paper daneman y carpenter

7/28/2019 Paper Daneman y Carpenter

1/17

JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR 19, 450--466 (1980)

Individual Differences in Working Memory and ReadingMEREDYTH DANEMAN AND PATRICIA A. CARPENTER

Carnegie-Mellon UniversityIndividual differences in reading comp rehen sion may reflect differences in working mem-

ory capacity, specifically in the trade-off between its processing and storage functions. Apoor reader's processes may be inefficient, so that they lessen the amount of additionalinformation that can be maintained in working memory. A test with heavy processing andstorage demands was devised to measure this trade-off. Subjects read aloud a series ofsentences and then recalled the final word of each sentence. The reading span, the number offinal words recalled, varied from two to five for 20 college students. This span correlatedwith three reading comprehension measures, including verbal SAT and tests involving factretrieval and pronominal reference. Similar correlations were obtained with a listening spantask, showing that the correlation is not specific to reading. These results were contrastedwith traditional digit span and word sp an meas ures which do not correlate with comprehe n-sion.

Many theorists have suggested thatworking memory capacity plays a crucialrole in reading comprehension (cf. Just &Carpenter, in press; Kintsch & van Dijk,1978); however, traditional measures ofshort-term memory, like digit span andword span, are either not correlated or onlyweakly correlated with reading ability (cf.Perfetti & Lesgold, 1977). The currentpaper proposes an alternative measure ofworking memory span that does correlatewell with reading comprehension perfor-mance. The paper first discusses the natureof individual differences in working mem-ory and presents the span test that was usedto assess working memory capacity. Then itdiscusses how working memory capacitymight influence two specific components ofreading comprehension, retrieving factsand computing pronominal references. Thefirst experiment shows that these two com-ponents correlate with the span measure. Asecond experiment shows that similar cor-

We thank Marcel Just for his comments on thepaper. The research was partially supported by aCanada Council Fellowship to Meredyth Dane man andby Grant NIE 77-0007 from the National Institute ofEducation to Patricia Carpenter.Requests for reprints should be sent to Patricia A.Carpenter, Department of Psychology, Carnegie-Mellon Universi ty, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213.

relations are obtained when the span is as-sessed with a listening task.While short-term memory traditionallyhas been conceived of as a passive storagebuffer, the term working memory devel-

oped as a way to refer to a more active partof the human processing system (Newell,1973). Working memory is assumed to haveprocessing as well as storage functions; itserves as the site for executing processesand for storing the products of these pro-cesses (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; LaBerge& Samuels, 1974). For instance, in readingcomprehension, the reader must s torepragmatic, semantic, and syntactic infor-mation from the preceding text and use it indisambiguating, parsing, and integratingthe subsequent text. Information can be-come part of working memory through sev-eral routes; it may be perceptually encodedfrom the text; it may be sufficiently acti-vated so that it is retrieved from long-termmemory; finally, it may be the output of acomprehension process (Carpenter &Daneman, Note 1). Information can also belost from working memory, since its capac-ity is assumed to be limited (Miller, 1956;Simon, 1974). Information may be lostthrough decay or displacement. Decay oc-curs if the activation of information sub-sides to a subthreshold level with time

4500022-5371/80/040450-17502.00/0Copyright 1980by AcademicPress, Inc.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.


2/17

W O RK IN G M E M O RY A N D RE A D IN G 451(Collins & Loftus, 1975; Hitch, 1978; Reit-man, 1974). Displacement occurs if addi-tional structures are encoded, activated, orconstructed until the capacity is exceeded.An important aspect of information loss isthe assumption that processes and struc-tures compete for a shared limited capacity(Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Case, 1978; Les-gold & Perfetti, 1978). Consequently, a taskthat has heavy processing requirementsshould decrease the amount of additionalinformation that can be maintained. Oneway this could occur is if the execution ofmore demanding processes required moreattention and hence consumed a larger pro-portion of the capacity otherwise availablefor storage. Anothe r way is if the processesin the demanding task generated inter-mediate products that displaced the addi-tional information.

