Title

Item Discrimination of IELTS Reading Comprehension Section: Evidence from Event Related Potentials

Journal title

Polish Psychological Bulletin

Yearbook

2021

Volume

vol. 52

Issue

No 1

Affiliation

Barani Toroghi, Reyhaneh : Department of Languages, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Iran ; Zohoorian, Zahra : Department of Languages, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Iran ; Ghoshuni, Majid : Department of Languages, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Iran

Authors

Barani Toroghi, Reyhaneh ; Zohoorian, Zahra ; Ghoshuni, Majid

Keywords

IELTS ; Reading Comprehension ; Item Discrimination ; Event Related Potentials

Divisions of PAS

Nauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne

Coverage

1-30

Publisher

Committee for Psychological Science PAS

Bibliography

1. Ackermann, R. (2019). Nonreductive inference. UK: Routledge.
2. Al Dahhan, N. Z., Kirby, J. R., Brien, D. C., & Munoz, D. P. (2017). Eye movements and articulations during a letter naming speed task: Children with and without dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(3), 275-285. DOI: 10.1177/0022219415618502
3. Alderson, J. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Aldunate, N., López, V., Cornejo, C., Moënne-Loccoz, C., & Carr, D. (2019). Analytical and Holistic Approaches Influence the Semantic Integration: Evidence from the N400 effect. Revista signos: estudios de lingüística, 52(100), 217-241.DOI: 10.4067/S0718-0934201 9000200217
5. Aleksandrov, A. A., Dmitrieva, E. S., Volnova, A. B., Knyazeva, V. M., Polyakova, N. V., Ptukha, M. A., & Gainetdinov, R. R. (2019). Effect of alpha-NETA on auditory event related potentials in sensory gating study paradigm in mice. Neuroscience Letters, 712, 134470. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2019.134470
6. Bachman, L. F., Lyle, F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Beker, K., Jolles, D., Lorch, R. F., & van den Broek, P. (2016). Learning from texts: activation of information from previous texts during reading. Reading and Writing, 29(6), 1161-1178. DOI: 10.1007/ s11145-016-9630-3
8. Bergin, T. (2018). An Introduction to Data Analysis: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods. UK: SAGE Publications Limited.
9. Boksem, M. A., Meijman, T. F., & Lorist, M. M. (2005). Effects of mental fatigue on attention: an ERP study. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(1), 107-116. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.011
10. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1), 55-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresrev. 2008.05.003
11. Brouwer, H., & Crocker, M. W. (2017). On the Proper Treatment of the N400 and P600 in Language Comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01327
12. Brown, S., & Knight, P. (2012). Assessing learners in higher education. UK: Routledge.
13. Chang-Jun, S. H. I. (2017). The Element of Critical Thinking in TEM-4 Reading Test-Based on a Comparative Study of the Cognitive Levels of Questions in TEM-4 and IELTS Reading Tests. Journal of Harbin University, (9), 22.
14. Cheyette, S. J., & Plaut, D. C. (2017). Modelling the N400 ERP component as transient semantic over-activation within a neural network model of word comprehension. Cognition, 162, 153-166. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.016
15. Courteau, É., Martignetti, L., Royle, P., & Steinhauer, K. (2019). Eliciting ERP components for morphosyntactic agreement mismatches in grammatical sentences. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1152. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01152
16. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (pp. 146-166). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
17. Danuwijaya, A. A. (2018). Item analysis of reading comprehension test for post-graduate students. English Review: Journal of English Education, 7(1), 29-40. DOI: 10.25134/erjee.v7i1.1493
18. Day, R. R., & Park, J. S. (2005). Developing Reading Comprehension Questions. Reading in a foreign language, 17(1), 60-73.
19. De Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. NY: Guilford Publications.
20. Delahunty, T., Seery, N., & Lynch, R. (2018). Exploring the use of electroencephalography to gather objective evidence of cognitive processing during problem solving. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(2), 114-130. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-017-9712-2
21. Draschkow, D., Heikel, E., Vo, M. L. H., Fiebach, C., & Sassenhagen, J. (2019). A single stage of semantic processing of scenes: MVPA evidence for the identity of N300 and N400. Psyarxiv Preprints, 1-27. DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.09.016
22. Dudschig, C., Mackenzie, I. G., Maienborn, C., Kaup, B., & Leuthold, H. (2019). Negation and the N400: investigating temporal aspects of negation integration using semantic and world-knowledge violations. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(3), 309-319. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2018.1535127
