Search

Studies of poor comprehenders vary in the selection criteria and tests that they use to define poor comprehension. Could these differences play a role in determining findings about poor comprehension? This study assessed the extent to which differences in selection methods affect who gets identified as poor comprehenders, and examined how their cognitive profiles differ. Over 1,500 children, ages 8 - 19, took multiple tests of reading comprehension, listening comprehension, single word reading and nonword reading. Poor comprehension was defined by performing in the low-tail and by discrepancies either with word or nonword reading. Odds of any two selection methods identifying the same individuals were generally low, and depended on type of comprehension test more than modality, as well as selection criteria, and comprehender's age. Poor comprehenders selected by the different methods were found to vary in IQ, working memory, but not attention. The findings show that differences across studies in tests and selection criteria used to define poor comprehension are not insignificant and can have substantial consequences for what is meant by poor comprehension and its associated deficits.

The authors examined the implications of test differences for defining and diagnosing comprehension deficits using reading comprehension tests. They had 995 children complete the Gray Oral Reading Test-3, the Qualitative Reading Inventory-3, the Woodcock-Johnson Passage Comprehension-3, and the Peabody Individual Achievement Test and compared which children were identified by each test as being in the lowest 10%. Although a child who performs so poorly might be expected to do poorly on all tests, the authors found that the average overlap between tests in diagnosing comprehension difficulties was only 43%. Consistency in diagnosis was greater for younger children, when comprehension deficits are the result of weaker decoding skills, than for older children. Inconsistencies between tests were just as evident when identifying the top performers. The different children identified as having a comprehension deficit by each test were compared on four profile variables-word decoding skill, IQ, ADHD symptoms, and working memory skill-to understand the nature of the different deficits assessed by each test. Theoretical and practical implications of these test differences in defining and diagnosing comprehension deficits are discussed.