The trade- off between processing andstorage seems like a potential source of in-dividual differences in reading comprehen-sion (cf. also Perfetti & Lesgold, 1977). Thebetter reader might have more efficientprocesses so that he/she effectively wouldhave more capacity for storing and main-taining information. "More efficient pro-cesses" could have several interpretations.One minimal hypothesis is that the pro-cesses of good and poor readers differ onlyin some quantitative way. For example, agood reader may require fewer processesthan a poor reader to perform exactly thesame computation; in good readers, the in-termediate steps might be eliminated insome or all of the stages such as decoding,lexical accessing, parsing, inferencing, andintegrating. Such efficiency would implythat the good reader would have fewercomputational demands on working mem-ory; hence, he would have more capacityfor storing the necessary intermediate andfinal products o f the reading process. Moreefficient processes would also be function-ally faster and indeed, better readers arefaster at reading-related tasks (Hunt, Frost,& Lunneborg, 1973; Hunt, Lunneborg, &Lewis , 1975; Jackson & McClelland, 1979;

Perfetti & Lesgold, 1977). A speed advan-tage could interact with the decay o f infor-mation from working memory since less ofthe preceding information would decaysimply because of the passage of time.Hence, the more efficient processes of thegood reader could be functionally equiva-lent to a larger storage capacity.

Contrary to this theory, the evidence sofar suggests that working memory capacitymay not differentiate good and poor read-ers. Studies using the standard digit spantest (Guyer & Friedman, 1975; Hunt et al.,1973) or a probe digit span test (Perfetti &Goldman, 1976) have found no systematicdifferences between good and poor readerswho were classified on the basis of a gen-eral reading comprehension test. Studiesusing letter strings (Farnham-Diggory &Gregg, 1975; Rizzo, 1939) or similarsounding words (Valtin, 1973) as predictorsof reading comprehension have been onlyslightly more successful. One explanationfor the lack of correlation may be that digitspan and word span tests do not sufficientlytax the processing component of workingmemory. The word span test, for instance,involves relatively simple processes such asrehearsal and access of common lexicalitems. A task with heavier processing de-mands might be needed to obtain a moremarked trade-off between processing andstorage. If the processing interfered withstorage, the poor reader's less efficient pro-cesses would appear as equivalent to asmaller storage capacity.One purpose of the present study was todevise a measure that taxed both the pro-cessing and storage functions of workingmemory. The processing and storage com~ponent s of the test, which will be called thereading span test, involved the usual de-mands of sentence comprehension. An ad-ditional storage component required sub-jects to maintain and retrieve the finalwords of sentences. The format of thereading span test was somewhat similar tothat of the traditional digit span and wordspan tests. The subject was given a set of


3/17

452 DANE M AN AND CARPE NT E Rsentences to read; at the end of the set, heattempted to recall the final word of eachsentence. The numbe r of sentences in a setwas incremented from trial to trial and thesubject's reading span was the maximumnumber of sentences he could read whilemaintaining perfect recall of the f inalwords. I f good readers use less processingcapacity in comprehending the sentences,they should be able to produce more sen-tence final words than poor readers.

The span task was constructed so that itsdemands were compatible with the charac-teristics of working memory. First, the pre-sentation times were short. The subject saweach sentence only for as long as it took toread it at a normal pace--approximately 5seconds. As soon as one sentence wasfinished, the next was presented so thatsubjects were not able to overtly rehearsethe words. Second, the amoun t of informa-tion that the reader had to retain roughlymatched the capacity attributed to workingmemory. For example, while reading thethird sentence in a set, a read er would haveto have sufficient processing and storagecapacity for that sentence while retainingsome representation that would allow himto retrieve the last words of the prior twosentences. This amount of information isconsonant with reading models that assumeworking memory can accommoda te severalpropositions from prior sentences whileprocessing a subsequent sentence. Thus,the subject's reading span was taken as anindex of his working memory capacity.Relating working memory capacity tocomprehensi on requires not only a measureof working memory span, but also an ap-propriate measure of comprehension. Tra-ditional assessment techniques have reliedon standardized reading comprehensiontests, such as the Verbal Scholastic Ap-titude Test (SAT). (Scores from SATs wereincluded in the present research also.)However, such global measures of com-prehension are deficient from a theoreticalpoint of view. Because such scores reflect avariet y of subtasks, the y are difficult to re-

late to any particular process. For that rea-son, the current researc h included two teststhat tapped more specific components ofcomprehension: one required the reader tostore and retrieve facts and the other re-quired the reader to compute pronominalreference.

