The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading comprehension
Open accessAbstract
Background. The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA; ) is a widely used assessment of reading comprehension and word reading accuracy. questioned the suitability of the NARA for identifying children with specific reading comprehension deficits. Aims and methods. An evaluation of the NARA measurement of word reading and reading comprehension level was undertaken in relation to models of reading ability. Appropriate control measures were considered. The strengths and weaknesses of different forms of reading comprehension were also evaluated. Results. Previous research into reading comprehension difficulties using the NARA has adopted satisfactory control measures in relation to word reading ability. There are limitations associated with all the considered forms of reading comprehension assessment. Conclusions. If administered and interpreted appropriately, the NARA is an effective instrument for researchers and practitioners who need to assess both word reading accuracy and reading comprehension and to identify children with a dissociation between these two aspects of reading.
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
Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies
Carroll, J. B. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571312 · Cited by 4,121
Cited by
PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework
OECD (2019) · PISA · doi:10.1787/b25efab8-en · Cited by 1,614
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
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
Self-citationLervåg, A., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2018) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.12861 · Cited by 316
McCombs, J., Pane, J., Augustine, C., Schwartz, H., Martorell, P., & Zakaras, L. (2014) · doi:10.7249/rr815 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Cain, K., & Oakhill, J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 697-708
- ISSN
- 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8279
- OpenAlex
- W2017328373
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading comprehension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1348/000709905x69807
- The paper
- Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905x69807
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.