23. Epstein, M. L., Lazarus, A. D., Calvano, T. B., Matthews, K. A., Hendel, R. A., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. The Psychological Record, 52(2), 187-201. DOI: 10.1007/ BF03395423
24. Faust, M. (Ed.). (2015). The handbook of the neuropsychology of language . UK: John Wiley & Sons.
25. Friederici, A. D. (2004). Event-related brain potential studies in language. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 4(6), 466- 470. DOI: 10.1007/s11910-004-0070-0
26. Gebodh, N., Esmaeilpour, Z., Adair, D., Chelette, K., Dmochowski, J., Woods, A. J.,& Bikson, M. (2019). Inherent physiological artifacts in EEG during tDCS. NeuroImage, 185, 408-424. DOI: 10.1016/j. neuroimage.2018.10.025
27. Goçer, A. (2014). The Assessment of Turkish Written Examination Questions Based on the Text in Accordance with the Barrett's Taxonomy. Online Submission, 3, 1-16.
28. Gouvea,A., Philips,C., Kazanina,N.,& Poeppel, D. (2010). The Linguistic Processes Underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(2), 149-188. DOI: 10.1080/01690960902965951
29. Hashemi, A.,& Daneshfar, S, (2018). A review of the IELTS Test: Focus on Validity , Reliability, and Washback. IJELTA (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. 3(1), 39-52. DOI: 10.21093/ijeltal.v3i1.123
30. Hekmatmanesh, A., Wu, H., Li, M., Nasrabadi, A. M., & Handroos, H. (2019). Optimized Mother Wavelet in a Combination of Wavelet Packet with Detrended Fluctuation Analysis for Controlling a Remote Vehicle with Imagery Movement: A Brain Computer Interface Study. In New Trends in Medical and Service Robotics (pp. 186- 195). Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-00329- 6_22
31. Henson, R., Dibello, L.,& Stout, B. (2018). A Generalized Approach to Defining Item Discrimination for DCMs. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 16(1), 18-29. DOI: 10.1080/ 15366367.2018.1436855
32. Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1181- 1197. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1181
33. Hyatt, D.,& Brooks, G.(2009). Investigating Stakeholders’ Perceptions of IELTS as an Entry Requirement for Higher Education in the U.K. IELTS Research Reports, 10(1), 17-68. DOI: 10.1080/0309877X .2012.684043
34. Iralde, I.,& Allain, P. (2019). Text memory and aging: Effect of reading perspective on recall of semantically related information. European Review of Applied Psychology 69(3), 101-110. DOI: 10.1016/j. erap.2019.05.001
35. Isaacs, T.,& Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing Comprehensibility: Identifying the Linguistic Influences on Listeners’ L2 Comprehensibility Ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475-505. doi:10.1017/S0272263112000150
36. Jared, D., Jouravlev, O., & Joanisse, M. F. (2017). The effect of semantic transparency on the processing of morphologically derived words: Evidence from decision latencies and event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(3), 422–450. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000316
37. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson.,& Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(2). DOI: 10.1080/016909600386084
38. Kane, M.,& Bejar, I. (2014). Cognitive Frameworks for Assessment, Teaching, and Learning: A Validity Perspective. Psicologia Educativa, 20, 117-123. DOI: 10.1016/j.pse.2014.11.006
39. Khairani H., & Shamsuddin, H. (2016). Improving Psychological Well-being among Undergraduates: How Creativity in Learning Can Contribute? Malaysian Journal of Communication, 35(2). DOI: 10.17576/JKMJC-2019-3502-21
40. Kovalenko, M. (2018). The Validation Process in the IELTS Reading Component: Reading Requirements for Preparing International Students. Journal of Language and Education, 4(1),63-78. DOI: 10.17323/2411-7390-2018-4-1-63-78
41. Kozleski, E. B. (2017). The uses of qualitative research: Powerful methods to inform evidence-based practice in education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(1), 19-32. DOI: 10.1177/1540796916683710
42. Kropotov, J. D. (2010). Quantitative EEG, event-related potentials and neurotherapy. USA: Academic Press.
43. Labate, D., La Foresta, F., Mammone, N., & Morabito, F. C. (2015). Effects of artifacts rejection on EEG complexity in Alzheimer’s disease. In Advances in Neural Networks: Computational and Theoretical Issues (pp. 129-136). Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/ 978-3-319-18164-6_13
44. Lewis, T. T., Yang, F. M., Jacobs, E. A., & Fitchett, G. (2012). Racial/ ethnic differences in responses to the everyday discrimination scale: a differential item functioning analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175(5), 391-401. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr287
45. Lhatoo, S D., Kahane, P. & Lüders, H. O. (Eds). (2018). Invasive Studies of the Human Epileptic Brain: Principles and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46. Loeches, M., Ouyang, G., Rausch, P., Stürmer, B., Palazova, M., Schacht, A., & Sommer, W. (2017). Test–retest reliability of the N400 component in a sentence-reading paradigm. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(10), 1261-1272. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2017 .1330485
47. Lord, K. M. (2015). Determining the main idea: Instructional strategies that work. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51(3), 138-142. DOI: 10.1080/ 00228958.2015.1056669
48. Luck, S. J., & Kappenman, E. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. Oxford University Press.
49. Mahaney, T. (2018). How and why it Works. USA: change your mind. https://www.changeyourmind.com/ wp-content/uploads/2019/ 02/ How-It-Works-Research-latest.pdf. DOI: 10.2478/squa-2018- 0005
50. Meyer, A. (2017). A biomarker of anxiety in children and adolescents: A review focusing on the error-related negativity (ERN) and anxiety across development. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 58- 68. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2017.08.001
51. Moctezuma, L. A., & Molinas, M. (2020). EEG Channel-selection method for epileptic-seizure classification based on multi-objective optimization. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 593. DOI: 10.3389/fnins .2020.00593
52. Molfese, D. L., Molfese, V. J., & Pratt, N. L. (2007). The use of eventrelated evoked potentials to predict developmental outcomes. Infant EEG and event-related potentials, 199-225. DOI: 10.4324/ 9780203759660
53. Moore, T., Morton, J., & Price, S. (2012). Construct validity in the IELTS academic reading test: A comparison of reading requirements in IELTS test items and in university study. In Studies in language testing (pp. 120-211). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
54. Mori, Y. (2000). Urquhart, S., & Weir, C.(1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 590-591.
55. Morrow Jr, J. R., Mood, D., Disch, J., & Kang, M. (2015). Measurement and Evaluation in Human Performance, 5E. Human Kinetics.
56. Murphy, P. (2018). How Multiracial Individuals Are Addressed in Diversity Courses in Counselor Master’s Degree Programs: A Mixed Methods Content Analysis (PhD dissertation), Auburn University: Alabama.
57. Nidal, K., & Malik, A. S. (Eds.). (2014). EEG/ERP analysis: methods and applications. NY: CRC Press.
58. Nieuwland, M., Barr, D., Bartolozzi, F., Busch-Moreno, S., Donaldson, D., Ferguson, H. J., ... & Ito, A. (2019). Dissociable effects of prediction and integration during language comprehension: Evidence from a large-scale study using brain potentials. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375 (1791). DOI: 10.1098/ rstb.2018.0522
59. O'Reilly, M., & Lester, J. N. (2017). Examining mental health through social constructionism: The language of mental health. USA: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-60095-6
60. O'Sullivan, B. (2018). IELTS (International English Language Testing System). The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-8. DOI:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0359
61. O'Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 53(5-6), 326-338. DOI: 10.1080/0163853X .2015.1123341
62. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31 (6), 785-806. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
63. Patel, G., Arkin, S., Ruiz-Betancourt, D., Jamerson, E., Sanchez-Peña, J., & Javitt, D. C. (2019). F189. Deficits and Compensation in Attentional Networks in Schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 85(10), S286-S287. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.03.726
64. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283. DOI:10.1177%2F1473325002001003636
65. Pavlov, N. (2017). Optimizing Methods with MATLAB. Retrieved from https://www.mathworks.com/ matlabcentral/ profile/authors/ 4710580-pavlov.
66. Prebianca, G. V. V. (2019). Individual differences in main idea identification and text summarization in EFL reading comprehension: an exploratory study. Leitura, 1(39), 199-222. DOI: 10.28998/ 0103-6858.2007v1n39p199-222
67. Prichard, C., & Trowler, P. (2018). Realizing qualitative research into higher education. UK: Routledge.
68. Payne, B. R., Stites, M. C., & Federmeier, K. D. (2019). Event‐related brain potentials reveal how multiple aspects of semantic processing unfold across parafoveal and foveal vision during sentence reading. Psychophysiology, 56(10), e13432. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13432
69. Rabovsky, M., Hansen, S. S., & McClelland, J. L. (2017). Neural responses decrease while performance increases with practice: A neural network model. In CogSci. DOI: 10.1101/546325
70. Ramonda, K., & Sevigny, P. (2019). Graded reader comprehension questions and item discrimination analysis. ELT journal, 73(3), 265– 274. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccy062
71. Raney, G. E., & Bovee, J. C. (2016). Reading integration in bilingual speakers. In Methods in Bilingual Reading Comprehension Research (pp. 157-181). Springer, New York, NY. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939- 2993-1_7
72. Rastelli, S. (2018). Neurolinguistics and second language teaching: A view from the crossroads. Second Language Research, 34(1), 103- 123. DOI: 10.1177%2F0267658316681377
73. Riccio, C. A., Sullivan, J. R., & Cohen, M. J. (2010) . Neuropsychological assessment and intervention for childhood and adolescent disorders. UK: John Wiley & Sons.
74. Riddle, J. P. (2019). A Method for Moving from the Main Idea of a Biblical Text to Sermon Divisions (Doctoral dissertation), South-eastern Baptist Theological Seminary: North Carolina.
75. Roberts, B. W., Kilgannon, J. H., & Trzeciak, S. (2018). Response by Roberts et al to Letters Regarding Article,“Association between Early Hyperoxia Exposure after Resuscitation from Cardiac Arrest and Neurological Disability: Prospective Multi-center Protocol-Directed Cohort Study”. Circulation, 138(24), 2864-2865. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032054
76. Romeo, T., Otgaar, H., Smeets, T., Landström, S., & Jelicic, M. (2019). The memory‐impairing effects of simulated amnesia for a mock crime. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 983-990. DOI: 10.1002 /acp.3508
77. Rouet, J. F., & Potocki, A. (2018). From reading comprehension to document literacy: learning to search for, evaluate and integrate information across texts/De la lectura a la alfabetización documental: aprender a buscar, evaluar e integrar información de diversos textos. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 41(3), 415-446. DOI: 10.1080/02103702.2018.1480313
78. Salo, K. S. T., Mutanen, T. P., Vaalto, S. M., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2020). EEG artifact removal in TMS studies of cortical speech areas. Brain Topography, 33(1), 1-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10548-019-00724-w
79. Sassenhagen, J., & Fiebach, C. J. (2019). Finding the P3 in the P600: Decoding shared neural mechanisms of responses to syntactic violations and oddball targets. NeuroImage, 200(15).425-436. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.048
80. Shahsavar, Y., Ghoshuni, M., & Talaei, A. (2018). Quantifying clinical improvements in patients with depression under the treatment of transcranial direct current stimulation using event related potentials. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 41(4), 973-983. DOI: 10.1007/s13246-018-0696-x
81. Scheffler, A. W. (2019). Modelling Region-Referenced Longitudinal Functional Electroencephalography Data (Doctoral dissertation), University of California: Los Angeles.
82. Sim, S. M., & Rasiah, R. I. (2006). Relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in true/false-type multiple choice questions of a para-clinical multidisciplinary paper. Annals-Academy of Medicine Singapore, 35(2), 67. PMID: 16565756.
83. Small, S. L., & Hickok, G. (2016). The neurobiology of language. In Neurobiology of Language (pp. 3-9). USA: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00001-8
84. Soemer, A., & Schiefele, U. (2019). Text difficulty, topic interest, and mind wandering during reading. Learning and Instruction, 61, 12-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.006
85. Steinhauer, K., Connolly, J. F., Stemmer, B., & Whitaker, H. A. (2008). Event-related potentials in the study of language. Concise Encyclopaedia of Brain and Language, 91-104.
86. Tabullo, Á. J., Shalom, D., Sevilla, Y., Gattei, C. A., París, L., & Wainselboim, A. (2019). Reading Comprehension and Predict- -ability Effects on Sentence Processing: An Event‐Related Potential Study. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1-19. DOI: 10.1111/mbe.12205
87. Tanaka, H., Watanabe, H., Maki, H., Sakriani, S., & Nakamura, S. (2019). EEG-based Single Trial Detection of Language Expectation Violations in Listening to Speech. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 13, 15. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2019.00015
88. Van den Broek, P., Beker, K., & Oudega, M. (2015). Inference generation in text comprehension: Automatic and strategic processes in the construction of a mental representation. Inferences during reading, 94-121. Cambridge University Press.
89. Veeravagu, J., Muthusamy, C., Marimuthu, R., & Michael, A. S. (2010). Using Bloom's Taxonomy to Gauge Students' Reading Comprehension Performance/Utiliser La Taxonomie De Bloom Pour Evaluer Les Performances De Comprehension Ecrite Des Eleves. Canadian Social Science, 6(3), 205.
90. Walliman, N. (2017). Research methods: The basics. UK: Routledge.
91. Ward, J. (2015). The student's guide to cognitive neuroscience. UK: Psychology Press.
92. Weir, C., Hawkey, R., Green, A., Unaldi, A., & Devi, S. (2009). The relationship between the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS and the reading experiences of students in their first year of study at a British university. International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research Reports 2009: Volume 9, 97.
93. Westby, C. (2019). Executive Function in Children with Language Impairment. Word of Mouth, 30(3), 5-7. DOI: 10.1177/10483950 18821153a
94. Zhu, R., Pan, Y. H., Sun, L., Zhang, T., Wang, C., Ye, S., & Zhang, W. (2019). ADAMTS18 Deficiency Affects Neuronal Morphogenesis and Reduces the Levels of Depression-like Behaviors in Mice. Neuroscience, 399, 53-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.12.025