In the current experiment, the ability toencode, store, and retrieve facts was as-sessed by asking the reader questions aboutsimple facts in a short passage that had justbeen read. This kind of question answeringis a frequent component of reading com-prehension tests (Carroll, 1972; Davis,1944, 1968). One reason is that this tasktaps a skill that has both educational andpractical importance. A second reason forsuch a test is that retrieving facts is a com-ponent of other comprehension processes.For example, to make an inference to relatesome current information to a fact that wasmentioned earlier in the text, the readermust retrieve the earlier information, aswell as compute the relation. Thus, a testthat requires simple fact retrieval afterreading a short paragraph makes demandson memory that may be comparable to thedemands that are made during reading it-self.

Both the initial encoding of facts andtheir subsequent retrieval involve workingmemory and could differentiate good andpoor readers. Working memory capacitycould influence both the duration that a factremains in working memory and the proba-bility that it is consolidated in long-termmemory. In both cases, the better readerwould have an advantage. A fact might per-sist longer in working memory for the bett erreader because his processing does notconsume all of the available capacity. Thefact will not be displaced as quickly. Thegood reader also might have an advantagein consolidating the fact in long-term mem-ory. A larger processing capacity mightallow more opportunities for integrating aparticular fact into the general representa-tion. The fact would be available duringmore of the subsequent processing so that


4/17

W O R K I N G M E M O R Y A N D R E AD I N G 453later information could be related to it.Consequently, the integration process alsowould provide more retrieval routes forlater accessing the fact. Finally, a readerwith more efficient processes might haveadditional capacity to devote to rehearsaland consolidation, while the poorer readerwould require all his processing capacity toperform the minimal computa t ions . Insummary, fact retrieval is one aspect ofreading comprehension that could reflectdifferences in processing capacity.

A second component of comprehensionthat was measured required readers tocompute pronominal references. This pro-cess may be related to fact retrieval, but ithas special properties that seem closelylinked to working memory capacity. Whena writer uses a pronoun he is assuming that

th e referential conc ept is currently active inthe reader 's working memory or "fore-grounded" (Chafe, 1972). Chafe comparedthe foregrounding of a concept to an actorwho is introduced on stage during a play.To remain foregrounded, the concept musttake some part in the action. If it does not,it has some probability of retreating to thewings, that is, of fading from the reader'sworking memory. Once the foregroundingof the con cept is attenuated, the writer canno longer use the pr onoun but must replaceit with its referent noun. Chafe suggestedthat foregrounding might be attenuatedafter two sentences, although he admittedthat this boundary is arbitrary and could beincreased to an unspecified limit. The pre-ceding analysis of working memory capac-ity suggests that the boundary might varyfor individual readers. The distance overwhich a pronoun's referent could be com-puted might be partially dependent on thereader's working memory capacity. In par-ticular, a larger capacity might mean ahigher probability that the referent noun isstill active. Hence, good readers might findsuch computations easier than poor read-ers. If the referent is no longer in workingmemory , the reader would have to institutea search of long-term memory. As in fact

retrieval, the search might be more suc-cessful for better readers because theywould have been more likely to have ini-tially stored the original referent.

In summary, the central issue is whetherthe reading span test, as a measure ofworking memory capacity, correlates wellwith reading comprehension performance.Reading comprehens ion was a s se ssedthrough a global score, the Verbal SAT,and two more specific comprehen sion tests.The first required readers to answer ques-tions about facts given in narrative pas-sages. The second required readers to an-swer questions that required pronominalrefer ence; the task was one of identifying apronoun's referent in passages that had in-creasing numbers of sentences interveningbetween the pron oun and its referent noun.

