Advertisement

European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 641–663 | Cite as

Computer-based assessment of reading ability and subtypes of readers with reading comprehension difficulties: a study in French children from G2 to G9

  • Pauline AuphanEmail author
  • Jean Ecalle
  • Annie Magnan
Article

Abstract

Reading difficulties in school are very challenging for teachers due to many different reader subtypes in one and the same class. Moreover, there are few easy-to-use tools enabling teachers to assess reading ability. According to the Simple View of Reading (Hoover and Gough in Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160, 1990), efficient reading comprehension is the result of an interaction between word reading (through three word representation levels: orthographic, phonological, and semantic) and comprehension (through three processing types: literal, text-connecting, and gap-filling inferences). Difficulties in one of these components, or in both, should lead to difficulties in reading comprehension and bring about different reader subtypes. This study aims, first, to examine the validity of the tool and, second, to explore performance reading patterns of children with reading difficulties. A population of 485 typically developing French children from grade 2 to grade 9 was tested using three computerized tasks that recorded accuracy and speed: lexical quality to examine the three levels of word representation; silent reading and listening comprehension to examine both literal and inferential processing. Results showed the appropriateness of the tool but also identified a number of limits. It was possible with the results to detect 76 children with reading comprehension difficulties and to divide them into 5 clusters essentially according to their word reading performances. The results are discussed in relation to the theoretical frameworks used to build the tool.

Keywords

Computerized assessment Reading ability Reader comprehension difficulties French children 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to the company ADEPRIO for designing the software program DiCoLec used in this study. The first author currently benefits from a grant from Fondation Orange. The authors thank the master’s degree students who participated in the data collection. Finally, the authors thank the teachers, families, and children who agreed to take part in this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

The present study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Word Medical Association, 2001). It was approved by the laboratory ethics committee. All the participants’ parents were informed and gave their consent for their children to participate in this study.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10212_2018_396_MOESM1_ESM.docx (32 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 32 kb)

