Diataal: Diatext and Diaword

Abstract

The Diataal assessment suite—predominantly featuring its core computerized diagnostic instruments, Diatekst (reading comprehension) and Diawoord (academic and general vocabulary)—represents an empirical milestone in longitudinal student monitoring and language diagnostic systems within Dutch-medium primary and secondary education. Developed in 2004 by the Expertisecentrum Taal, Onderwijs en Communicatie (ETOC) in conjunction with the University of Groningen (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen), the suite was engineered to systematically assess, monitor, and remediate Dutch language proficiency across diverse student cohorts, including native Dutch speakers and linguistic minority learners (non-native or dual-language pupils). Rooted in cognitive psycholinguistics, cognitive load models, and modern Item Response Theory (IRT), Diatekst evaluates multidimensional reading comprehension through graded, authentic expository and narrative texts, measuring micro-level textual processing, local cohesion, macro-structural inference, and critical evaluation. Diawoord complements this by assessing receptive and contextualized depth of general and academic vocabulary (academische woordenschat), which constitutes a major gatekeeper for curriculum access in secondary education (notably pre-vocational VMBO through academic pre-university VWO tracks).

Administered via a standardized web-based digital testing environment, Diatekst typically comprises grade-calibrated test blocks of 30 to 45 multiple-choice and text-embedded closed items linked to diverse reading passages, while Diawoord incorporates 40 to 60 contextualized lexical items employing selective-response and semantic association formats. Methodologically calibrated utilizing the Rasch and One-Parameter Logistic Models (OPLM), the tests exhibit robust psychometric properties: internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha and IRT marginal reliability coefficients) consistently range between .82 and .91 across grade bands, with standard errors of measurement rigorously constrained across the proficiency continuum. Confirmatory factor analytic and IRT structural analyses affirm high unidimensionality within subscale tiers, accompanied by expected moderate-to-high correlations between lexical breadth and discourse comprehension (r = .65 to .78). By classifying students into empirically supported reader profiles and linking diagnostic outcomes directly to targeted instructional intervention modules (Diaplus), Diataal functions not merely as an evaluative psychometric battery, but as an indispensable pedagogical framework supporting equity, differentiated instruction, and systemic language policy in contemporary schooling.

Keywords

Diataal, Diatekst, Diawoord, reading comprehension assessment, academic vocabulary, Item Response Theory, educational diagnostics, student monitoring system, Dutch psychometrics, language proficiency.

Authors

The Diataal diagnostic instrument suite was conceptualized, normed, and validated by educational psychometricians, applied linguists, and reading researchers affiliated with the Expertisecentrum Taal, Onderwijs en Communicatie (ETOC) at the University of Groningen (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen), The Netherlands. Key principal investigators and contributors responsible for the scientific architecture, longitudinal validation, and psychometric scaling include:

• Dr. Hilde Hacquebord — Emerita Professor and Scientific Director at ETOC, University of Groningen; leading authority on secondary school language proficiency, text comprehensibility, and diagnostic reading assessment among adolescents and Dutch as a second language (NT2) populations.
• Dr. Wim H. J. van de Kuilen — Psychometrician and assessment developer specializing in standardized educational measurement, test equating, and Item Response Theory modeling in large-scale pupil tracking systems.
• Drs. Roel Kuttschreutter and collegial research teams at the Faculty of Arts and the Department of Educational Sciences, University of Groningen, whose collaborative empirical inquiries established the national norming standards and developmental benchmarks underpinning the software suite.

Institutional oversight and ongoing psychometric maintenance have been coordinated via the University of Groningen in partnership with educational technology platforms specializing in digital diagnostic testing across the Benelux educational infrastructure.