E X P E R I M E N T 1Method

The subjects were given four tests: (1) areading span test to measure the span ofworking memory , (2) a reading comprehe n-sion test that asked questions about factsand pronominal references, and (3) a tradi-tional word span test.

Reading span test. Subjects had to read aseries of sentences aloud at their own paceand recall the last word of each sentence.The test was constructed with 60 unrelatedsentences, 13 to 16 words in length. Eachsentence ended in a different word. Twoexamples are: When at last his eyesopened, there was no gleam o f triumph, noshade of anger. The taxi turned up Michi-gan Avenue where they had a clear view ofthe lake. Each sentence was typed on asingle line across the cente r of an 8 x 5-in.index card. The cards were arranged inthree sets each of two, thr ee, four, five, andsix sentences. Blank cards were inserted tomark the beginning and end of each set.

The experimenter showed one card at atime to the subject. The subject was re-quired to read the sentence aloud. As soonas the sentence was read, a second card


5/17

4 5 4 DANEMAN AND CARPENTERw a s p l a c e d o n t o p o f t h e f ir s t a n d t h e s u b -j e c t r e a d th e n e w s e n t e n c e . T h e p r o c e d u r ew a s r e p e a t e d u n t i l a b l a n k c a r d s i g n a l e dt h a t a t r i a l h a d e n d e d a n d t h a t h e w a s t or e c a l l th e l a s t w o r d o f e a c h o f t h e s e n t e n c e si n t h e o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e y h a d o c c u r r e d .S u b j e c t s w e r e g i v e n s e v e r a l p r a c t i c e i t e m sa t t h e t w o s e n t e n c e l e v e l b e f o r e t h e t e s tb e g a n . T h e y w e r e w a r n e d t o e x p e c t t h en u m b e r o f s e n te n c e s p e r s e t t o i n c r e a sed u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e t e st . T h e s p a n t e s tc o n t a i n e d t h r e e s e t s e a c h o f t w o , t h r e e ,f o u r , fi v e , a n d s i x s e n t e n c e s . S u b j e c t s w e r ep r e s e n t e d i n c r e a s i n g l y l o n g e r s e t s o f s e n -t e n c e s u n t i l t h e y f a i l e d a ll t h r e e s e t s a t ap a r t i c u l a r l e v e l . T e s t i n g w a s t e r m i n a t e d a tt h a t p o i n t . T h e l e v e l a t w h i c h a s u b j e c t w a sc o r r e c t o n t w o o u t o f t h r e e s e t s w a s t a k e na s a m e a s u r e o f t h e s u b j e c t ' s r e a d i n g s p a n .N o s u b j e c ts c o r r e c t l y r ec a l le d a n y s e t o fc a r d s a t a h i g h e r l e v e l t h a n t h e i r d e f i n e ds p a n s .

R e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n t e s t s . T h e s u b -j e c t s w e r e g i v e n a s e r ie s o f p a s s a g e s t o r e a da n d t h e n a t t h e e n d o f e a c h p a s s a g e t h e yw e r e a s k e d t w o q u e s t i o n s ; t h e f i rs t i n t e r ro -g a t e d th e r e f e r e n t o f a p r o n o u n m e n t i o n e din th e l a s t s e n t e n c e a n d t h e s e c o n d p r o b e ds o m e o t h e r f a c t f r o m t h e p a s s a g e . S u b j e c tsw e r e i n s t r u c t e d t o r e a d e a c h p a s s a g e s i-l e n t ly a t a c o m f o r t a b l e p a c e b u t t o b e p r e -p a r e d t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s a b o u t i t . T h ep a s s a g e s w e r e t y p e d o n s e p a r a t e s h e e t s o fp a p e r a n d p r e s e n t e d i n r a n d o m o r d e r . S u b -j e c t s w e r e g i v e n a s h e e t o f c a r d b o a r d t oc o v e r t h e l in e s o f t e x t a s t h e y c o m p l e t e dr e ad i n g t h e m t o p r e v e n t t h e m f r o m r e e x -a m i n i n g t h e t e x t b e f o r e a n s w e r i n g t h eq u e s t i o n s . A f t e r th i s t a s k , t h e y w e r e q u e s -t i o n e d a b o u t t h e ir s t r a te g i e s ; n o s u b j e c t sr e a l i z e d t h a t t h e y w e r e b e i n g a s k e d a b o u tp r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e a f t e r e a c h p a r a g r a p h .

