The jingle fallacy in comprehension tests for reading
The jingle fallacy in comprehension tests for reading
The Jingle fallacy is the false assumption that instruments which share the same name measure the same underlying construct. In this experiment, we focus on the comprehension subtests of the Nelson Denny Reading Test (NDRT) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-II). 91 university students read passages for comprehension whilst their eye movements were recorded. Participants took part in two experimental blocks of which the order was counterbalanced, one with higher comprehension demands and one with lower comprehension demands. We assumed that tests measuring comprehension would be able to predict differences observed in eye movement patterns as a function of varying comprehension demands. Overall, readers were able to adapt their reading strategy to read more slowly, making more and longer fixations, coupled with shorter saccades when comprehension demands were higher. Within an experimental block, high scorers on the NDRT were able to consistently increase their pace of reading over time for both higher and lower comprehension demands, whereas low scorers approached a threshold where they could not continue to increase their reading speed or further reduce the number of fixations to read a text, even when comprehension demands were low. Individual differences based on the WIAT-II did not explain similar patterns. The NDRT comprehension test was therefore more predictive of differences in the reading patterns of skilled adult readers in response to comprehension demands than the WIAT-II (which also suffered from low reliability). Our results revealed that these different comprehension measures should not be used interchangeably, and researchers should be cautious when choosing reading comprehension tests for research.
e0306466
Lee, Charlotte E.
4e6463a1-3254-49fc-9705-a4faa07d5911
Godwin, Hayward J.
df22dc0c-01d1-440a-a369-a763801851e5
Drieghe, Denis
dfe41922-1cea-47f4-904b-26d5c9fe85ce
5 July 2024
Lee, Charlotte E.
4e6463a1-3254-49fc-9705-a4faa07d5911
Godwin, Hayward J.
df22dc0c-01d1-440a-a369-a763801851e5
Drieghe, Denis
dfe41922-1cea-47f4-904b-26d5c9fe85ce
Lee, Charlotte E., Godwin, Hayward J. and Drieghe, Denis
(2024)
The jingle fallacy in comprehension tests for reading.
PLoS ONE, 19 (7 July), , [e0306466].
(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306466).
Abstract
The Jingle fallacy is the false assumption that instruments which share the same name measure the same underlying construct. In this experiment, we focus on the comprehension subtests of the Nelson Denny Reading Test (NDRT) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-II). 91 university students read passages for comprehension whilst their eye movements were recorded. Participants took part in two experimental blocks of which the order was counterbalanced, one with higher comprehension demands and one with lower comprehension demands. We assumed that tests measuring comprehension would be able to predict differences observed in eye movement patterns as a function of varying comprehension demands. Overall, readers were able to adapt their reading strategy to read more slowly, making more and longer fixations, coupled with shorter saccades when comprehension demands were higher. Within an experimental block, high scorers on the NDRT were able to consistently increase their pace of reading over time for both higher and lower comprehension demands, whereas low scorers approached a threshold where they could not continue to increase their reading speed or further reduce the number of fixations to read a text, even when comprehension demands were low. Individual differences based on the WIAT-II did not explain similar patterns. The NDRT comprehension test was therefore more predictive of differences in the reading patterns of skilled adult readers in response to comprehension demands than the WIAT-II (which also suffered from low reliability). Our results revealed that these different comprehension measures should not be used interchangeably, and researchers should be cautious when choosing reading comprehension tests for research.
Text
Lee, Godwin & Drieghe (in press)
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
Lee, Godwin & Drieghe (2024)
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 18 June 2024
Published date: 5 July 2024
Additional Information:
Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Lee et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 491573
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/491573
ISSN: 1932-6203
PURE UUID: 1b68398c-bf50-4ad3-b8a0-6decd4765364
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 26 Jun 2024 16:53
Last modified: 25 Jul 2024 02:03
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Charlotte E. Lee
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics