Propiedades psicométricas de una prueba de lectura de palabras (LEO-1-min)

  1. Edurne Goikoetxea 1
  2. Wim Van Bon 2
  3. Naroa Martínez 1
  4. Gorka Fraga 3
  1. 1 Departamento de Psicología y Educación, Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao
  2. 2 Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Radboud, Nijmegen
  3. 3 University of Zurich
    info

    University of Zurich

    Zúrich, Suiza

    ROR https://ror.org/02crff812

Mostra les afiliacions +
Revista:
Electronic journal of research in educational psychology

ISSN: 1696-2095

Any de publicació: 2019

Volum: 17

Número: 48

Pàgines: 411-436

Tipus: Article

DOI: 10.25115/EJREP.V17I48.2181 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccés obert editor

Altres publicacions en: Electronic journal of research in educational psychology

Resum

Introduction. Teachers and researchers often need to evaluate word decoding skill in group- wise and in a short time. The LEO-1-min test is created to measure word reading through a lexical decision procedure where the examinee identifies pseudowords in a list of frequent words. Objetive. To examine the reliability and validity of LEO-1-min, a silent word reading test, suitable for quick assess of reading abilities in a wide age range of students. Method. Participants were 284 children from 1st to 6th grade of a subsidized Primary School. We created four alternate forms of the LEO-1-min, each with 180 stimuli (132 words and 48 pseudowords). Results. The results show an adequate parallel forms reliability of the scores (range rs = from .57 to .81). High correlations were found between the scores on the LEO-1-min and the scores on a standardized reading aloud test. The discriminant analysis of the scores on the LEO–1- min shows a high level of success in predicting the oral word decoding performance. Discussion and Conclusion. LEO-1-min reliability is acceptable to good. Lexical decision in LEO-1-min and oral reading are highly correlated, which support using lexical decision as a groupwise test to screen for poor word readers. Form A of the test and provisional scales are presented for each primary grade.

