View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Developing a Chinese Version of an Author Recognition Test for College Students in Taiwan

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Developing a Chinese Version of an Author Recognition Test for College Students in Taiwan
Language: English
Authors: Chen, Su-Yen, Fang, Sheng-Ping
Source: Journal of Research in Reading. Nov 2015 38(4):344-360.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Authors, Recognition (Psychology), Reading Habits, Chinese, College Students, Foreign Countries, Reading Achievement, Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Test Construction, Correlation, Scores, Prediction
Geographic Terms: Taiwan
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.12018
ISSN: 0141-0423
Abstract: This study set out to develop a Chinese Author Recognition Test (CART) that might be used as a measure of objective print exposure for college students in Taiwan. We found that there is a linkage between print exposure and general reading achievement for college students. We also found that, among self-reported reading habits, comparative reading habits and CART, primary print knowledge scores within the CART family have the strongest prediction power for both the "General Scholastic Ability Test-Chinese" and the "Department Required Test-Chinese" beyond the joint contributions of vocabulary size and reading comprehension. By sharing the process of developing the instrument, we shed some light for researchers from regions other than English-speaking countries on how they might move forward in future investigations.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1078185
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHHVebxuxcQT4P7Eke2keNFAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDED1q4xrt9hAxHGf9wIBEICBmvqHZe21JOBeK_i8h1Ok-xT4QLSk_9aivxZVEwqBGYXrCzGpRN5zbFbN94czLpLSqQfBG5adQSkkLts4kBpgB3xeBBRbqMcnoUhQmHs19BNrFVIOS7i1YHXTvkeKDr-mwXBXnHJlTwRPsOimgqNF0vWGdIHBA-i3EKBg47kANOaMB3Q3dPVCbrMIH8apaxQQLTj2pZgTP80G-wE=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0110340232;d8c01nov.15;2018Jul06.11:41;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0110340232-1">Developing a Chinese version of an Author Recognition Test for college students in Taiwan. </title> <p>This study set out to develop a Chinese Author Recognition Test (CART) that might be used as a measure of objective print exposure for college students in Taiwan. We found that there is a linkage between print exposure and general reading achievement for college students. We also found that, among self‐reported reading habits, comparative reading habits and CART, primary print knowledge scores within the CART family have the strongest prediction power for both the ‘General Scholastic Ability Test‐Chinese’ and the ‘Department Required Test‐Chinese’ beyond the joint contributions of vocabulary size and reading comprehension. By sharing the process of developing the instrument, we shed some light for researchers from regions other than English‐speaking countries on how they might move forward in future investigations.</p> <p>Print exposure; Adults</p> <p>There is tremendous variation in literacy habits. Researchers in Western cultures have linked such variation in college students' print exposure to their variability in reading‐related skills, such as lexical‐decision latency (Chateau & Jared, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>] ), spelling ability (Burt & Fury, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>] ; Stanovich & West, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>] ), vocabulary (Martin‐Chang & Gould, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>] ; Stanovich, West & Harrison, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>] ; West & Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref6">32</reflink>] ), verbal fluency (Stanovich & Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>] ), reading comprehension and reading rate (Martin‐Chang & Gould, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>] ), and general measures of achievement in reading and reading‐related domains (e.g., the SAT reading and English subtests; Acheson, Wells & Macdonald, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>] ). Because level of print exposure has been one of the key variables in individual differences across many reading‐related cognitive dimensions, developing a reliable Chinese instrument for assessing relative levels of print exposure is the focus of this study.</p> <p>Traditional research has used a self‐reported measure of reading habits, which asks college students or young adults to estimate the amount of time they spend reading. Results of questionnaires and interviews have served to assess their variation in literacy habits (e.g., Gallik, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>] ; Guthrie, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>] ; Walberg & Tsai, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>] ). An alternative tool, the Author Recognition Test (ART) for college students, was first developed by Stanovich and West ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref13">25</reflink>] ) and has been widely used since its creation. The ART has consistently proven to be an ideal proxy measure for out‐of‐school print exposure. The test includes the names of both popular authors and foils, and respondents are to indicate whether or not they are familiar with the name of a particular author by putting a check mark next to the name. According to Stanovich, Cunningham and West ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>] ), the advantages of the ART over traditional methods include easy administration, low task demands, time‐saving and minimisation of the complications associated with social desirability involved in self‐reporting.</p> <p>The first version of the ART for college students was developed as a measure reflecting relative individual differences in print exposure and was not intended to measure absolute levels of print exposure (Stanovich & West, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref15">25</reflink>] ). It consisted of 50 ‘popular’ authors and 50 ‘foils’. Most of the popular authors regularly appeared on fiction and non‐fiction best‐seller lists. Major categories of fiction included mystery/detective, romance/Gothic, spy/intrigue, occult/supernatural, historical novels, Westerns, short stories and science fiction. Non‐fiction categories included sports, science, politics/current events, humour, religious, history, biography and business/finance. Authors that appeared in the school curriculum were avoided, as the ART was intentionally biased toward out‐of‐school reading experience. Foils, that is, names taken from the editorial board of a professional journal that were unfamiliar to all respondents in the study, were used to prevent respondents from simply checking all the names. Scoring on the task was determined by subtracting the false‐alarm rate from the hit rate. The original version of the ART was later revised into a 25‐item instrument containing the names of 16 authors and 9 foils in West and Stanovich's ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref16">32</reflink>] ) study and into an 80‐item version containing 40 authors and 40 foils in several succeeding studies (e.g., Stanovich & Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>] ; Stanovich et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>] ). Although the Magazine Recognition Test (MRT) and the Newspaper Recognition Test (NRT) have been frequently utilised, the ART has remained the most sensitive measure of print exposure, probably because the writing styles of individual authors influence readers' selection of reading materials and avid readers usually have their favourite authors. Magazines and newspapers, on the other hand, represent collections of works of many authors and therefore are of less distinctive value.