Purpose

The primary clinical and pedagogical purpose of the Diataal suite—specifically its central components Diatekst and Diawoord—is to provide an objective, standardized, and longitudinal diagnostic assessment of students’ reading comprehension capabilities and lexical knowledge in the Dutch language. First released in 2004 to address documented literacy deficits and transitional friction experienced by pupils moving from primary school (basisonderwijs, grades 7–8 / ages 10–12) to various stratified tracks of secondary education (voortgezet onderwijs, ages 12–18), the suite fulfills several critical diagnostic and institutional functions within contemporary education:

From an applied diagnostic perspective, Diatekst and Diawoord were developed to move beyond traditional, summative reading tests that only report an aggregate pass/fail score. Instead, the suite operates as a computerized leerlingvolgsysteem (student monitoring system; LVS) designed to pinpoint the precise cognitive bottlenecks that impede textual understanding. Reading failure in secondary school frequently stems from distinct yet interacting etiologies: some learners suffer from severe decoding or lexical deficits (inability to comprehend polysemous words, nominalizations, or academic conjunctions), whereas others possess adequate surface vocabulary but fail to generate global macro-inferences, resolve anaphoric references, or monitor comprehension breakdown. By dissociating lexical proficiency (via Diawoord) from discourse-level textual integration (via Diatekst), educators can isolate whether reading underperformance is driven by general language delays, domain-specific lexical gaps, or defective higher-order metacognitive reading strategies.

From a systemic policy and institutional perspective, the platform yields standardized growth trajectories that allow school administrators, internal care coordinators (zorgcoördinatoren), and remedial teachers (remedial teachers / taaldocenten) to formulate evidence-based school language policies (taalbeleid). The assessment provides immediate algorithmic classification of students into specific reader profiles, differentiating proficient readers from struggling readers, compensatory readers (who utilize contextual intuition to mask severe vocabulary voids), and stagnant decoders. Furthermore, the diagnostic output links directly to Diaplus, an integrated remedial repository containing graded authentic texts, scaffolded reading exercises, and targeted pedagogical sequences tailored to specific learner deficits.

In clinical and educational research contexts, Diataal serves as an essential measurement apparatus for investigating the Matthew effect in educational literacy, the linguistic integration of multilingual and Dutch-as-a-second-language (NT2) students, and the efficacy of targeted curriculum interventions across both pre-vocational (VMBO) and academic tracks (HAVO / VWO). By anchoring student scores to developmental progression scales across chronological grade levels, the instrument enables longitudinal tracking of developmental growth and ensures timely intervention prior to national high-stakes qualification examinations.

Psychological Construct

The Diataal battery operationalizes language proficiency through two intercorrelated, psychometrically delineated constructs: Discourse-Level Reading Comprehension (measured by Diatekst) and Academic Receptive Lexical Competence (measured by Diawoord). Each construct is broken down into constituent cognitive dimensions, reflecting the multidimensional nature of textual processing.

1. Discourse-Level Reading Comprehension (Diatekst)

Reading comprehension within Diatekst is conceptualized not as a monolithic capacity, but as a hierarchical, multicomponent cognitive process requiring the simultaneous execution of lower-level linguistic operations and higher-order executive processes. Diatekst stratifies comprehension across three core processing levels:

• Micro-Level and Propositional Processing: This dimension entails extracting explicit information directly stated within isolated sentences or adjacent clauses. Cognitive tasks within this subscale require learners to identify syntactic kernels, interpret local referents, and establish immediate propositional meaning without requiring deep inferential leaps.
• Meso-Level Cohesion and Local Inference: This dimension assesses the reader’s ability to construct cohesive ties across sentence boundaries. It operationalizes the processing of cohesive markers, logical connectives (e.g., daarentegen [in contrast], mitsdien [consequently], ondanks [despite]), anaphora, and causal linkages. A student competent at this level successfully bridges inter-sentential meaning to grasp paragraph-level semantic unity.
• Macro-Level Global Inferences and Textual Synthesis: Representing the pinnacle of the comprehension hierarchy, this subconstruct measures the formation of a holistic “situation model” of the text. Students must distill the overarching communicative goal, differentiate main ideas from ancillary examples, deduce implicit authorial stances, synthesize non-linear structures, and critically evaluate the reliability and logical coherence of arguments.

