Evaluación de las estrategias y procesos de comprensión: el Test de Procesos de Comprensión

Resumen En este trabajo se presenta un nuevo test de evaluación de la comprensión lectora llamado Test de Procesos de Comprensión (TPC) que, a diferencia de la mayoría de los test en español actuales, está basado en un análisis de procesos de comprensión contemplados en la mayoría de los modelos cognitivos actuales. El test es aplicable a escolares entre 11 y 16 años, de fácil aplicación y corrección. Los resultados empíricos muestran que el test cumple con los requisitos psicométricos estándar de homogeneidad, validez y fiabilidad, y muestra un alto poder para discriminar entre estudiantes de diferentes niveles escolares. Supone un avance metodológico en la elaboración de pruebas de evaluación fundamentadas en modelos cognitivos ampliamente aceptados.

[1]  F. Vega,et al.  PROLEC: batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores de los niños de Educación Primaria , 1996 .

[2]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  ETAT: Expository Text Analysis Tool , 2002, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[3]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Priming in item recognition: Evidence for the propositional structure of sentences , 1978 .

[4]  Murray Singer,et al.  The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[5]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

[6]  Huub van den Bergh,et al.  On the Construct Validity of Multiple- Choice Items for Reading Comprehension , 1990 .

[7]  B. K. Britton,et al.  Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. , 1991 .

[8]  Jeanne D. Day,et al.  Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension tests. , 1996 .

[9]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation , 1998 .

[10]  J. Alonso-Tapia,et al.  Main Idea Comprehension: Training Teachers and Effects on Students. , 1996 .

[11]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[12]  Shira Lubliner,et al.  The Effects of Comprehensive Vocabulary Instruction on Title I Students' Metacognitive Word-Learning Skills and Reading Comprehension , 2005 .

[13]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Rereading Effects Depend on Time of Test. , 2005 .

[14]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences , 1973 .

[15]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Examining the Reading Difficulty of Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities , 2002 .

[16]  R. Murphy.  SEX DIFFERENCES IN OBJECTIVE TEST PERFORMANCE , 1982 .

[17]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. , 1994 .

[18]  Danielle S. McNamara.  Reading comprehension strategies : theories, interventions, and technologies , 2007 .

[19]  Craig A. Berg,et al.  Assessing Students' Abilities to Construct and Interpret Line Graphs: Disparities between Multiple-Choice and Free-Response Instruments , 1994 .

[20]  William C. Ward,et al.  A Comparison of Free-Response and Multiple-Choice Forms of Verbal Aptitude Tests , 1981 .

[21]  Stuart Katz,et al.  Answering Reading Comprehension Items without the Passages on the SAT–I , 1999 .

[22]  Lignugaris,et al.  Using Content Enhancements to Improve the Performance of Adolescents with Learning Disabilities in Content Classes , 1993 .

[23]  Nancy L. Stein,et al.  What's in a Story: An Approach to Comprehension and Instruction. Technical Report No. 200. , 1981 .

[24]  Randy Elliot Bennett,et al.  Equivalence of Free-Response and Multiple-Choice Items , 1991 .

[25]  Robert N. Kantor,et al.  On the Failure of Readability Formulas to Define Readable Texts: A Case Study from Adaptations. , 1982 .

[26]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition , 1998 .

[27]  Mary McGroarty,et al.  Reading to learn and reading to integrate: new tasks for reading comprehension tests? , 2005 .

[28]  Joanna S. Gorin,et al.  Improving Construct Validity with Cognitive Psychology Principles. , 2001 .

[29]  Gender‐Based Differential Item Performance in Mathematics Achievement Items , 1987 .

[30]  W. Kintsch.  The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. , 1988, Psychological review.

[31]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Strategic processing during comprehension. , 1999 .

[32]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. , 1994, Psychological review.

[33]  Steven A. Stahl,et al.  Children's reading comprehension and assessment , 2005 .

[34]  P. David Pearson,et al.  The Assessment of Reading Comprehension: A Review of Practices—Past, Present, and Future , 2005 .

[35]  Julie S. Lynch,et al.  The development of comprehension of main ideas in narratives: Evidence from the selection of titles , 2003 .

[36]  G. Lautenschlager,et al.  The Contribution of Passage and No-Passage Factors to Item Performance on the SAT Reading Task , 2001 .

[37]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future , 1997 .

[38]  Una propuesta para hacer buenos textos expositivos: hacia una tecnología del texto expositivo , 2002 .

[39]  Norman Frederiksen,et al.  Construct Validity of Free-Response and Machine-Scorable Forms of a Test. , 1980 .

[40]  Debra L. Long,et al.  Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. , 1994 .

[41]  Robert Pritchard,et al.  A Description of What Happens When an Examinee Takes a Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehension Test , 1990 .

[42]  Bonnie J. F. Meyer,et al.  Text Coherence and Readability , 2003 .

[43]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  An Instructional Redesign of Reading Lessons: Effects on Comprehension. , 1982 .

[44]  Jay R. Campbell.  Single Instrument, Multiple Measures: Considering the Use of Multiple Item Formats to Assess Reading Comprehension , 2005 .