Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influences of individual, text, and assessment factors on text/discourse comprehension in oral language (listening comprehension)

  • Published:
Annals of Dyslexia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigated the contributions of multiple strands of factors—individual characteristics (struggling reader status, working memory, vocabulary, grammatical knowledge, knowledge-based inference, theory of mind, comprehension monitoring), a text feature (narrative vs. expository genre), and question types (literal and inferential)—to one’s performance on discourse comprehension in oral language (listening comprehension), using data from 529 second graders. Results from explanatory item response models revealed that substantial variance in listening comprehension was attributable to differences between items, texts, and children, respectively. Narrative versus expository genre distinctions explained almost all of the variance attributable to text differences. In contrast, literal versus inferential question distinctions did not explain item responses after accounting for text and reading comprehension status. However, there was a moderation between struggling reader status and question type such that struggling readers had a slightly higher (2%) probability of getting inferential questions right compared to typically developing readers, after accounting for individual and text factors. Struggling readers have a lower probability of accurate item responses than typically developing readers, but the difference disappeared once language and cognitive skills (e.g., working memory, vocabulary) were taken into consideration. The effects of text genre and question type on item responses did not differ as a function of children’s language and cognitive skills. Overall, these results underscore the importance of considering individual, text, and assessment factors for children’s performance in listening comprehension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alonzo, J., Basaraba, D., Tindal, G., & Carriveau, R. S. (2009). They read, but how well do they understand? An empirical look at the nuances of measuring reading comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508408330082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvermann, D. E., Hynd, C. E., & Qian, G. (1995). Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 146–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., & Applegate, A. J. (2002). Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in informal inventories. The Reading Teacher, 56, 174–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arslan, B., Hohenberger, A., & Verbrugge, R. (2017). Syntactic recursion facilitates and working memory predicts recursive theory of mind. PLoS One, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169510.

  • Baker, L. (1984). Children’s effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 588–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basaraba, D., Yovanoff, P., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2013). Examining the structure of reading comprehension: Do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9372-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.

  • Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710801963951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, W. F. (1980). Literary theory, rhetoric, and stylistics: Implications for psychology. In R. J. Shapiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 221–239). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K. (2007). Grammatical awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a special relationship? Applied PsychoLinguistics, 28, 679–694. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 489–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X67610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Boston: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. Bloomington: Pearson Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H., Adlof, S. M., & Ellis Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278–293. doi:10.92-4388/06/4902-0278.

  • Cecil, N. L., Baker, S., & Lozano, A. S. (2015). Striking a balance: A comprehensive approach to early literacy (5th ed.). Scottsdale: Holcomb Hathaway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. A., Compton, D. L., Lindstrom, E. R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2020). Performance variations across reading comprehension assessments: Examining the unique contributions of text, activity, and reader. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09972-5,33,605,634.

  • Conners, F. A. (2009). Attentional control and the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9126-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey, B., & Macready, G. B. (1985). Prerequisite relations among inference tasks for good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 539–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (2004). A framework for item response models. In P. De Boeck & M. Wilson (Eds.), Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach (pp. 3–41). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Rozelle: Primary English Teaching Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998). “Can I say ‘once upon a time’?” Kindergarten children developing knowledge of information book language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 295–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eason, S., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 515–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, M. F., Remond, M., & Tardieu, H. (1999). Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring. Reading and Writing, 11, 29–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florit, E., Roch, M., & Levorato, M. C. (2011). Listening text comprehension of explicit and implicit information in preschoolers: The role of verbal and inferential skills. Discourse Processes, 48, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2010.494244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florit, E., Roch, M., & Levorato, M. C. (2014). Listening text comprehension in preschoolers: A longitudinal study on the role of semantic components. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 793–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9464-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Catts, H., & 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. 35–49). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, D. J., Snow, C. E., August, D., Carlson, C. D., Miller, J., & Iglesias, A. (2006). Measures of reading comprehension: A latent variable analysis of the diagnostic assessment of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N. A. (2004). Test of Narrative Language. Austin: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 311–335). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., León, J. A., & Otero, J. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, B. C. (1987). Children’s inferences with print and pictures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaefer, T., Neuman, S. B., & Pinkham, A. M. (2015). Pre-existing background knowledge influences socioeconomic differences in preschoolers’ word learning and comprehension. Reading Psychology, 36(3), 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.843064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., White, M. J., & van den Broek, P. (2008). Children’s inference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.00370.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. (2015). Language and cognitive predictors of text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate analysis. Child Development, 86, 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G., (2016). Direct and mediated effects of language and cognitive skills on comprehension or oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003

