MEASURING READING COMPREHENSION USING THE PARAPHRASE TEST AND THE READING-STORAGE TEST

Abstract. The newly developed reading-storage type of test was compared to the paraphrase type of test to determine the extent to which each test was sensitive to the comprehension of prose passages as opposed to word memorization. Comprehension was manipulated using passages that were difficult to comprehend without the aid of context cues, and memorization was manipulated by administering the tests without the opportunity to read the passages. The average gain from the No Context to Context condition was greater for the reading-storage test, thus suggesting that it was more sensitive to comprehension than the paraphrase test. The average gain from the Non-Reading to No Context condition was greater for the paraphrase test, thus suggesting that the paraphrase test was more sensitive to word memorization than the reading-storage test. These data suggested that the completely objective, reading-storage test deserves further research, and that paraphrase questions may not be as valid as intuition would suggest. The measurement of comprehension is a continual nemesis. Anderson (1972) has noted that it is usually impossible to know what such tests of comprehension measure. Anderson has advocated the use of the paraphrase test because "... in order to answer a question based on a paraphrase, a person has to have comprehended the original sentence, since a paraphrase is related to the original sentence with respect to meaning but unrelated with respect to the shape or sound of the words [p. 150]. " One of the disadvantages of the paraphrase test is that it must be developed subjectively, i.e., the population of possible paraphrase questions is usually undefined and there are no rules or procedures for sampling questions which would suggest good replicability from one study to the next