Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Validation of sub-constructs in reading comprehension tests using teachers’ classification of cognitive targets
Karlstad University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (starting 2013), Department of Educational Studies (from 2013).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9375-9512
2018 (English)In: Language Assessment Quarterly, ISSN 1543-4303, Vol. 15, no 2, p. 169-182Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Reading comprehension is often treated as a multidimensional construct. In many reading tests, items are distributed over reading process categories to represent the subskills expected to constitute comprehension. This study explores (a) the extent to which specified subskills of reading comprehension tests are conceptually conceivable to teachers, who score and use national reading test results and (b) the extent to which teachers agree on how to locate and define item difficulty in terms of expected text comprehension. Eleven teachers of Swedish were asked to classify items from a national reading test in Sweden by process categories similar to the categories used in the PIRLS reading test. They were also asked to describe the type of comprehension necessary for solving the items. Findings of the study suggest that the reliability of item classification is limited and that teachers’ perception of item difficulty is diverse. Although the data set in the study is limited, the findings indicate, in line with recent validity theory, that the division of reading comprehension into subskills by cognitive process level will require further validity evidence and should be treated with caution. Implications for the interpretation of test scores and for test development are discussed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2018. Vol. 15, no 2, p. 169-182
National Category
Educational Sciences
Research subject
Education
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-68392DOI: 10.1080/15434303.2018.1448820ISI: 000435123300004Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85048700313OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kau-68392DiVA, id: diva2:1230611
Available from: 2018-07-04 Created: 2018-07-04 Last updated: 2018-07-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Tengberg, Michael

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Tengberg, Michael
By organisation
Department of Educational Studies (from 2013)
Educational Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 2 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf