Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T02:25:29.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Development of Listening Comprehension Tests with Narrative and Expository Texts for Portuguese Students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

Sandra Santos*
Universidade do Minho (Portugal)
Fernanda Leopoldina Viana
Universidade do Minho (Portugal)
Iolanda Ribeiro
Universidade do Minho (Portugal)
Gerardo Prieto
Universidad de Salamanca (Spain)
Sara Brandão
Universidade do Minho (Portugal)
Irene Cadime
Universidade do Minho (Portugal)
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sandra Santos. Research Center on Psychology (CIPsi). School of Psychology. Universidade do Minho. Campus de Gualtar. 4710–057. Braga (Portugal). Phone: +351–937551393. E-mail:


This investigation aimed to develop and collect psychometric data for two tests assessing listening comprehension of Portuguese students in primary school: the Test of Listening Comprehension of Narrative Texts (TLC-n) and the Test of Listening Comprehension of Expository Texts (TLC-e). Two studies were conducted. The purpose of study 1 was to construct four test forms for each of the two tests to assess first, second, third and fourth grade students of the primary school. The TLC-n was administered to 1042 students, and the TLC-e was administered to 848 students. The purpose of study 2 was to test the psychometric properties of new items for the TLC-n form for fourth graders, given that the results in study 1 indicated a severe lack of difficult items. The participants were 260 fourth graders. The data were analysed using the Rasch model. Thirty items were selected for each test form. The results provided support for the model assumptions: Unidimensionality and local independence of the items. The reliability coefficients were higher than .70 for all test forms. The TLC-n and the TLC-e present good psychometric properties and represent an important contribution to the learning disabilities assessment field.

Research Article
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


American Educational Research Association (AERA) (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
Barrett, T. C. (1976). Taxonomy of reading comprehension. In Barrett, T. C. (Ed.), Teaching reading in the middle class (pp. 5158). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 635651. Google Scholar
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2 nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2008). Cognitive bases of children’s language comprehension difficulties. Where do we go from here? In Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language. A cognitive perspective (pp. 283295). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Català, G., Català, M., Molina, E., & Monclús, R. (2001). Evaluación de la comprensión lectora: Pruebas ACL (1o–6o de primaria) [Reading comprehension assessment: ACL Tests (from 1st to 6th grade)]. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Graó.Google Scholar
de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Diakidoy, I., Stylianou, P., Karefillidou, C., & Papageorgiou, P. (2004). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of text at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26, 5580. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorans, N. J., Moses, T. P., & Eignor, D. (2011). Equating test scores: Toward best practices. In von Davier, A. A. (Ed.), Statistical models for test equating, scaling, and linking (pp. 2142). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Graesser, A., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative representation and comprehension. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research: Vol. 2 (pp. 171205). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371395. Google Scholar
Harris, T., & Hodges, R. (Eds.) (1995). The literacy dictionary. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Herber, H. (1978). Teaching reading in content areas (2 nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hess, K. (2007). Reading development and assessment of early literacy: A review of the literature. Utah, UT: Utah Department of Education.Google Scholar
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127160. Google Scholar
Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2011). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties: Nature, causes, and treatments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 139142. Google Scholar
Huynh, H., & Meyer, P. (2010). Use of robust z in detecting unstable items in item response theory models. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15, 18.Google Scholar
Johns, J. L. (2008). Basic reading inventory: Pre-primer through grade twelve and early literacy assessments (10 th Ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kolen, M., & Brennan, R. (2010). Test equating, scaling and linking (2 nd Ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Lee, L. W. (2008). Development and validation of a reading-related assessment battery in Malay for the purpose of dyslexia assessment. Annals of Dyslexia, 58, 3757. Google Scholar
Lehto, J. E., & Anttila, M. (2003). Listening comprehension in primary level grades two, four and six. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 133143. Google Scholar
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory-4. New York, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16, 878.Google Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (2011). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS and MINISTEP: Rasch-model computer programs. Program manual 3.72.0. Chicago, CA: Mesa Press.Google Scholar
Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In Snowling, M. & Hulme, C. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248265). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Oakhill, J. (1994). Individual differences in children’s text comprehension. In Gernsbacher, A. M. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 821848). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Shanker, J. L., & Cockrum, W. (2009). Ekwall/Shanker reading inventory (5 th Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2005). The science of reading: A handbook. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 726. Google Scholar
Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. S. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 332. Google Scholar