Differences in Literal and Inferential Comprehension After Reading Orally and Silently
Responses on reading tests, both silent and oral, are measured by literal and inferential questions. If the kind of question is controlled, are there differences in comprehension due to test format (silent or oral)? Do such differences exist for both good and poor readers? Ninety-four children in Gr...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of educational psychology 1985-06, Vol.77 (3), p.341-348 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 348 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 341 |
| container_title | Journal of educational psychology |
| container_volume | 77 |
| creator | Miller, Samuel D Smith, Donald E. P |
| description | Responses on reading tests, both silent and oral, are measured by literal and inferential questions. If the kind of question is controlled, are there differences in comprehension due to test format (silent or oral)? Do such differences exist for both good and poor readers? Ninety-four children in Grades 2-5 were asked to read, orally and silently, grade-appropriate passages from the Analytic Reading Inventory (
Woods & Moe, 1977
). Questions were classified as literal or inferential. A repeated measures analysis of variance showed no direct effects attributable to test format (whether the child read orally or silently) or kinds of comprehension (whether the child answered literal or inferential questions) but did show several interaction effects at different levels of competence. Results fail to support common assumptions regarding the greater ease of silent over oral reading or literal over inferential comprehension for poor readers but do support contentions of deficits in automaticity and attentional focus in poor readers. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.341 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_614279584</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1290562194</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a460t-3abbfce8af8df28fee49c8fde3f9a99936862b58b85966d1f5d32f76151dcada3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMlKBDEQhoMoOC4v4KlRb9Jjlu50cpRxhQHB7RpqsmikTbdJz2He3rQjgqKnoqjv_ws-hA4InhLMmlOMKS0x52zaNFM2ZRXZQBMimSwpafgmmnwD22gnpVeMMcvLBD2de-dstEHbVPhQzP1gI7QFBFPchM_L4PM-6976aF9sSL4LxZnLVHFnwfjwXNzmQLv6jNz7Ngfa1R7actAmu_81d9Hj5cXD7Lqc317dzM7mJVQcDyWDxcJpK8AJ46hw1lZSC2cscxKklIwLThe1WIhacm6Iqw2jruGkJkaDAbaLDte9fezelzYN6rVbxpBfKk4q2shaVBk6-g8iVOKaUyJHiq4pHbuUonWqj_4N4koRrEbJanSoRoeqaRRTWXIOHX9VQ9LQughB-_SdFHVNGR27T9YY9KD6tNIQB69bm_QyjoaVNcs_Sn_TP7EP2veYGg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614279584</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Differences in Literal and Inferential Comprehension After Reading Orally and Silently</title><source>APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Miller, Samuel D ; Smith, Donald E. P</creator><contributor>Calfee, Robert C</contributor><creatorcontrib>Miller, Samuel D ; Smith, Donald E. P ; Calfee, Robert C</creatorcontrib><description>Responses on reading tests, both silent and oral, are measured by literal and inferential questions. If the kind of question is controlled, are there differences in comprehension due to test format (silent or oral)? Do such differences exist for both good and poor readers? Ninety-four children in Grades 2-5 were asked to read, orally and silently, grade-appropriate passages from the Analytic Reading Inventory (
Woods & Moe, 1977
). Questions were classified as literal or inferential. A repeated measures analysis of variance showed no direct effects attributable to test format (whether the child read orally or silently) or kinds of comprehension (whether the child answered literal or inferential questions) but did show several interaction effects at different levels of competence. Results fail to support common assumptions regarding the greater ease of silent over oral reading or literal over inferential comprehension for poor readers but do support contentions of deficits in automaticity and attentional focus in poor readers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0663</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-2176</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.341</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JLEPA5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Elementary School Students ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Human ; Language ; Oral Reading ; Production and perception of written language ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Reading Ability ; Reading Comprehension ; Silent Reading</subject><ispartof>Journal of educational psychology, 1985-06, Vol.77 (3), p.341-348</ispartof><rights>1985 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>1986 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>1985, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a460t-3abbfce8af8df28fee49c8fde3f9a99936862b58b85966d1f5d32f76151dcada3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27846,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=8552324$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Calfee, Robert C</contributor><creatorcontrib>Miller, Samuel D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Donald E. P</creatorcontrib><title>Differences in Literal and Inferential Comprehension After Reading Orally and Silently</title><title>Journal of educational psychology</title><description>Responses on reading tests, both silent and oral, are measured by literal and inferential questions. If the kind of question is controlled, are there differences in comprehension due to test format (silent or oral)? Do such differences exist for both good and poor readers? Ninety-four children in Grades 2-5 were asked to read, orally and silently, grade-appropriate passages from the Analytic Reading Inventory (
Woods & Moe, 1977