T h e r e w e r e 12 n a r r a t i v e p a s s a g e s o f ap -p r o x i m a t e l y 1 4 0 w o r d s in le n g th . T h e f a c tq u e s t i o n i n t e r r o g a t e d a s im p l e f a c t w i t h n or e s t r i c t i o n s a s t o t h e f a c t ' s l o c a t i o n i n t h ep a s s a g e . T h e p r o n o u n q u e s t io n a l w a y s in -t e r r o g a t e d t h e r e f e r e n t o f a p r o n o u n t h a to c c u r r e d in th e l a s t s e n t e n c e . T h e p a s s a g e s

w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d s o t h a t th e d i s t a n c e b e -t w e e n t h e p r o n o u n a n d i ts r e f e r e n t w a ss y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r i e d . T h e f i n a l s e n t e n c e i ne a c h p a r a g r a p h c o n t a i n e d a p r o n o u n , s h e ,he r , he , h im , o r it . T h e a n t e c e d e n t n o u no c c u r r e d t w o , t h r e e , f o u r , f i v e , s ix , o rs e v e n s e n t e n c e s p r i o r t o t h e f i n a l p r o n o u ns e n t e n c e . V a r y i n g t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e a n -t e c e d e n t n o u n p r e v e n t e d r e a d e r s f r o ma d o p t i n g a s t r a t e g y o f a t t e n d i n g t o a p a r -t i cu l a r s e n t e n c e . E a c h o f t h e s i x p l a c e s w a sr e p r e s e n t e d b y t w o p a r a g r a p h s . I n e a c hp a i r o f p a r a g r a p h s o n e r e f e r e n t n o u n w a s ac o m m o n n o u n a n d o n e w a s a p r o p e r n o u n .I n a ll c a s e s , t h e r e f e r e n t o f t h e p r o n o u n w a sl o g i c a l l y u n a m b i g u o u s . H o w e v e r , a d d i-t i o n a l n o u n s o f a s i m i la r c la s s o c c u r r e d i nt h e s e n t e n c e s p r e c e d i n g t h e s e n t e n c e c o n -t a i n i n g t h e r e f e r e n t n o u n t o m a k e t h e t a s kn o n t r i v ia l . T h e r e w a s a n a t te m p t to m a k et h e r e f e r e n t s r e l a t i v e l y h o m o g e n e o u s i nt h e m a t i c i m p o r t a n c e s i n c e t h i s f a c t o r m a yp l a y a r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g h o w l o n g a n i t e mis f o r e g r o u n d e d . T w o s a m p l e p a s s a g e s a n dt h e f ac t a n d p r o n o u n r e f e r e n c e q u e s t i o n sa r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 1 . I n t h e T e e n a g e rP a s s a g e , t h e p r o n o u n a n d i ts r e f e r e n t w e r es e p a r a t e d b y a d i s t a n c e o f s ix s e n t e n c e s ; i nt h e A n i m a l P a s s a g e , t h e d i s t a n c e w a s t w os e n t e n c e s .

W o r d s p a n t e s t . S u b j e c t s w e r e r e q u i r e dt o r e c a l l s e ts o f i n d i v i d u a l w o r d s . W h i l e t h ep r e s e n t a t i o n w a s a u d i t o r y , p r e v i o u s r e -s e a r c h h a s s h o w n t h a t a u d i t o r y w o r d s p a na n d v i s u a l w o r d s p a n c o r r e l a t e a l m o s t p e r -f e c t l y ( L y o n , 1 97 7) . T h e t e s t w a s c o n -s t r u c t e d w i t h 81 o n e - s y l l a b l e c o m m o nn o u n s t h a t w e r e a s s e m a n t i c a l l y a n dp h o n e t i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d a s p o s s i b l e . T h ep r o c e d u r e w a s s i m i la r t o th a t u s e d i n t h er e a d in g s p a n t es t . T h e w o r d s w e r e g r o u p e di n t h r e e s e t s e a c h o f tw o , t h r e e , f o u r , f i v e ,s ix , a n d s e v e n w o r d s . T h e e x p e r i m e n t e rp r e s e n t e d t h e w o r d s e t s o r a l l y t o th e s u b -j e c t a t a r a t e o f o n e w o r d p e r s e c o n d . S u b -j e c t s w e r e r e q u i r e d t o r e c a ll al l o f t h e w o r d so f a s e t i n t h e e x a c t o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n .T h e y w e r e w a r n e d t o e x p e c t t h e n u m b e r o fw o r d s p e r s e t t o i n c r e a s e d u r i n g th e c o u r s e