2. Receptive and Academic Vocabulary (Diawoord)

The construct measured by Diawoord reflects both the breadth (the absolute quantity of lexical items known) and the depth (the richness, nuance, and semantic network elaboration) of a student’s mental lexicon, with a decisive emphasis on cross-curricular academic language (schooltaalwoorden and academische woordenschat):

• Cross-Curricular Academic Lexicon: Academic registers diverge markedly from everyday conversational language (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills; BICS). Diawoord systematically targets cognitively demanding, non-subject-specific academic terms (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency; CALP) such as abstract verbs (e.g., analyseren, veronderstellen, nuanceren), relational nouns (e.g., sequentie, oorzaak-gevolg, tendens), and qualifying adverbs.
• Morpho-Semantic and Contextual Derivation: This facet targets the reader’s capacity to access semantic nodes through morphological parsing (e.g., decomposing compound words, affixes, and Latinate roots common in Dutch scientific terminology) and to determine word meaning through polysemous disambiguation within structured sentence frames.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of Diataal synthesizes foundational frameworks from cognitive psychology, reading science, psycholinguistics, and educational measurement. The instrument’s construct operationalization is directly underpinned by four core paradigms:

1. The Simple View of Reading and the Construction-Integration Model

The division of Diataal into reading comprehension (Diatekst) and vocabulary (Diawoord)—complemented by listening comprehension (Diafoon)—originates in the classical Simple View of Reading formulated by Gough and Tunmer (1986), which posited that reading comprehension is the mathematical product of mechanical decoding and linguistic comprehension ($RC = D \times LC$). As students transition into secondary education, basic word decoding achieves relative automaticity; consequently, variance in reading success becomes predominantly driven by linguistic comprehension, semantic store depth, and inferential processing capacity.

At the discourse processing level, Diatekst is explicitly modeled upon Walter Kintsch’s (1988, 1998) Construction-Integration (CI) Model of text comprehension. According to the CI paradigm, mental representation of a text evolves across three distinct layers:

1. The surface code (exact verbatim phrasing).
2. The textbase (semantic network of interconnected propositions explicitly derived from the text).
3. The situation model (an integrated mental representation fusing text propositions with the reader’s idiosyncratic prior knowledge, world models, and episodic memory).

Diatekst intentionally minimizes assessment of mere surface code recognition, focusing instead on whether the learner successfully constructs an autonomous situation model. Items are constructed to assess whether the reader can update their mental model dynamically as novel, contradictory, or qualifying evidence appears in subsequent paragraphs.

2. Cummins’ CALP and Academic Language Dependency

Diawoord’s psycholinguistic foundation rests substantially upon Jim Cummins’ (1979, 2000) distinction between Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). ETOC researchers observed that adolescent reading difficulties, particularly among language-minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils, were rarely attributable to conversational Dutch deficiencies. Rather, academic texts present high information density, low situational contextualization, complex syntactic embedding, and dense nominalizations. By operationalizing vocabulary as academic lexical competence, Diawoord isolates the precise linguistic register necessary for secondary school academic survival.

3. Modern Psychometric Scaling via Item Response Theory

Methodologically, Diataal departs from classical true-score testing by using Item Response Theory (IRT), specifically the Rasch model and the One-Parameter Logistic Model (OPLM) with fixed discrimination parameters. This theoretical framework posits that the probability of a specific student correctly answering a given test item is a mathematical function of the student’s latent ability ($ heta$) and the item’s intrinsic difficulty parameter ($b$). IRT modeling allows Diataal to maintain a continuous, grade-independent developmental scale, facilitating precise vertical equating across longitudinal testing waves spanning primary and secondary education.

Validity

The validity framework of the Diataal suite has been evaluated through extensive empirical studies conducted across primary and secondary schools in the Netherlands, examining content, construct, criterion-related, and consequential validity.

