Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 226

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing children's inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure?

Bowyer‐Crane, Claudine, Snowling, Margaret J.·2005·British Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Background. Previous research suggests that children with specific comprehension difficulties have problems with the generation of inferences. This raises important questions as to whether poor comprehenders have poor comprehension skills generally, or whether their problems are confined to specific inference types. Aims. The main aims of the study were (a) using two commonly used tests of reading comprehension to classify the questions requiring the generation of inferences, and (b) to investigate the relative performance of skilled and less‐skilled comprehenders on questions tapping different inference types. Sample. The performance of 10 poor comprehenders (mean age 110.06 months) was compared with the performance of 10 normal readers (mean age 112.78 months) on two tests of reading comprehension. Method. A qualitative analysis of the NARA II (form 1) and the WORD comprehension subtest was carried out. Participants were then administered the NARA II, WORD comprehension subtest and a test of non‐word reading. Results. The NARA II was heavily reliant on the generation of knowledge‐based inferences, while the WORD comprehension subtest was biased towards the retention of literal information. Children identified by the NARA II as having comprehension difficulties performed in the normal range on the WORD comprehension subtests. Further, children with comprehension difficulties performed poorly on questions requiring the generation of knowledge‐based and elaborative inferences. However, they were able to answer questions requiring attention to literal information or use of cohesive devices at a level comparable to normal readers. Conclusions. Different reading tests tap different types of inferencing skills. Less‐skilled comprehenders have particular difficulty applying real‐world knowledge to a text during reading, and this has implications for the formulation of effective intervention strategies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/000709904x22674

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 226

Metadata

Authors
Bowyer‐Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J.
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-06
Volume
75
Issue
2
Pages
189-201
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
OpenAlex
W2022031249
Cited by
226
References
3
FWCI
6.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Assessing children's inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1348/000709904x22674
The paper
Bowyer‐Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2005). Assessing children's inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904x22674

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.