</p> <p>The ART was also revised or developed in several English‐speaking countries other than the United States. Chateau and Jared ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>] ), for example, generated a Canadian version of the ART for college students and found that levels of print exposure were highly correlated with the efficiency of both orthographical and phonological word recognition. Burt and Fury ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>] ) also revised the 1989 (Stanovich & West, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref21">25</reflink>] ) and 1992 (Stanovich & Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref22">24</reflink>] ) versions into a test for Australian college students. Authors found that level of print exposure served as a better predictor of spelling ability than the joint contributions of reading comprehension and vocabulary. Later, Masterson and Hayes ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>] ) developed new versions of the ART and the Title Recognition Test (TRT) for adults in the United Kingdom. Note that, in the past, the TRT was used mainly for children rather than adults (e.g., Allen, Cipielewski & Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>] ; Cipielewski & Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>] ; Cunningham & Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref26">10</reflink>] ; Ecalle & Magnan, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref27">11</reflink>] ; McBride‐Chang & Chang, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>] ). Masterson and Hayes' initial list of authors and titles was equally distributed among four sources: the top 100 most‐loaned titles according to a library for 2002 and 2003, the Nielscan Top 100 fiction titles purchased before September 2004, the top‐ranked list at an online bookshop, and the titles or authors that had recently been awarded prizes. These lists were then pilot‐tested, and the final lists were formed by deleting the items that were least often correctly identified. The researchers found higher scores for the UKART than for the UKTRT. Both measures served as good predictors for spelling ability, vocabulary and reading rate, but only the UKART was related to comprehension.</p> <p>Two recent studies might have elaborated our understanding of the ART. First, Martin‐Chang and Gould ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>] ) proposed the notion of dividing the ART into two dimensions: personal reading experience from primary print knowledge (PPK) and from secondary print knowledge (SPK). They updated the original version of the ART (Stanovich & West, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref30">25</reflink>] ) by adding 30 contemporary best‐selling authors suggested by avid readers during pilot investigations, thus resulting in a final checklist consisting of 75 widely recognised authors and 75 foils. In this version of the ART, in addition to indicating whether or not they were familiar with the name of a particular author, respondents were also asked to report if (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>) they had heard of this author but not read any of his or her books, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>) they had started a book by this author but not finished it, or (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>) they had read one or more of this author's books. Although scores for the PPK were obtained by summing the number of authors that respondents successfully recognised and reported that ‘they had read one or more of this author's books’ divided by the total number of real authors, scores for the SPK were calculated by summing the number of authors that respondents successfully recognised but reported that ‘they had heard of this author, but not read any of his or her books’ over the total number of real authors. Foils that were incorrectly marked were ignored from both measures of print exposure. Authors that respondents successfully recognised and reported that ‘they had started a book by this author but not finished it’ were also ignored. This study found that the PPK accounted for variance in all three criterion variables (vocabulary, comprehension and reading rate) after the effects of the SPK had been factored out.</p> <p>Second, Acheson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>] ) measured print exposure not only with the revised ART and MRT but also with several new self‐reports on reading and writing habits: time spent reading, time spent writing and comparative reading habits (CRH). In the section of time spent reading, participants were asked to estimate the amount of time they spent in a typical week reading certain types of material, for example, textbooks, academic material, magazines, newspapers, emails, Internet material, fiction and non‐fiction. Similarly, they were asked to estimate the amount of time they spent writing certain types of material, for example, for class, articles, personal, emails, creative and job‐related. In the CRH section, they were asked to compare their own reading habits to those of other college students on a Likert scale consisting of five dimensions: time spent reading, complexity of reading material, reading enjoyment, reading speed and reading comprehension ability. This study employed hierarchical regression and found that when the CRH was entered before the ART/MRT composite, the unique predictability of the ART/MRT was reduced to nonsignificance. The researchers suggested that the CRH might be better equipped to capture a broader range of reading experiences, including Internet‐based reading. In addition, although self‐estimated reading time fails to differentiate slow readers from avid readers and is therefore relatively unreliable, the CRH appears to be a useful supplement to other assessments of print exposure.