1. Content and Curricular Validity

Content validity was established through rigorous domain-sampling procedures supervised by curriculum panels, linguists, and Dutch language educational experts at the University of Groningen. The reading passages in Diatekst were selected from authentic, representative curriculum materials (e.g., history textbooks, popular science articles, social science essays) matched to the lexile and readability indices (such as Flesch-Douma and C-test metrics) suitable for specific secondary educational tracks (VMBO-basis/kader, VMBO-theoretisch, HAVO, and VWO). Panel reviews ensured that items assessed construct-relevant comprehension processes rather than isolated domain-specific background knowledge, thereby preserving test fairness.

2. Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by significant, theoretically predicted correlations with established standardized Dutch literacy batteries. In longitudinal validation cohorts evaluated by ETOC (Hacquebord et al., 2004), Diatekst scores exhibited strong convergent correlations ($r = .72$ to $.81, p < .001$) with the standardized reading comprehension components of the national Cito pupil monitoring system (Cito Volgsysteem Voortgezet Onderwijs). The convergent validity of Diawoord was likewise confirmed via robust correlations ($r = .68$ to $.76$) with standardized Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test adaptations and Cito Vocabulary scales.

Furthermore, convergent validity between Diawoord and Diatekst consistently yielded correlations ranging from $r = .65$ to $.74$, confirming the foundational psycholinguistic premise that academic lexical mastery accounts for a substantial proportion (approximately 45% to 55%) of the variance in complex discourse comprehension, while remaining empirically distinguishable constructs.

3. Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Predictive validity investigations have demonstrated that baseline Diataal performance in the first year of secondary school (brugklas) serves as an exceptionally potent predictor of longitudinal academic success. Multiple regression analyses indicate that combined Diatekst and Diawoord baseline scores significantly predict overall grade point averages (GPA) across content subjects (history, biology, geography) at the conclusion of Year 2 and Year 3 of secondary education ($eta = .42$ to $.56, p < .001$), outperforming general non-verbal reasoning metrics in predictive utility for language-dependent subjects. Additionally, Diatekst scores demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity in predicting pass/fail outcomes on the nationwide secondary school central exit examinations (Centraal Examen) in Dutch language comprehension.

4. Discriminant and Subgroup Validity

Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analyses conducted within the IRT calibration protocols confirmed that Diatekst and Diawoord items function equitably across gender cohorts and across monolingual versus bilingual (NT2) populations. While native speakers on average outperformed non-native peers on raw lexical counts, the item characteristic curves (ICCs) demonstrated invariant parameters, proving that the instrument measures identical latent constructs without introducing cultural or linguistic item bias.

Reliability

The reliability of the Diataal instruments has been rigorously documented across numerous large-scale normative samples, demonstrating high precision throughout the entire measurement continuum.

1. Internal Consistency and IRT Marginal Reliability

Across various grade-level configurations, both Diatekst and Diawoord demonstrate exemplary internal consistency indices:

• Diatekst: Classical internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s $\alpha$) range between .82 and .88 across normative secondary school samples (with sample sizes typically exceeding $N = 3,500$ per standardization round). Under Item Response Theory paradigms, the marginal reliability coefficient ($rho$) consistently satisfies or exceeds .85 across middle-range ability levels ($ heta$ between $-2.0$ and $+2.0$).
• Diawoord: Demonstrates internal consistency indices ranging between $alpha = .85$ and $.91$. The higher homogeneity observed in Diawoord reflects the targeted focus on lexical item discrimination, where item-total correlations ($r_{it}$) uniformly exceed$.30$, with an average$r_{it}$ of approximately $.44$.

2. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Because Diataal employs IRT information functions, standard errors of measurement are explicitly calculated as a function of latent student ability ($ heta$). The test information curves (TIC) for Diatekst demonstrate maximal measurement precision across the critical diagnostic threshold ($ heta = -1.5$ to $+0.5$), precisely where decisions regarding remedial pedagogical intervention and specialized track allocation take place. In this interval, the standard error of measurement remains minimized ($SEM < 0.32$ logits), ensuring that educational track placements and remedial assignments are backed by narrow confidence intervals.

3. Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal stability evaluations assessing cohorts tested at 4- to 6-month intervals (controlling for intervening normative instruction) yielded test-retest reliability coefficients ranging between $r_{tt} = .78$ and $.84$. These figures confirm that while the instruments capture developmental maturation and educational gains, the relative rank-order stability of latent student reading ability remains highly dependable over time.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Diataal tests has undergone comprehensive structural equation modeling (SEM), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity and confirm construct homogeneity.

1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Structure

To evaluate whether Diatekst operates as an essentially unidimensional scale or reflects distinct cognitive subcomponents (micro-level processing vs. macro-level situation modeling), competing factor models were systematically fitted to calibration datasets ($N > 5,000$ secondary pupils):

• Unidimensional Baseline Model: A single global factor ($ heta_{Reading}$) loading on all reading comprehension items. Fit indices:$chi^2/df = 2.14$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($ ext{RMSEA}$) =$.038$, Comparative Fit Index ($ ext{CFI}$) =$.942$, Tucker-Lewis Index ($ ext{TLI}$) =$.936$.
• Three-Factor Hierarchical Model: Partitioning items into Micro-Propositional, Meso-Cohesive, and Macro-Inferential latent dimensions, subordinate to a higher-order General Reading Comprehension construct. Fit indices: $\chi^2/df = 1.68$, $ ext{RMSEA} = .027$,$ ext{CFI} = .971$,$ ext{TLI} = .965$.

Although the hierarchical three-factor model yielded marginally superior statistical fit, the latent inter-factor correlations between the three lower-order reading dimensions were extremely elevated ($r = .81$ to $.89$). Under psychometric criteria for dimensionality (e.g., Reckase’s multidimensional IRT thresholds), these results affirm that Diatekst satisfies the assumption of essential unidimensionality, justifying the reporting of a single composite scale score for reading ability alongside diagnostic sub-scores.

2. Factor Loadings and Item Properties

Standardized factor loadings on the primary latent reading dimension for Diatekst items universally exceed $lambda = .38$, with the majority clustering between $lambda = .48$ and $.72$. Items requiring macro-level situation model integration (e.g., discerning implicit author perspective or resolving multifaceted logical contradictions) consistently display the highest standardized factor loadings ($lambda > .60$), indicating that deep semantic integration serves as the empirical core of the test’s discriminative capacity.

3. Structural Relationship Between Diatekst and Diawoord

When Diatekst and Diawoord are entered into a joint two-factor confirmatory structural model, the correlation between the latent vocabulary factor ($ heta_{Vocab}$) and the latent reading comprehension factor ($ heta_{Read}$) stabilizes at approximately$phi = .72$. Model fit for the two-dimensional model is significantly superior to a collapsed single-factor reading/language model ($Deltachi^2(1) = 894.2, p < .0001$), empirically confirming that while lexical depth and discourse processing are highly reciprocal, they constitute functionally separable cognitive targets requiring distinct diagnostic evaluation.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications, administrative apparatus, and testing protocols of the Diataal system are detailed below:

• Instrument Type: Computerized Diagnostic Language Assessment Battery / Standardized Pupil Monitoring System (Leerlingvolgsysteem; LVS).
• Target Populations:
  • Primary Education (Basisonderwijs): Grades 7 and 8 (ages 10–12).
  • Secondary Education (Voortgezet Onderwijs): Grades 1 through 4/6 across all academic streams (VMBO-bb, VMBO-kb, VMBO-t, HAVO, VWO; ages 12–18).
  • Bilingual / Dual-Language and NT2 (Dutch as a Second Language) student populations requiring diagnostic language support.
• Administration Modality: Fully digital, web-delivered browser application; administered in classroom or school computer laboratory environments under standardized, invigilated conditions. Adaptive or standardized linear-on-the-fly test forms calibrated via IRT.
• Test Structure and Item Counts:
  • Diatekst (Reading Comprehension): Comprises 30 to 45 items per testing wave, organized into 4 to 6 authentic thematic text clusters representing distinct genres (informative, persuasive, instruction-oriented, narrative).
  • Diawoord (Vocabulary): Comprises 40 to 60 independent or micro-contextualized lexical items targeting high-frequency academic registers and cross-curricular terminology.
  • Diafoon (Listening Comprehension – Optional Suite Module): Standardized auditory comprehension battery utilizing streaming spoken discourse clips with embedded objective questions.
  • Diaplus (Pedagogical Remediation Component): Non-scored educational repository linked directly to assessment outputs, providing texts, modular exercises, and instructional units categorized by diagnostic reader profile.
• Item Formats:
  • Selected-response multiple-choice questions (typically four response alternatives with psychometrically designed distractors reflecting characteristic misinterpretations).
  • Text-embedded drag-and-drop or dropdown cloze completions targeting connective markers and cohesive conjunctions.
  • Sentence insertion and structural mapping tasks requiring placement of topical summaries.
• Duration and Timing: Typically 45 to 60 minutes for Diatekst; 30 to 40 minutes for Diawoord. The testing suite is non-speeded, providing sufficient time for average-to-slow readers to complete all items without introducing confounding processing-speed variance.
• Scoring and Diagnostic Output:
  • Real-time automated scoring based on IRT scaling (Rasch/OPLM latent trait estimation), generating developmental ability scale scores (vaardigheidsscores) that permit direct multi-year growth tracking.
  • Algorithmic assignment of individual pupils into four primary Reader Profiles (Lezerstypen):
    1. Compensating Readers: Learners possessing adequate context-driven inference abilities but constrained by severe lexical voids.
    2. Stagnating / Decelerating Readers: Learners with adequate decoding and word-level comprehension who struggle with meso- and macro-level structural synthesis.
    3. Weak / At-Risk Readers: Pupils demonstrating combined systemic deficits in both lexical mastery and higher-order inference.
    4. Strong / Autonomous Readers: Learners displaying advanced lexical networks and fluent macro-level situation modeling across genres.
  • Direct cross-referencing with national reference levels (Referentieniveaus Nederlandse Taal: 1F, 2F, 3F, 4F).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Diataal suite—encompassing Diatekst, Diawoord, Diafoon, and the Diaplus instructional infrastructure—was initially published and released to the educational market in 2004 following multi-year normative investigations by ETOC and the University of Groningen.

Copyright and Commercial Status: The instrument is a commercial, proprietary diagnostic assessment platform. All rights, intellectual property, item banks, normative databases, and software algorithms are protected under Dutch and international copyright law. The test is distributed and maintained through licensed educational measurement providers in collaboration with the original institutional creators at the University of Groningen (operating via Diataal B.V. / affiliated educational distribution networks).

Licensing and Institutional Fees: Diataal is not available in the public domain as free open-access software. Primary and secondary educational institutions acquire access through multi-year institutional subscriptions or per-student testing licenses. These licenses include access to the secure browser administration environment, automated psychometric reporting dashboards, longitudinal growth tracking modules, and the Diaplus instructional intervention repository. Independent academic researchers wishing to utilize the instrument for non-commercial scholarly inquiries or empirical interventions must submit a formal data-sharing or research application to the copyright holders and institutional developers at the University of Groningen.

References

• Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222
• Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773
• Expertisecentrum Taal Onderwijs en Communicatie & Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. (2004). Diataal: Digitaal taaltoetspakket en leerlingvolgsysteem voor het voortgezet onderwijs. Expertisecentrum Taal, Onderwijs en Communicatie.
• Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
• Hacquebord, H. I. (2004). Tekstbegrip en woordenschat in het voortgezet onderwijs: De ontwikkeling en normering van Diatekst en Diawoord. ETOC / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
• Hacquebord, H., Linthorst, R., Stellingwerf, B., & de Kuilen, W. (2004). Voortgezet taalvaardig: Taalbeleid en taaltoetsing in de onderbouw van het voortgezet onderwijs. Wolters-Noordhoff.
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
• Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
• Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89976-3
• Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension in the elementary school. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(4), 405–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802378526

Items of the Scale