The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reading Comprehension Tests Vary in the Skills They Assess: Differential Dependence on Decoding and Oral Comprehension
Open accessAbstract
Comprehension tests are often used interchangeably, suggesting an implicit assumption that they are all measuring the same thing. We examine the validity of this assumption by comparing some of the most popular reading comprehension measures used in research and clinical practice in the United States: the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT), the two assessments (retellings and comprehension questions) from the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI), the Woodcock–Johnson Passage Comprehension subtest (WJPC), and the Reading Comprehension test from the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT). Modest intercorrelations among the tests suggested that they were measuring different skills. Regression analyses showed that decoding, not listening comprehension, accounts for most of the variance in both the PIAT and the WJPC; the reverse holds for the GORT and both QRI measures. Large developmental differences in what the tests measure were found for the PIAT and the WJPC, but not the other tests, both when development was measured by chronological age and by word reading ability. We discuss the serious implications for research and clinical practice of having different comprehension tests measure different skills and of having the same test assess different skills depending on developmental level.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension
Snow, C. E. (1998) · Cited by 1,813
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement
(2012) · SpringerReference · doi:10.1007/springerreference_180722 · Cited by 1,566
Woodcock‐Johnson III Tests of Achievement
Dumont, R., & Willis, J. O. (2008) · Encyclopedia of Special Education · doi:10.1002/9780470373699.speced2229 · Cited by 1,027
Children's Reading Comprehension and Assessment
(2005) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410612762 · Cited by 704
Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5 · Cited by 678
Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities : new views on measurement issues
Lyon, G. R. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 594
Qualitative Reading Inventory-4
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2005) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 546
The Connections Between Language and Reading Disabilities
(2005) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410612052 · Cited by 495
Fundamental Factors of Comprehension in Reading
Davis, F. B. (1944) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02288722 · Cited by 345
(1994) · Cited by 322
Cited by
To read or not to read: a meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood
Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0021890 · Cited by 1,299
A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory
Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., Dardick, W., & Tao, S. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000124 · Cited by 521
The Simple View of Reading: Is It Valid for Different Types of Alphabetic Orthographies?
Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6 · Cited by 406
Lervåg, A., & Aukrust, V. G. (2010) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02185.x · Cited by 368
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0033890 · Cited by 363
Metadata
- Authors
- Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K.
- Venue
- Scientific Studies of Reading
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-07-16
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 281-300
- ISSN
- 1088-8438 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-799X
- OpenAlex
- W2089975905
- Cited by
- 668
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 42.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reading Comprehension Tests Vary in the Skills They Assess: Differential Dependence on Decoding and Oral Comprehension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10888430802132279
- The paper
- Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading Comprehension Tests Vary in the Skills They Assess: Differential Dependence on Decoding and Oral Comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279
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.