References

  1. Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: an alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 67–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407310838.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, R. D., Fayol, M., Zorman, M., Casalis, S., Nagy, W., & Berninger, V. W. (2016). Relationships of French and English morphophonemic orthographies to word reading, spelling, and reading comprehension during early and middle childhood. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 0829573516640336.Google Scholar
  3. Alderson, J. C., & Huhta, A. (2005). The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework. Language Testing, 22(3), 301–320.  https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt310oa.Google Scholar
  4. Association, W. M. (2001). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79(4), 373.Google Scholar
  5. Beauvais, L., Bouchafa, H., Beauvais, C., Kleinsz, N., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2018). Tinfolec: A new French web-based test for reading assessment in primary school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, in press.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573518771130.
  6. Braze, D., Katz, L., Magnuson, J. S., Mencl, W. E., Tabor, W., Van Dyke, J. A., & Shankweiler, D. P. (2016). Vocabulary does not complicate the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 29(3), 435–451.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9608-6.Google Scholar
  7. Ecalle, J., Kleinsz, N., & Magnan, A. (2013). Computer-assisted learning in young poor readers: The effect of grapho-syllabic training on the development of word reading and reading comprehension. Computers in Human 2 Behavior, 29(4), 1368–1376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.041.
  8. Ecalle, J. (2014). Tinfolec: Test informatisé de lecture. Lyon: Gerip.Google Scholar
  9. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11(5–6), 489–503.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008084120205.Google Scholar
  10. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006a). Assessment matters: issues in the measurement of reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 697–708.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X69807.Google Scholar
  11. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006b). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 683–696.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X67610.Google Scholar
  12. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2000). Investigating the causes of reading comprehension failure: the comprehension-age match design. Reading and Writing, 12(1–2), 31–40.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008058319399.Google Scholar
  13. Carlson, S. E., Seipel, B., & McMaster, K. (2014). Development of a new reading comprehension assessment: identifying comprehension differences among readers. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 40–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.003.Google Scholar
  14. Chen, R., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: a cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(1), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969709547947.Google Scholar
  15. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256.Google Scholar
  16. Davey, J. W., Gugiu, P. C., & Coryn, C. L. (2010). Quantitative methods for estimating the reliability of qualitative data. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(13), 140–162.Google Scholar
  17. Deacon, S. H., Benere, J., & Pasquarella, A. (2013). Reciprocal relationship: children’s morphological awareness and their reading accuracy across grades 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1113–1126.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029474.Google Scholar
  18. Ebert, K. D., & Scott, C. M. (2016). Bringing the Simple View of Reading to the clinic: relationships between oral and written language skills in a clinical sample. Journal of Communication Disorders, 62, 147–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2016.07.002.Google Scholar
  19. Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The Simple View of Reading: is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 553–576.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6.Google Scholar
  20. Grigorenko, E. L., Klin, A., & Volkmar, F. (2003). Annotation: Hyperlexia: disability or superability? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(8), 1079–1091.Google Scholar
  21. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160.Google Scholar
  22. Huttenlocher, P. R., & Huttenlocher, J. (1973). A study of children with hyperlexia. Neurology, 23(10), 1107–1116 Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1974-11462-001.Google Scholar
  23. Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Literary reading activities of good and weak students: a think aloud study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(1), 35–52.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173568.Google Scholar
  24. Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple View of Reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85–97.Google Scholar
  25. Joshi, R. M., Tao, S., Aaron, P. G., & Quiroz, B. (2012). Cognitive component of componential model of reading applied to different orthographies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 480–486.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432690.Google Scholar
  26. Khomsi, A., & Khomsi, J. (2003). Bilan de Lecture Informatisé (BLI). Paris: Editions Du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée (ECPA).Google Scholar
  27. Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). MANULEX: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(1), 156–166.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195560.Google Scholar
  28. Lin, C.-S., Chang, S.-H., Liou, W.-Y., & Tsai, Y.-S. (2013). The development of a multimedia online language assessment tool for young children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(10), 3553–3565.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.042.Google Scholar
  29. Lynch, L., Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (2000). Computer-assisted reading intervention in a secondary school: an evaluation study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 333–348.Google Scholar
  30. Lysenko, L., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Wade, A. (2014). Improving literacy skills with ABRACADABRA. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 40(3), 11.Google Scholar
  31. Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2011). Assessing comprehension during reading with the Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (RSAT). Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 131–154.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9064-2.Google Scholar
  32. Magnan, A., Liger, C., Jabouley, D., & Ecalle, J. (2010). Une aide informatisée auprès de jeunes apprentis lecteurs en difficulté. Glossa: Effet d’un entraînement grapho-syllabique.Google Scholar
  33. Mailloux, S. L., Johnson, M. E., Fisher, D. G., & Pettibone, T. J. (1995). How reliable is computerized assessment of readability? Computers in Nursing, 13, 221–221.Google Scholar
  34. Megherbi, H., Seigneuric, A., & Ehrlich, M.-F. (2006). Reading comprehension in French 1st and 2nd grade children: contribution of decoding and language comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(2), 135–147.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173573.Google Scholar
  35. Narvaez, D., Van Den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 488–496.Google Scholar
  36. Newman, T. M., Macomber, D., Naples, A. J., Babitz, T., Volkmar, F., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2007). Hyperlexia in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(4), 760–774.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0206-y.Google Scholar
  37. Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & McCarthy, D. (2015). Inference processing in children: the contributions of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cooke, & R. F. Lorch Jr. (Eds.), Inferences during reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730.Google Scholar
  39. Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of Functional Literacy, 11, 67–86.Google Scholar
  40. Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687.Google Scholar
  41. PISA, O. (2014). Results: What students know and can do—student performance in mathematics, reading and science. v. I. PISA. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Potocki, A., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2013). Narrative comprehension skills in 5-year-old children: correlational analysis and comprehender profiles. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(1), 14–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667013.Google Scholar
  43. Pourcin, L., Sprenger-Charolles, L., El Ahmadi, A., & Colé, P. (2016). Reading and related skills in grades 6, 7, 8 and 9: French normative data from EVALEC. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 66(1), 23–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2015.11.002.Google Scholar
  44. Protopapas, A., Mouzaki, A., Sideridis, G. D., Kotsolakou, A., & Simos, P. G. (2013). The role of vocabulary in the context of the Simple View of Reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29(2), 168–202.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.758569.Google Scholar
  45. Richter, T., Isberner, M.-B., Naumann, J., & Neeb, Y. (2013). Lexical quality and reading comprehension in primary school children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(6), 415–434.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.764879.Google Scholar
  46. Seifert, S., Paleczek, L., Schwab, S., Tanzer, N., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2015). Subtypes of readers and spellers in second grade children. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2316–2325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.893.Google Scholar
  47. Singleton, C. (2001). Computer-based assessment in education. Educational and Child Psychology, 18(3), 58–74.Google Scholar
  48. Sprenger-Charolles, L., Colé, P., Béchennec, D., & Kipffer-Piquard, A. (2005). French normative data on reading and related skills from EVALEC, a new computerized battery of tests (end grade 1, grade 2, grade 3, and grade 4). Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 157–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2004.11.002.Google Scholar
  49. Swart, N. M., Muijselaar, M. M., Steenbeek-Planting, E. G., Droop, M., de Jong, P. F., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). Differential lexical predictors of reading comprehension in fourth graders. Reading and Writing, 30(3), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9686-0.Google Scholar
  50. Tobia, V., & Bonifacci, P. (2015). The simple view of reading in a transparent orthography: the stronger role of oral comprehension. Reading and Writing, 28(7), 939–957.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9556-1.Google Scholar
  51. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 453–466.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432685.Google Scholar
  52. van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(4), 407–422.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173218.Google Scholar
  53. Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability: multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(1), 3–32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430709336632.Google Scholar
  54. Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J., & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 8–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.536125.Google Scholar
  55. Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T., & Olson, J. (2008). Comparability of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing in K–12 reading assessments A meta-analysis of testing mode effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(1), 5–24.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407305592.Google Scholar
  56. Worthy, J., & Invernizzi, M. (1995). Linking reading with meaning: a case study of a hyperlexic reader. Journal of Literacy Research, 27(4), 585–603.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969509547900.Google Scholar
  57. Yeung, P., Ho, C. S., Chan, D. W., & Chung, K. K. (2016). A componential model of reading in Chinese. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 11–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Étude des Mécanismes Cognitifs (E.M.C), EA3082, Université Lumière Lyon 2 and LabEx CORTEX ANR-11- LABX-0042, Université de LyonBron cedexFrance
  2. 2.Institut Universitaire de FranceParisFrance

Personalised recommendations