  • Kim, Y.-S. G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking the simple view of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020). Hierarchical and dynamic relations of language and cognitive Skills to reading comprehension: Testing the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER). Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., & Phillips, B. (2014). Cognitive correlates of listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1986). Teaching students to read. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepola, J., Lynch, J., Laakkonen, E., Silvén, M., & Niemi, P. (2012). The role of inference making and other language skills in the development of narrative listening comprehension in 4- to 6-year old children. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory-5th Edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazany, T., Pimentel, S., Orr, C. S., & Crovo, M. (2015). Reading framework for the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/reading/2015-reading-framework.pdf.

  • McCormick, S. (1992). Disabled readers’ erroneous responses to inferential comprehension questions: Description and analyses. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 54–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, M. C., & Stahl, K. A. D. (2009). Assessment for reading instruction (Second ed.). New York: Guilford.

  • McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 78–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/747834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model for comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297–384). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, W., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, E. (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. https://doi.org/10.1207/sl532690xcil401_l.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J., & Ray, M. N. (2011). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 127–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. D., & Smith, D. E. P. (1985). Differences in literal and inferential comprehension after reading orally and silently. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 341–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K., Clarke, P., Marshall, C., & Durand, M. (2004). Hidden language impairments in children: Parallels between poor reading comprehension and specific language impairment? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 199–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J. V. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 657–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. (1988). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perner, J., & Wimmer, H. (1985). “John thinks that Mary thinks that…” attribution of second-order beliefs by 5- to 10-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39, 437–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petscher, Y., Compton, D., Steacy, L. M., Kinnon, H., & McNeish, D. (2019). Past perspectives and new opportunities for the explanatory item response model. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vjzet.

  • 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, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raphael, T. (1984). Teaching learners about sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Journal of Reading, 27(4), 303–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S. F., Kalogrides, D., Fahle, E. M., Podolsky, A., & Zárate, R. C. (2018). The relationship between test item format and gender achievement gaps on math and ELA tests in fourth and eighth grades. Educational Researcher, 47(5), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18762105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R., Cornish, K., Manly, T., & Hollis, C. (2006). Cognitive processes in children’s reading and attention: The role of working memory, divided attention, and response inhibition. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X81370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senechal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The misunderstood giant: On the predictive role of early vocabulary to future reading. In S. B. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 173–182). New York: Guilford.

  • Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. (1981). What’s in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 213–267). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

  • Strasser, K., & del Rio, F. (2014). The role of comprehension monitoring, theory of mind, and vocabulary depth in predicting story comprehension and recall of kindergarten children. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, K., Zaitchik, D., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (1994). Preschoolers can attribute second-order beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 30, 395–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tompkins, V., Guo, Y., & Justice, L. M. (2013). Inference generation, story comprehension, and language in the preschool years. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 403–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9374-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trabasso, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 255–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vacca, J. L., Vacca, R. T., Gove, M. K., Burkey, L. C., Lenhart, L. A., & McKeon, C. A. (2009). Reading and learning to read (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 655–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure to young at-risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction. Exceptionality, 12, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1203_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, M. B. W. (2005). Memory for narrative and expository text: Independent influences of semantic associations and text organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X143902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, M. B. W., & Mienko, J. A. (2007). Learning and memory of factual content from narrative and expository text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 541–564. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X143902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, M. B. W., & Woodwyk, J. M. (2010). Processing and memory of information presented in narrative or expository texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X485700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the grant from the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education (R305A130131 & R305A180055) and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD052120). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agency. The author(s) wish to thank participating schools and children.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California at Irvine, Irvine, USA

    Young-Suk Grace Kim

  2. Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

    Yaacov Petscher

Authors
  1. Young-Suk Grace Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yaacov Petscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young-Suk Grace Kim.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, YS.G., Petscher, Y. Influences of individual, text, and assessment factors on text/discourse comprehension in oral language (listening comprehension). Ann. of Dyslexia 71, 218–237 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-020-00208-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-020-00208-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation