首页> 外文期刊>Journal of psychoeducational assessment >Cloze Tests May be Quick, But Are They Dirty? Development and Preliminary Validation of a Cloze Test of Reading Comprehension
【24h】

Cloze Tests May be Quick, But Are They Dirty? Development and Preliminary Validation of a Cloze Test of Reading Comprehension

机译:完形填空测试可能很快,但它们肮脏吗?阅读理解的完形填空测试的发展及初步验证

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

A commonly held view is that cloze tests may well provide a quick measure of something reading related, but that they are not suitable for assessments of understanding of ideas beyond the sentence boundary. The present article presents challenges to this view. It is argued that word gaps can be carefully selected so that filling them in requires proper understanding of the ideas of the text. The reliability and validity of such a comprehension-focused cloze test was demonstrated in a study of 204 Danish adults attending reading courses or general education. The quick (10 min) cloze comprehension test correlated strongly (r = .84) with a standard (30 min) question-answering comprehension test. Only a small part of this correlation was accounted for by decoding ability or vocabulary. The cloze test was somewhat more sensitive to decoding ability than the question-answering comprehension test was, and it provided a better fit to the participants' self-reported reading difficulties.
机译:一种普遍的观点是,完形填空测试很可能提供与阅读相关的东西的快速度量,但是它们不适合用于评估超出句子界限的思想理解。本文提出了对此观点的挑战。有人认为,可以仔细选择单词间的空白,以便将其填入就需要对文本的思想有适当的理解。一项针对204位丹麦成年人参加阅读课程或通识教育的研究证明了这种以综合理解为重点的克洛什测试的可靠性和有效性。快速的(10分钟)完形填空理解测试与标准的(30分钟)问答理解测验紧密相关(r = .84)。这种相关性中只有一小部分是由解码能力或词汇引起的。完形填空测验比问答理解测验对解码能力更为敏感,它更适合参与者的自我报告的阅读困难。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号