Comparison of paragraph comprehension test scores with reading versus listening-reading and multiple-choice versus nominal recall administration techniques: justification for the bypass approach.

Eight groups of learning disabled children (N = 100), categorized by the clinical Lexical Paradigm as good readers or poor readers, were individually administered the Gilmore Oral Reading Test, Form D, by one of four input/retrieval methods: (1) the standardized method of administration in which the child reads each paragraph aloud and then answers five questions relating to the paragraph [read/recall method]; (2) the child reads each paragraph aloud and then for each question selects the correct answer from among three choices read by the examiner [read/choice method]; (3) the examiner reads each paragraph aloud and reads each of the five questions to the child to answer [listen/recall method]; and (4) the examiner reads each paragraph aloud and then for each question reads three multiple-choice answers from which the child selects the correct answer [listen/choice method]. The major difference in scores was between the groups tested by the recall versus the orally read multiple-choice methods. This study indicated that poor readers who listened to the material and were tested by orally read multiple-choice format could perform as well as good readers. The performance of good readers was not affected by listening or by the method of testing. The multiple-choice testing improved the performance of poor readers independent of the input method. This supports the arguments made previously that a "bypass approach" to education of poor readers in which testing is accomplished using an orally read multiple-choice format can enhance the child's school performance on reading-related tasks. Using a listening while reading input method may further enhance performance.