Using working memory theory to investigate the construct validity of multiple-choice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT.

When taking multiple-choice tests of reading comprehension such as the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), test takers use a range of strategies that vary in the extent to which they emphasize reading the questions versus reading the passages. Researchers have challenged the construct validity of these tests because test takers can achieve better-than-chance performance even if they do not read the passages at all. By using an individual-differences approach that compares the relative power of working memory span to predict SAT performance for different test-taking strategies, the authors show that the SAT appears to be tapping reading comprehension processes as long as test takers engage in at least some reading of the passages themselves.

[1]  T. F. Donlon The College Board technical handbook for the scholastic aptitude test and achievement tests , 1984 .

[2]  R. Freedle,et al.  Can Multiple-Choice Reading Tests Be Construct-Valid? A Reply to Katz, Lautenschlager, Blackburn, and Harris , 1994 .

[3]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles , 1988 .

[4]  M. Daneman,et al.  Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context , 1986 .

[5]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Working Memory: The multiple-component model , 1999 .

[6]  M. Masson,et al.  Working memory and individual differences in comprehension and memory of text. , 1983 .

[7]  J. Algina,et al.  Cognitive Assessment of Language and Math Outcomes , 1990 .

[8]  M. Daneman,et al.  A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension , 2001 .

[9]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  Who is Likely to Acquire Programming Skills? , 1991 .

[10]  Peter Johnston,et al.  Prior knowledge and reading comprehension test bias , 1984 .

[11]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes , 1968, Psychology of Learning and Motivation.

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

[13]  M. Posner,et al.  Effect of size and location of informational transforms upon short-term retention. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  A. Miyake,et al.  The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: an individual differences approach. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[15]  Nancy C. Rhodes,et al.  Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: believing it is simple does not make it so , 1992 .

[16]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual Differences in Integrating Information between and within Sentences. , 1983 .

[17]  F. H. Jurden Individual differences in working memory and complex cognition , 1995 .

[18]  James M. Royer The sentence verification technique: A new direction in the assessment of reading comprehension. , 1990 .

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

[20]  Andrew D. Cohen,et al.  On taking language tests , 1984 .

[21]  Richard C. Anderson Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading , 1985 .

[22]  A. Parkin,et al.  Human memory , 1999, Current Biology.

[23]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[24]  Walter Reitman,et al.  14 – What Does It Take to Remember? , 1970 .

[25]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Long-term working memory. , 1995, Psychological review.

[26]  Barbara S. Plake,et al.  Cognitive capacity differences among writers , 1984 .

[27]  Stuart Katz,et al.  Answering Reading Comprehension Items without Passages on the Sat when Items are Quasi-Randomized , 1991 .

[28]  R. Engle Working Memory and Retrieval: An Inhibition-Resource Approach , 1996 .

[29]  R. Engle,et al.  Is working memory capacity task dependent , 1989 .

[30]  Priscilla A. Drum,et al.  The Effects of Surface Structure Variables on Performance in Reading Comprehension Tests. , 1981 .

[31]  Stuart Katz,et al.  Answering Reading Comprehension Items without Passages on the SAT , 1990 .

[32]  Patrick C. Kyllonen,et al.  Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity?! , 1990 .

[33]  J. Richardson,et al.  Working Memory and Human Cognition , 1996 .

[34]  Donald E. Powers,et al.  Answering the New SAT Reading Comprehension Questions Without the Passages , 1995 .

[35]  M. Daneman,et al.  Integration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories for text. , 1996 .

[36]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Components of fluent reading , 1985 .

[37]  R. Engle,et al.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. , 1999 .

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

[39]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Working Memory and Language , 2018, Working Memories.

[40]  A. Miyake,et al.  Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control , 1999 .

[41]  Patrick C. Kyllonen,et al.  Cognitive abilities as determinants of success in acquiring logic skill , 1990 .

[42]  M. Daneman,et al.  Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[43]  Marlene Schommer Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. , 1990 .