Preliminary Findings on the ComputerAdministered Multiple-Choice Online Causal Comprehension Assessment - Assessment for Effective Intervention 2018, Vol. 43(3) 169–181

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mimi

The computer-administered Multiple-Choice Online Causal Comprehension Assessment (MOCCA) for Grades 3 to 5 uses a 40-item multiple-choice format where each distractor targets a comprehension process linked to poor comprehenders. This design reframes measurement considerations, including reliability and how incorrect responses should be interpreted for diagnostic use. Pilot study data provide descriptive statistics for correct and incorrect responses and comprehension rate, along with reliability and construct validity for correct responses. Implications cover diagnosis and remediation of weak inferential comprehension.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Keywords

Background on causal comprehension and poor comprehenders

Need for informative diagnostic assessments

Development goals for MOCCA

MOCCA design and measurement rationale

Poor comprehenders and cognitive process differences

Preliminary Findings on the ComputerAdministered Multiple-Choice Online Causal Comprehension Assessment, a Diagnostic Reading Comprehension Test Assessment for Effective Intervention 2018, Vol. 43(3) 169–181 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2017 Reprints and permissions: [sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav](sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav)[ ](sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav)[DOI: 10.1177/1534508417728685](DOI: 10.1177/1534508417728685)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/1534508417728685)[aei.sagepub.com](aei.sagepub.com) Mark L. Davison, PhD 1, Gina Biancarosa, EdD2, Sarah E. Carlson, PhD2, Ben Seipel, PhD3,4, and Bowen Liu, BA 1 Abstract The computer-administered Multiple-Choice Online Causal Comprehension Assessment (MOCCA) for Grades 3 to 5 has an innovative, 40-item multiple-choice structure in which each distractor corresponds to a comprehension process upon which poor comprehenders have been shown to rely. This structure requires revised thinking about measurement issues (e.g., reliability and interpretation of incorrect responses for diagnostic purposes). Using data from a pilot study, the article presents descriptive statistics on correct responses, incorrect responses, and comprehension rate. It also presents reliability data for correct responses and incorrect responses as well as construct validity data on correct responses. Implications for diagnosis and remediation of poor inferential comprehension are discussed. Keywords computerized assessment, diagnostic/analytic, reading/literacy The ability to make causal inferences and track the complexities of causality is fundamental to reading comprehension of narrative text (van den Broek, 1997) . Successful causal connections and inferences reflect a reader’s ability to monitor character goals, discern physical changes, and recognize cause and effect (Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985; van den Broek, 1997) . However, some readers struggle to make causal connections in text (Cain & Oakhill, 1999, 2006; McMaster et al., 2012; Rapp, van den Broek, McMaster, Kendeou, & Espin, 2007) . Making causal connections in text is a higher-level reading skill. Previous research has found a group of struggling readers who do not struggle with lower-level reading skills (e.g., decoding), but rather struggle with higher-level reading skills such as making causal connections during reading (Cain & Oakhill, 2006; Perfetti, 2007) . Commonly termed poor comprehenders, they exhibit poor comprehension compared with peers with similar word-reading skills and vocabulary (e.g., Cain & Oakhill, 1999, 2006; Carlson, Seipel, & McMaster, 2014; Rapp et al., 2007) . Poor comprehenders represent at least 10% of elementary grade readers, have adequate decoding skills, and have below-average comprehension skills (Cain & Oakhill, 1999, 2006; Carlson et al., 2014; Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005; Hulme & Snowling, 2011; Pimperton & Nation, 2010; Rapp et al., 2007) . Prior research indicates poor comprehenders are not all the same; they can be differentiated by the types of cognitive processes (e.g., prediction, elaboration, or paraphrasing) on which they rely during reading when trying to make causally coherent inferences (Carlson et al., 2014; McMaster et al., 2012; Rapp et al., 2007). Importantly, poor comprehenders have also been shown to respond differentially to intervention based on their preferred cognitive processes during reading (McMaster et al., 2012; van den Broek et al., 2006) . Existing assessments of reading comprehension distinguish between good and poor comprehenders. However, ifa student is identified as a poor comprehender, current assessments often give little information as to why the student is a poor comprehender. As a result, teachers receive little diagnostic information that might shape instruction. Until now, identifying the cognitive processes on which poor comprehenders rely, and which could therefore inform intervention efforts, has mainly come from the use of 1 Unive

FAQs

What is MOCCA and how is it structured for Grades 3 to 5?

MOCCA is a computer-administered multiple-choice assessment with 40 items. Each distractor corresponds to a comprehension process that poor comprehenders have been shown to rely on.

Why does MOCCA change how measurement is interpreted?

Because each incorrect option is tied to a specific comprehension process, reliability and the meaning of incorrect responses must be considered for diagnostic interpretation rather than treated as generic error.

What evidence does the article report from the pilot study?

The article reports descriptive statistics for correct and incorrect responses and comprehension rate. It also presents reliability for correct and incorrect responses and construct validity based on correct responses.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mimi