In this study, the authors explore a newly constructed dynamic assessment (DA) intended to tap inference-making skills that they hypothesize will be predictive of future comprehension performance. The authors administered the test to 100 second-grade children using a dynamic format to consider the concurrent validity of the measure. The dynamic portion of the assessment comprised teaching children to be “reading detectives” by using textual clues to solve what was happening in the story. During the DA children listened to short passages and answered three inferential questions (i.e., one setting, two causal). If children were unable to answer a question, they were reminded what a reading detective would do and given a set of increasingly concrete prompts and clues to orient them to the relevant portion of text until they could answer the question correctly. Results showed that the DA correlated significantly with a standardized measure of reading comprehension and explained a small but significant amount of unique variance in reading comprehension above and beyond vocabulary and word identification skills. In addition, results suggest that DA may be better than the standardized measure of reading comprehension at identifying intraindividual differences in young children’s reading abilities.
Ackerman, B.P., Jackson, M., & Sherill, L. ( 1991). Inference modification by children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52, 166-196.
2.
Bowyer-Crane, C., & Snowling, M. ( 2005). Assessing children’s inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 189-201.
3.
Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. ( 2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review . Journal of Special Education, 41, 254-270.
4.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J.V. ( 2007). Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In K. Cain & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 41-76). New York, NY: Guilford.
5.
Campione, J.C., & Brown, A.L. ( 1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic testing (pp. 82-115). New York, NY: Guilford.
6.
Catts, H.W., Adlof, S.M., & Weismer, S.E. ( 2006). Language processing deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278-293.
7.
Catts, H.W., Compton, D.L., Tomblin, J.B., & Bridges, M.S. (submitted). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers.
8.
Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. ( 1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading , 3, 331-361.
9.
Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P., & Adlof, S.M. ( 2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities . In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Elleman, A.M., & Gilbert, J.K. ( 2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 329-337.
11.
Ehrlich, M., Remond, M., & Tardieu, H. ( 1999). Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 29-63.
12.
Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Catts, H.W., & Tomblin, J.B. ( 2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension . In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369-394). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Gough, P.B., & Tunmer, W.E. ( 1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
14.
Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., & Cai, Z. ( 2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
Hansen, J., & Pearson, D.P. ( 1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 821-829.
17.
Keenan, J.M., Betjemann, R.S., & Olson, R.K. ( 2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281-300.
18.
Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., White, M.J., & van den Broek, P. (2008). Children’s inference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259-272.
19.
Kintsch, W. ( 1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. ( 2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
Leach, J., Scarborough, H., & Rescorla, L. ( 2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211-224.
22.
McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. ( 1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
23.
Myers, E. ( 1999). Secrets of the rainforest. Mahwah, NJ: Modern Curriculum Press.
24.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. ( 1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359-370.
25.
Psychological Corporation. (1999). WASI manual. San Antonio, TX: Author .
26.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension . Washington, DC: RAND Education .
27.
Reutzel, D.R., & Hollingsworth, P.M. (1988). Highlighting key vocabulary: A generative-reciprocal procedure for teaching selected inference types. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 358-378.
28.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1997). Test of Word Reading Efficiency . Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
29.
Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P.W. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language , 24, 595-611.
30.
Winne, P.H., Graham, L., & Prock, L. ( 1993). A model of poor readers’ text-based inferencing: Effects of explanatory feedback. Reading Research Quarterly , 28, 53-66.
Yuill, N., & Joscelyne, T. ( 1988). Effect of organizational cues and strategies on good and poor comprehenders’ story understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 152-158.
33.
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. ( 1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