). Questions were classified as literal or inferential. A repeated measures analysis of variance showed no direct effects attributable to test format (whether the child read orally or silently) or kinds of comprehension (whether the child answered literal or inferential questions) but did show several interaction effects at different levels of competence. Results fail to support common assumptions regarding the greater ease of silent over oral reading or literal over inferential comprehension for poor readers but do support contentions of deficits in automaticity and attentional focus in poor readers.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Elementary School Students</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Oral Reading</subject><subject>Production and perception of written language</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Reading Ability</subject><subject>Reading Comprehension</subject><subject>Silent Reading</subject><issn>0022-0663</issn><issn>1939-2176</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1985</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMlKBDEQhoMoOC4v4KlRb9Jjlu50cpRxhQHB7RpqsmikTbdJz2He3rQjgqKnoqjv_ws-hA4InhLMmlOMKS0x52zaNFM2ZRXZQBMimSwpafgmmnwD22gnpVeMMcvLBD2de-dstEHbVPhQzP1gI7QFBFPchM_L4PM-6976aF9sSL4LxZnLVHFnwfjwXNzmQLv6jNz7Ngfa1R7actAmu_81d9Hj5cXD7Lqc317dzM7mJVQcDyWDxcJpK8AJ46hw1lZSC2cscxKklIwLThe1WIhacm6Iqw2jruGkJkaDAbaLDte9fezelzYN6rVbxpBfKk4q2shaVBk6-g8iVOKaUyJHiq4pHbuUonWqj_4N4koRrEbJanSoRoeqaRRTWXIOHX9VQ9LQughB-_SdFHVNGR27T9YY9KD6tNIQB69bm_QyjoaVNcs_Sn_TP7EP2veYGg</recordid><startdate>198506</startdate><enddate>198506</enddate><creator>Miller, Samuel D</creator><creator>Smith, Donald E. P</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><general>American Psychological Association, etc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>EOLOZ</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>IZSXY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198506</creationdate><title>Differences in Literal and Inferential Comprehension After Reading Orally and Silently</title><author>Miller, Samuel D ; Smith, Donald E. P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a460t-3abbfce8af8df28fee49c8fde3f9a99936862b58b85966d1f5d32f76151dcada3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1985</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Elementary School Students</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Oral Reading</topic><topic>Production and perception of written language</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Reading Ability</topic><topic>Reading Comprehension</topic><topic>Silent Reading</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miller, Samuel D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Donald E. P</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 01</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 30</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Journal of educational psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miller, Samuel D</au><au>Smith, Donald E. P</au><au>Calfee, Robert C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Differences in Literal and Inferential Comprehension After Reading Orally and Silently</atitle><jtitle>Journal of educational psychology</jtitle><date>1985-06</date><risdate>1985</risdate><volume>77</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>341</spage><epage>348</epage><pages>341-348</pages><issn>0022-0663</issn><eissn>1939-2176</eissn><coden>JLEPA5</coden><abstract>Responses on reading tests, both silent and oral, are measured by literal and inferential questions. If the kind of question is controlled, are there differences in comprehension due to test format (silent or oral)? Do such differences exist for both good and poor readers? Ninety-four children in Grades 2-5 were asked to read, orally and silently, grade-appropriate passages from the Analytic Reading Inventory (
Woods & Moe, 1977
). Questions were classified as literal or inferential. A repeated measures analysis of variance showed no direct effects attributable to test format (whether the child read orally or silently) or kinds of comprehension (whether the child answered literal or inferential questions) but did show several interaction effects at different levels of competence. Results fail to support common assumptions regarding the greater ease of silent over oral reading or literal over inferential comprehension for poor readers but do support contentions of deficits in automaticity and attentional focus in poor readers.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><doi>10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.341</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-0663 |
| ispartof | Journal of educational psychology, 1985-06, Vol.77 (3), p.341-348 |
| issn | 0022-0663 1939-2176 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_614279584 |
| source | APA PsycARTICLES; Periodicals Index Online |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Elementary School Students Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Human Language Oral Reading Production and perception of written language Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Reading Ability Reading Comprehension Silent Reading |
| title | Differences in Literal and Inferential Comprehension After Reading Orally and Silently |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T00%3A28%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Differences%20in%20Literal%20and%20Inferential%20Comprehension%20After%20Reading%20Orally%20and%20Silently&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20educational%20psychology&rft.au=Miller,%20Samuel%20D&rft.date=1985-06&rft.volume=77&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=341&rft.epage=348&rft.pages=341-348&rft.issn=0022-0663&rft.eissn=1939-2176&rft.coden=JLEPA5&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.341&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1290562194%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614279584&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |