The Assessment of Reading Comprehension: A Review of Practices—Past, Present, and Future

By P. David Pearson, D. Hamm. 2005

164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7b30b0087537d68fe0da2312368ba76780a0bb40

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Reading Comprehension Tests Vary in the Skills They Assess: Differential Dependence on Decoding and Oral Comprehension (2008, background): “Information about the types of comprehension skills assessed is not offered perhaps because, as Pearson and Hamm (2005) noted, most comprehension tests were developed long before there were theoretical frameworks for understanding comprehension processes.”
Influence of Question Format and Text Availability on the Assessment of Expository Text Comprehension (2007, background): “Currently, a variety of research exists on reading comprehension assessment (see Campbell, 1999; Pearson & Hamm, 2005 for reviews), including research examining the effect of item attributes on item difficulty (e.g., Embretson & Wetzel, 1987) and validity of assessment tools (e.g., Valencia &…”
Reading Comprehension (2016, background): “Thus, such integration might improve the measures’ validity (Pearson & Hamm, 2005).”
Connecting Cognitive Theory and Assessment: Measuring Individual Differences in Reading Comprehension (2012, background): “In considering reading comprehension and its assessment, it is useful to distinguish between the product and the process of comprehending a text (Pearson & Hamm, 2005; van den Broek, Bohn-Gettler, Kendeou, Carlson, & White, 2011).”
Reading on Paper and Digitally: What the Past Decades of Empirical Research Reveal (2017, background): “In the same vein, we wanted to document the form of those comprehension assessments (e.g., multiple-choice or constructed-response) because the literature suggests that question type may also influence comprehension outcomes (Pearson & Hamm, 2005; Sarroub & Pearson, 1998).”
Does Text Complexity Matter in the Elementary Grades? A Research Synthesis of Text Difficulty and Elementary Students’ Reading Fluency and Comprehension (2017, background): “As such, there are many different ways to assess it (Pearson and Hamm 2005) and studies have demonstrated that students ’ outcomes on comprehension measures vary considerably, depending on the measure used (Conradi et al. 2016; Keenan et al. 2008).”
The Impact of Reading Self-Efficacy and Task Value on Reading Comprehension Scores in Different Item Formats (2011, background): “In the late 1980s and early 1990s, during the period characterized by Pearson and Hamm (2005) as a revolution in the field of reading comprehension assessment, the discussion of item format was first and foremost rooted in questions of construct representativeness.”
Dynamic Text Comprehension (2005, unknown): “Recently, educational researchers have urged that increased attention be given to the underlying cognitive processes involved in reading and their causal relationships to differences in reading outcomes (e.g., Pearson & Hamm, 2005).”
Cloze Tests May be Quick, But Are They Dirty? Development and Preliminary Validation of a Cloze Test of Reading Comprehension (2013, background): “However, the validity of cloze tests as measures of reading comprehension has been questioned by several researchers (e.g., Carlisle & Rice, 2004; Farr & Carey, 1986; Pearson & Hamm, 2005).”
Higher-Order Comprehension Processes in Struggling Readers: A Perspective for Research and Intervention (2007, unknown): “Second, Pressley et al. (2006) and Pearson and Hamm (2005) emphasized the importance of gaining a better understanding not only of whether an intervention works but also how it works.”