6/17

WORKING MEMORY AND READING

TABLE 1SAMPLE PASSAGES AND QUESTIONS FROM THE COMPREHENSION TESTS

45 5

Teenager Passage (Distance 6)Sit ting with Richie , Archie , Walter and the rest of m y gang in the Gri l l yesterday, I began to feel uneasy.

Robbie had put a dime in the juke box. It was blaring one of the latest "R oc k and Roll" favori tes. I wasstudying, in horror, the react ions of my friends to the music . I was especial ly perturbed by the expressionon my best friend's face. W ayne looked intense and was pounding the table furiously to the beat. Now , Ilike most of the things other teenage boys like. I like girls with soft blonde hair, girls with dark curly hair,in fact all girls. I like milkshakes , fo otball games and beach parties. I like denim jeans , fancy T-shirts andsneakers. It is not that I dislike rock music but I think it is supposed to be fun and not taken too seriously.And here he was, "a l l shook up " and serious over the crazy music.Quest ionsPronounFactFac tThe me

(1) Who was "all shook up " and serious over the music?(2) Wher e was the gang sitting?(3) Who put m oney in the juke bo x?"(4) Provide a title for the passage that captures its theme."

Animal Passage (Distance 2)It was midnight and the jungle was very st i l l. Suddenly the cry o f a wolf pierced the a ir. This anguished

note was fol low ed by a flurry of act ivi ty. All the beasts of the jungle recognized that an urgent meeting hadbeen sum moned by the l ion, their king. Representat ives from each species made rapid preparat ions to getto the river c learing. This was where a l l such emergency assemblies were held. The elephant and t igerwere the first to arrive. N ext came the gori l la, panther and snake. They were fol lowed by the owl and thecrocodile . The proceedings were delayed because the leopard had not shown up yet . There was muchspeculat ion as to the reasons for the midnight a larm. Final ly he arrived and the meeting could comm ence.Quest ionsPronoun (1) Who final ly arrived?Fact (2) Where were these emergen cy meetings held?Fac t (3) Wha t broke the stillness of the night? ~Th em e (4) Prov ide a title for the passage that captur es its them e. ~

" These questions were included only in Experiment 2.

o f t h e t e st . S e t s o f in c r e a s i n g l e n g t h w e r ea d m i n i s t e r e d u n t i l a l e v e l w a s r e a c h e d a tw h i c h a s u b j e c t f a i l e d a l l t h r e e s e t s . P h o n e t -i c c o n f u s i o n s w e r e v e r y r a r e , b u t w h e n as u b j e c t p r o d u c e d a w o r d w i t h o n e di f f e r in gf e a t u r e ( s u c h a s gate f o r date) i t w a s s c o r e da s c o r r e c t , s i n c e it c o u l d h a v e r e f l e c t e d a na c o u s t i c c o n f u s i o n . T h e l e v e l a t w h i c h t h es u b j e c t w a s c o r r e c t o n t w o o u t o f t h r e e s e tsw a s t a k e n a s a m e a s u r e o f t h e s u b j e c t ' sw o r d s p a n .

