Multiple Regression Article Critique
1
Anna Menditto
EDRS 811
Dr. Angela Miller
Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational
and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading Research and
Instruction, 22, 85-106. DOI: 10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y
Introduction
The purpose of this research article was to examine how motivational and
cognitive variables predicted reading comprehension. The researchers were specifically
interested in finding out if each predictor variable added unique explanatory power when
others were statistically controlled for. Research on specific dimensions of reading
motivation and reading comprehension are correlated; however, little work has been done
to examine but motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehensions. The
researchers addressed the following two research questions:
1. Do motivation, background knowledge, and student questioning each make significant
independent contributions to the variance in reading comprehension performance?
2. Do motivation, background knowledge, and student questioning each make significant
independent contributions to the variance in reading comprehension growth?
Sample
The participants were 205 fourth-grade students (108 girls, 97 boys) from four
schools in a small mid-Atlantic city school district. However, the researcher doesn’t
explicitly state how many classrooms or selection criteria for the students in this study.
This will be addressed further in the critique section.
Multiple Regression Article Critique
2
Procedure
This article did not have a procedures section. The procedures were built into the
measures section of the study. They were described with each of the five measures and if
they were assessed at Time 1 or Time 2. Of the five measures (discussed in detail in next
section), the two reading comprehension measures (Gates-MacGinite and multiple-text
reading comprehension) were administered at Times 1 (September) and 2 (December).
The data for the remaining three variables were collected at Time 2 in December. Within
the measures section, the article states that teachers administered assessments in their
classrooms during four 60-minute period; however, this is very limited information about
the procedure of the study.
Measures
In this study, five measures were used: (a) background knowledge, (b) student
questioning, (c) multiple-text reading comprehension, (d) Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test,
and (e) internal motivation. Of the five measures, the two reading comprehension
measures, Gates-MacGinite (GM) and multiple-text reading comprehension (MTC), were
administered at Times 1 (September) and 2 (December). The data for the remaining three
variables of background knowledge, student questioning, and internal motivation were
collected at Time 2. The purpose of collecting these measures at Time 2 was to examine
the association of these three variables with reading comprehension growth.
The first measure, background knowledge, assessed students’ activation of
background knowledge prior to reading a text. This was a 15-minute open-ended writing
Multiple Regression Article Critique
3
activity and the responses were coded using a rubric. The second measure, student
questioning, assessment students’ self-generated questions relating to the text. Similar to
background knowledge, student questioning required students to write questions based on
the text for 20 minutes. The questions were coded using a rubric as well. The third
measure, multiple-text reading comprehension, assessed the students’ knowledge built
from the text. Using open-ended, constructed responses, the students what they knew
after the text and taking notes. They were given 30 minutes and prompted with two
statements of encouragement after 7 and 13 minutes. For the first three measures, the
researchers report interrater agreement reliability for adjacent and exact coding. Alternate
forms of the reading packet were assigned to the first three measures as a form of
reliability. The students within classrooms were randomly assigned one of the three
reading packets, which allowed an equal number of students within each classroom to
receive each packet.
The fourth measure, the Gates-MacGinitie reading test, assessed explicit and
implicit information the student should obtain from the text. The comprehension test was
administered during a 50-minute period. Researchers reported across-time reliability for
this measure from September to December. A teacher rating scale assessed the fifth and
final measure, internal motivation. The purpose of the internal motivation measure was to
assess to what extent which student was a motivated reader in the classroom, according to
the teachers’ perception.
Multiple Regression Article Critique
4
Results
To address both research questions, the researchers conducted multiple regression
analyses with the dependent variable being reading comprehension at Time 2 (either GM
or MTC) and the independent variables were motivation, background knowledge, and
questioning.
The first research question examined predictors of reading comprehension
performance by seeing if motivation, background knowledge, and student questioning
accounted for significant variance independent of one another when statistically
controlling for the other two variables. Prior to the multiple regression analyses,
correlations were run and statistical significance was found for all measures of reading
comprehension, background knowledge, motivation, and questioning that were entered
into the model. Six multiple regression were performed, three using GM Time 2 and three
using MTC Time 2. All together, background knowledge, motivation, and questioning
when entered into the model explained 36.3% of the variance in GM and 26.9% of
variance in MTC. By entering each independent variable into the model independently,
the researchers statistically controlled for the other two independent variables to see how
much variance each variable contributed. The analyses ran supported their first research
question that each of the variable added significantly to the variance in both of the
reading comprehension measures after controlling for the other two variables in the
regression equation.
The second research question examined if motivation, background knowledge,
and questioning explained variance in reading comprehension growth. For the purpose of
this study, entering Time 1 reading comprehension into the regression model before the
Multiple Regression Article Critique
5
other three independent variables operationalized growth. In this case, Time 1’s measure
of reading comprehension acted as the control for the Time 2 measure. When a third
variable, or the independent variables, are entered in they can be a predictor of growth in
reading comprehension. Results from this growth analysis indicated that GM Time 1
accounted for 56.1% of the variance explained in GM Time 2. MTC Time 1 accounted
for 16.8% of the variance in MTC Time 2. Out of the three independent variables, when
entering background knowledge into the regression equation last, it added significantly to
the growth in both reading comprehension measures.
Critique
Internal motivation was assessed by teachers’ perception. The teachers rated
students on five different items: a) reads favorite topics and authors (interest); (b) thinks
deeply about the content of texts (involvement); (c) is a confident reader (self-efficacy);
(d) enjoys discussing books with peers (social collaboration); and (e) often reads
independently (perceived control in reading). Cronbach’s alpha reliability was presented;
however, there was no mention of validity for this assessment. While the teachers’
perception is pertinent to this research, would it be beneficial to hear from the students’
about their perceived internal motivation for reading?
When reading through the article, the measures are discussed in depth. However,
there isn’t a procedures section. The procedures were described within each measure.
This may be a common way to present measures for multiple regression analyses but it
would have been clearer to have a specific section on procedures; especially in reference
to selection criteria, classroom assignment, teacher training and Time 1 and Time 2.
Multiple Regression Article Critique
For the sample, there is a brief paragraph about size and it directs the reader to a
table for descriptives; however, there is no mention of class size or selection criteria. For
a study that’s main focus is reading comprehension this information is pertinent to the
reader.
6