Date

2021.04.28

Type

Article

Identifier

DOI: 10.24425/ppb.2021.136813

Source

Polish Psychological Bulletin; 1-30

Aims and scope

Polish Psychological Bulletin (founded in 1970) is an official journal of Polish Academy of Sciences, Committee for Psychological Science.The journal publish a variety of papers, including empirical reports of experiments, surveys and field studies, theoretical articles, controversies and analytic papers on important psychological topics. Relevance for an international readership is our prominent goal, Polish Psychological Bulletin does not publish clinical case studies, or technical articles. Submissions from all domains of psychology are encouraged, especially those that address new developments and pursue innovative approaches.

Periodically, the journal will announce a call for papers for special issues. The journal will also entertain unsolicited proposals for special issues that fit the stated scope of the Polish Psychiological Bulletin (please contact the journal’s Editor-in-Chief with a detailed description of your proposal).

All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous evaluation of content and merit by independent expert reviewers.

For information on specific requirements, please see the Author Guidelines.

Abstracting & Indexing

Abstracting and Indexing Information


• DESY Publication Database

• Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ)

• Current Contents: Social & Behavioral Sciences

• Dimensions

• EBSCO

• ERIH Plus

• Google Scholar

• Index Copernicus

• ProQuest

• PsychArchives

• Science Open

• SCOPUS (Elsevier)

• Sherpa/RoMEO