T h e s u b j e c t w e n t t h r o u g h a ll f o u r t e s ts i nt h e s a m e o r d e r i n a s e s s i o n l a s t i n g a p -p r o x i m a t e l y 4 0 m i n u t e s . T h e y w e r e t h e na s k e d t h e i r V e r b a l S A T s c o r e a s a g l o b a lm e a s u r e o f r e a d i n g a b i li t y.Sub je c t s . T h e s u b j e c t s w e r e 2 0 C a r -n e g i e - M e l l o n U n i v e r s i t y u n d e r g r a d u a t e s

w h o w e r e e n r o l l e d i n a n i n t r o d u c t o r yc o u r s e i n p s y c h o l o g y . T h e y w e r e a ll n a t i v es p e a k e r s o f E n g l i s h .Results and Discussion

A s s h o w n i n T a b l e 2 , t h e s p a n t e s t w a sc o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a s s e s s m e n to f c o m p r e h e n s i o n , V e r b a l S A T s c o r e s ,r ( 1 8 ) = . 5 9, p < . 0 1. T h e r e a d e r s ' S A T sr a n g e d f r o m 4 0 0 t o 7 10 w i t h a m e a n o f 5 7 0(S D = 7 9 . 8) . T h e s p a n t e s t w a s e v e n m o r ec l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o p e r f o r m a n c e o n t h e t w os p e c i f i c t e s t s o f c o m p r e h e n s i o n , t h e f a c tq u e s t i o n s a n d t h e p r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c eq u e s t i o n s ; t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e r ( 18 ) = . 72a n d . 90 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , a n d p < . 01 f o r b o t h .T h e r e a d i n g s p a n f o r th e 2 0 r e a d e r s v a r i e df r o m 2 t o 5 w i t h a m e a n o f 3 . 1 5 (SD = .93) .


7/17

456 DANEMAN AND CARPENTERT A B L E 2

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPANS AND READINGCOMPREHENSION IN EXPERIMENT 1

Reading comprehension measuresPronounFact reference Verbalquestions questions SAT

Read ing span test .72* .90* .59*Word span test .37 .33 .35* r(18 ),p < .01.

R e a d e r s w i t h s m a l le r s p a n s p e r f o r m e d m u c hw o r s e t h a n r e a d e r s w i t h l a r g e r s p a n s o nb o t h t e s t s. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e f i v e r e a d e r sw i t h s p a n s i z e 2 c o r r e c t l y a n s w e r e d o n l y8 . 2 o u t o f t h e 1 2 f a c t q u e s t i o n s a n d 5 . 4 o u to f t h e 12 p r o n o u n r e f e r e n c e q u e s t i o n s . B yc o n t r a s t , t h e s i x r e a d e r s w i t h s p a n s i z e s 4a n d 5 a n s w e r e d 11 o u t o f t h e 1 2 f a c t q u e s -t i o n s a n d 9 . 7 o f t h e 12 p r o n o u n r e f e r e n c eq u e s t i o n s . T h e m e a n p e r f o r m a n c e o v e r a l lw a s 9 . 4 f o r t h e f a c t q u e s t i o n s a n d 7 . 4 f o r t h e 1oop r o n o u n r e f e r e n c e q u e s t i o n s .

T h e t r a d i t i o n a l w o r d s p a n m e a s u r e i n t h is 9 0s t u d y , a s in m a n y p r e v i o u s s t u d ie s , w a s n o ts i g n i f ic a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h a n y c a m - 8op r e h e n s i o n m e a s u r e , w h e t h e r V e r b a l S A T , ~or (18) = .35 , f ac t qu es t i on s , r (18) = .37 , or ~ zop r o n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e , r ( 1 8 ) = . 33 , a s Q:s h o w n i n T a b l e 2 . M o r e o v e r , t h e c o r r e l a - ~, 6 ot io n s b e t w e e n w o r d sp a n a n d t h e t w o s p e - ~.c i fi c c o m p r e h e n s i o n t e s t s w e r e s i g n i fi c a n t ly 5 ol o w e r t h a n t h e c o r r e la t i o n s b e t w e e n r e a d i n gsp an an d the se t e s t s , t (19) = 2 .99, p < .01 , o_"~ 40f o r t he f a c t que s t i o ns a nd t ( 19 ) = 5 . 92 , p

paper daneman y carpenter

Documents