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?
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.
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
Decoding, reading, and reading disability.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986) · Remedial and Special Education · doi:10.1177/074193258600700104 · Cited by 3,972
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 · Cited by 1,341
Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach
Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R., & Franks, J. J. (1972) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90003-5 · Cited by 908
Cited by
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888430802132279 · Cited by 668
The Precursors of Reading Ability in Young Readers: Evidence From a Four-Year Longitudinal Study
Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888438.2010.529219 · Cited by 630
Vocabulary Is Important for Some, but Not All Reading Skills
Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2007) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888430701344306 · Cited by 469
Kim, Y.-S. G. (2017) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643 · Cited by 393
The Role of Background Knowledge in Reading Comprehension: A Critical Review
Smith, R., Snow, P., Serry, T., & Hammond, L. (2021) · Reading Psychology · doi:10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348 · Cited by 326
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.