A Comparison of Bayesian and Traditional Indices for Measuring Information Gain Sensitivity in a Cloze Test

  • Kyle Perkins
  • Worthen N. Hunsaker


Standardized reading comprehension tests have been criticized for their inability to assess what a reader has gleaned from the passage during the reading process (Tuinman, 1973). Tuinman reported scores as high as 65 percent correct on multiple-choice comprehension tests which subjects answered without having had access to the passages on which the questions were based. Tuinman’s paper, among others, has caused reading researchers to focus on the distinction between comprehension and information gain (IG). In general, the concept of IG involves comparing the reader’s state of knowledge before and after reading the test passage. One method of assessing IG, suggested by Coleman and Miller (1967), is to obtain percent correct cloze scores before and after the subjects have had an opportunity to read the test passage in its original, unmutilated form; the difference between the posttest scores and the pretest scores is considered to be the IG score.


Information Gain Item Difficulty Foreign Student Posttest Score Pretest Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bayes, T. 1763. Essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions 53, 370–418. (Reprinted in Biometrika, 1958, 45, 293-315.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brennan, R. L. 1972. A generalized upper-lower item-discrimination index. Educational and Psychological Measurement 32, 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan, R. L. and L. M. Stolurow. 1971. An empirical decision process for formative evaluation. Research Memorandum No. 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University CAI Laboratory.Google Scholar
  4. Coleman, E. B. and G. R. Miller. 1967. A measure of information gained during prose learning. Reading Research Quarterly 3, 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox, R. C. and J. Vargas. 1966. A comparison of item selection techniques for norm-referenced and criterian-referenced tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Haladyna, T. and G. Roid. 1981. The role of instructional sensitivity in the empirical review of criterion-referenced items. Journal of Educational Measurement 18, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Helmstadter, G. C. 1974. A comparison of Bayesian and traditional indexes of test item effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, Chicago.Google Scholar
  8. Iversen, G. R. 1984. Bayesian statistical inference. (Sage University paper No. 43. Series; Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Popham, W. J. 1971. Indices of adequacy for criterion-referenced tests. In Popham, W. J., editor, Criterion-referenced measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Roid, G. and T. Haladyna. 1982. A technology for test-item writing. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Tuinman, J. J. 1973. Determining the passage difficulty of comprehension questions in 5 major tests. Reading Research Quarterly 9, 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyle Perkins
    • 1
  • Worthen N. Hunsaker
    • 1
  1. 1.Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations