comprehension
  16. Taschow H. G., 1969, Reading Improvement., 6, 62
  17. Wong B., 1985, Metacognition, cognition, and human performance, vol. 2, 137
  18. Woodcock R. W., 2001, Woodcock–Johnson III

Cited by

See all 281

Metadata

Authors
Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & Mcnamara, D. S.
Venue
Reading Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2008-04-08
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
137-164
ISSN
  • 0270-2711
  • 1521-0685
DOI
10.1080/02702710801963951
Cited by
281
References
77
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.