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Acha, J., & Perea, M. (2008). The effects of length and transposed-letter similarity in lexical decision: Evidence with beginning, intermediate, and adult readers. British Journal of Psychology, 99 (2), 245-264. doi:10.1348/000712607x224478
  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and Na-tional Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Authors.
  • Carreiras, M., Alvarez, C.J., & de Vega, M. (1993). Syllable frequency and visual word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 766-780. doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1038
  • Corral, S., Ferrero, M., & Goikoetxea, E. (2009). LEXIN: A lexical database from Spanish kindergarten and first-grade readers. Behaviour Research Methods, 41(4), 1009-1017. doi:10.3758/brm.41.4.1009
  • Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B., Ruano, E., & Arribas, D. (2007). PROLEC-R: Battery of evaluation of reading processes for children from primary education reviewed. Madrid: TEA.
  • Davis, C. J., & Perea, M. (2005). BuscaPalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indexes in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 665-671. doi:10.3758/bf03192738
  • Defior, S., Fonseca, L., Gottheil, B., Aldrey, A., Rosa, G., Pujals, M., Jiménez-Fernández, G., & Serrano, F. D. (2006). LEE. Test de lectura y escritura en español. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
  • Defior, S., Justicia, F., & Martos, F. (1996). The influence of lexical and sub lexical variables in normal and poor Spanish readers, Reading and Writing, 8, 487-497. doi:10.1007/bf00577024
  • Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In R. J. Wales & E. Walker (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257-287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  • Forster, K. I., & Chambers, I. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 12, 627–635. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(73)80042-8
  • Försters, N., & Souvignier, E. (2015). Effects of providing teachers with information about their students’ reading progress. School Psychology Review, 44 (1), 60-75. doi:10.17105/spr44-1.60-75
  • Frost, R. (2012). A universal approach to modeling visual recognition and reading: Not only possible, but also inevitable. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 35(05), 310-329. doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000635
  • González-Trujillo, M. C., Calet, N., Defior, S., & Gutiérrez-Palma, N. (2014) Escala de fluidez lectora en español: midiendo los componentes de la fluidez, Estudios de Psicología, 35 (1), 104-136. doi:10.1080/02109395.2014.893651
  • Jenkins, J. R, Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek P, Espin C, & Deno S. L. (2003). Sources of indi-vidual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 95, 719–729. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719
  • Jiménez, J. E., Gove, A., Crouch, L., & Rodríguez, C. (2014). Internal structure and standard-ized scores of the Spanish adaptation of the EGRA (Early Grade Reading Assessment) for early reading assessment. Psicothema, 26(4), 531-537.
  • Katz, L., & Feldman, L. B. (1983). Relation between pronunciation and recognition of printed words in deep and shallow orthographies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9 (1), 157-166. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.9.1.157
  • Keenan, J. M., & Meenan, C. E. (2014). Test differences in diagnosing reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47 (2), 125-135. doi:10.1177/0022219412439326
  • Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 310-321. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310
  • Lacina, J., & Block, C. (2011). What matters most in distinguished literacy teacher education programs? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 319-351. doi:10.1177/1086296x11422033
  • Landerl, K., & Wimmer, H. (2008). Development of word reading fluency and spelling in a consistent orthography: An 8-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 150-161. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.150
  • Marcolini, S., Burani, C., & Colombo, L. (2009). Lexical effects on children’s pseudo word reading in a transparent orthography. Reading and Writing, 22(5), 531-544. doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9123-0
  • Marín, J., & Carrillo, M. S. (1999). Test Colectivo de Eficacia Lectora (TECLE). Unpublished manuscript, Universidad de Murcia.
  • Moret-Tatay, C., & Perea, M. (2011). Is the go/no-go lexical decision task preferable to the yes/no task with developing readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110 (1), 125-132. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.04.005
  • Perea, M., & Rosa, E. (2000). The effects of orthographic neighborhood in reading and labor-atory word identification tasks: A review. Psicológica, 21, 327-340.
  • Perfetti, C. & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Sci-entific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22-37. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
  • Rasinski, T. V., Reutzel, C. R., Chard, D. & Linan-Thompson, S. (2011). Reading fluency. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach E. (Eds), Handbook of Reading Research, Volume IV (pp. 286-319). New York: Routledge.
  • Rayner, K., & Reichle, E. D. (2010). Models of the reading process. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1 (6), 787-799. doi:10.1002/wcs.68
  • Rayner, K., Sereno, S., Morris, R., Schmauder, R., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 21–49. doi:10.1080/01690968908406362
  • Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26 (6), 1270-1281. doi:10.3758/bf03201199
  • Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1991). Reading by analogy in a shallow orthography. Journal of Exper-imental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 471-477. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.17.2.471
  • Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, M. A., Carreiras, M. F., & Cuetos, F. (2000). LEXESP: Léxico informatizado del español [LEXESP: A computarizad word-pool in Spanish]. Barce-lona: Universitat de Barcelona.
  • Seymour, P. H., Aro, M., Erskine, J. M., & COST Action A8 (2003). Foundation literacy ac-quisition in European orthographies. Bristish Journal of Psychology, 94, 143-174. doi:10.1348/000712603321661859
  • Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly. 16, 32–71. doi.org/10.2307/747348
  • Valle-Arroyo, F. (1989). Reading errors in Spanish. In P. G. Aaron & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 163–175). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
  • Van Bon, W. H. J. (2007). De Doorstreepleestoets [Paper-and-pen lexical decision task]. Lei-den, The Netherlands: PITS.
  • Van Bon, W. H. J., Hoevenaars, L. T. M., & Jongeneelen, J. J. (2004). Using paper-and-pencil lexical-decision tests to assess word decoding skills: Aspects of validity and reliability. Journal of Research in Reading, 27 (1), 58–68. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00214.x
  • Van Bon, W. H. J., & Libert, J. E. A. (1997). Oral reading and silent reading compared: Evi-dence for a subtype of poor readers. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 28, 59-70.
  • Van Bon, W. H., Tooren, P. H., & van Eekelen, K. W. (2000). Lexical decision and oral read-ing by poor and normal readers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(3), 259-270. doi:10.1007/bf03173178
  • Wechsler, D. (2005). Escala de inteligencia de Wechsler para niños IV. Madrid: TEA.
  • Wilson, J. M. G., & Jungner, G. (1968). Principles and practice of screening for diseases. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet