Defining Prose Task Characteristics for Use in Computer-Adaptive Testing and Instruction

The purpose of this study was to validate the constructs that define the difficulty levels of prose-task processing. To accomplish this, this study investigated the extent to which variables from a previous study (Mosenthal, 1996) on document processing influenced difficulty on 165 tasks drawn from the prose scales of five national, adult-literacy surveys. It was found that three process variables accounted for 78% of the variance when prose task difficulty was defined using level scores. The constructs within five levels are specified in terms of a hierarchy of processing difficulty and proficiency. The application of these levels for designing computer-adaptive testing and instruction programs is considered, as are applications for conducting prose research and interpreting literacy policy.

[1]  H. H. Clark.  The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[2]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  Test Theory for A New Generation of Tests , 1994 .

[3]  Rona F. Flippo.  Reading Assessment and Instruction: A Qualitative Approach to Diagnosis. , 1997 .

[4]  Barr and Feigenbaum Edward A. Avron,et al.  The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence , 1981 .

[5]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Designing effective adult literacy programs , 1989 .

[6]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Cycle Strategies in Document Search: From Here to There to Wherever (Document Strategies). , 1992 .

[7]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Literacy, profiles of America's young adults , 1986 .

[8]  D. Fisher.  Functional Literacy Tests: A Model of Question-Answering and an Analysis of Errors. , 1981 .

[9]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  QUEST: A cognitive model of question answering , 1990 .

[10]  Edward B. Fry,et al.  Fry's Readability Graph: Clarifications, Validity, and Extension to Level 17. , 1977 .

[11]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Profiling the Literacy Proficiencies of JTPA and ES/UI Populations. Final Report to the Department of Labor. , 1992 .

[12]  Anthony J. Nitko,et al.  Designing tests that are integrated with instruction. , 1989 .

[13]  Michael Marsiske,et al.  Text processing variables predict the readability of everyday documents read by older adults. , 1993, Reading research quarterly.

[14]  R. Linn.  Educational measurement, 3rd ed. , 1989 .

[15]  Paul D. Nichols,et al.  A Framework for Developing Cognitively Diagnostic Assessments , 1994 .

[16]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Toward an explanatory model of document literacy , 1991 .

[17]  Murray Singer,et al.  Answering Questions about Discourse. , 1990 .

[18]  Daniel O. Segall,et al.  Multidimensional adaptive testing , 1996 .

[19]  J. B. Olsen,et al.  THE FOUR GENERATIONS OF COMPUTERIZED EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT , 1988 .

[20]  Stuart C. Shapiro,et al.  Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence, vols. 1 and 2 (2nd ed.) , 1992 .

[21]  Stuart.  The affective domain , 1970 .

[22]  Improvement,et al.  Adult literacy in America : a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey , 1993 .

[23]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Adult literacy in America , 1993 .

[24]  Wendy Grace Lehnert,et al.  The Process of Question Answering , 2022 .

[25]  Louis Narens,et al.  Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings. , 1980 .

[26]  David W. Moore,et al.  The Contribution of Understanding Academic Vocabulary to Answering Comprehension Questions , 1993 .

[27]  John T. Guthrie,et al.  Literacy as Multidimensional: Locating Information and Reading Comprehension , 1987 .

[28]  A. Graesser,et al.  The Psychology of Questions , 1985 .

[29]  B. Rosenshine,et al.  Teaching Students to Generate Questions: A Review of the Intervention Studies , 1996 .

[30]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  On asking people questions about what they are reading , 1975 .

[31]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  INTEGRATING COGNITIVE AND PSYCHOMETRIC MODELS TO MEASURE DOCUMENT LITERACY , 1982 .

[32]  Richard W. Morshead.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook II: Affective Domain , 1965 .

[33]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Exploring Document Literacy: Variables Underlying the Performance of Young Adults. , 1990 .

[34]  Samuel Messick.  National Assessment of Educational Progress Reconsidered: A New Design for a New Era. , 1983 .

[35]  R. Hambleton.  Principles and selected applications of item response theory. , 1989 .

[36]  A. Graesser,et al.  Question Asking During Tutoring , 1994 .

[37]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Distinctions between reading comprehension and locating information in text. , 1987 .

[38]  Peter B. Mosenthal,et al.  Understanding the strategies of document literacy and their conditions of use. , 1996 .

[39]  John T. Guthrie,et al.  Roles of Document Structure, Cognitive Strategy, and Awareness in Searching for Information. , 1991 .

[40]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  Integrating Cognitive and Psychometric Models to Measure Document Literacy. , 1990 .

[41]  Peter B. Mosenthal,et al.  Defining the expository discourse continuum , 1985 .

[42]  Susy Macqueen,et al.  Validity , 1973, Just Algorithms.

[43]  Marilyn Binkley,et al.  Methodological Issues in Comparative Educational Studies: The Case of the IEA Reading Literacy Study. , 1995 .

[44]  R. Freedle.  Discourse production and comprehension , 1978 .