</p> <p>In summary, previous studies from English‐speaking countries have used various measures of print exposure for college students: self‐reported reading habits, self‐reported CRH and objective print exposure measures such as the ART. The relationships between print exposure, and reading‐related skills or general reading performance have been well‐established, especially between the ART and the reading‐related performance. Compared with studies from Western cultures, investigations of college students' print exposure and its relationship with reading‐related performance in Taiwan have been limited. This paper represents one of the first efforts dedicated to this topic.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-2">Construction of a Chinese version of the Author Recognition Test in Taiwan</hd> <p>Extant studies in Taiwan have almost exclusively employed self‐reported reading habits by using questionnaires to collect data concerning levels of print exposure. Chen ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>] , 2012) utilised self‐reported reading habits as an indicator of print exposure and found that Taiwanese college students' favourite reading materials were e‐news, Bulletin Board Systems, fiction, magazines, newspapers and non‐fiction, among others, which is consistent with recent findings that reading Internet‐based materials plays a significant role in contemporary college students' lives (e.g., Jolliffe & Harl, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref36">15</reflink>] ; Liu & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref37">18</reflink>] ). Chen ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>] ) also found that a higher educational level is more strongly linked with reading literature and professional non‐fiction than with reading popular fiction and practical non‐fiction, suggesting a relationship between education and reading taste. These results generally corroborate studies related to the cultural consumption of reading carried out by Dutch researchers: they found that educational level was a strong predictor of reading highbrow, complex and prestigious books that have the unique features of being more difficult and demanding, requiring more prior knowledge and being more important and of higher literary value (e.g., Kraaykampt & Dijkstra, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref39">17</reflink>] ; Van Eijck, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref40">29</reflink>] ; Van Rees, Vermunt & Verboord, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref41">30</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Few studies in Taiwan have explored the association between level of print exposure and reading‐related performance. Therefore, on the basis of the aforementioned literature, the goal of this research was threefold: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>) to develop a Chinese Author Recognition Test (CART) for college students in Taiwan; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>) to examine the overall correlations between the CART and self‐reported reading habits, self‐reported CRH and reading‐related measures, in order to provide preliminary evidence for the CART's construct validities; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>) to investigate the extent to which self‐reported reading habits, self‐reported CRH and the CART help predict two criterion variables of general reading performance (e.g., the General Scholastic Ability Test‐Chinese [GSAT‐Chinese] and the Department Required Test‐Chinese [DRT‐Chinese]), beyond the joint contribution of vocabulary size and reading comprehension, in an attempt to further validate the CART as a measure for assessing individual differences in print exposure. By sharing the process of developing the instrument, we shed some light for researchers from regions other than English‐speaking countries on how to proceed in future investigations.</p> <p>Although a Chinese version of the TRT for children was used in McBride‐Chang and Chang's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>] ) study, neither the procedure for development nor the content of the instrument was mentioned in the study. And no similar study has been conducted, probably because the researchers found the results to be inconsistent with the findings of Western studies; that is, they found that print exposure did not significantly help predict additional variance in the reading comprehension measure once vocabulary was forced into a hierarchical regression.</p> <p>Before constructing the first measure of objective print exposure for college students in Taiwan, we had a number of decisions to make. First, the ART rather than the TRT, the MRT or the NRT was chosen, because almost all extant studies have found the ART to be the most sensitive instrument for college students. On the other hand, for children, the TRT was found to be a more sensitive instrument than the ART by most studies, because children may read many books but not take any notice of the author information. In addition, because of the limited population and therefore the limited market size, there are simply not enough magazine or newspaper titles available in Taiwan to generate a valid NRT or MRT test.</p> <p>Second, unlike in English‐speaking countries, where books originally written in English might fairly well represent most readers' relative levels of print exposure, in Taiwan, most readers' reading experiences might consist not only of works written in Chinese but also of those translated from many other languages. For example, according to eight available top‐ranked library loan titles and bookstore best‐selling lists in 2010, 60% of titles were translated works. Although developing an ART that consists of both Chinese authors and translated names of foreign authors would seem to be an option for this study, it is rather unfeasible to do so. The difficulty is mainly due to the lack of a uniform system of translating names of foreign authors. A particular foreign author may have several versions of translated name in Taiwan, depending on the publishers' preferences. The average Taiwanese reader therefore does not bother paying attention to the author's name at all when reading a translated work. As a result, it was unfortunate that we had to give up on developing an instrument to measure objective print exposure concerning reading experiences related to translated works.</p> <p>Third, the original ART list by Stanovich and West ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>] ) intentionally included only popular writers and avoided highbrow writers that were known only to the most academically inclined readers, but we decided to develop two CART sublists: CART‐popular for popular authors generated from top‐ranked book lists and CART‐highbrow for highbrow authors suggested by avid readers. There were two reasons for this decision. The first was that we found that the initial list generated from the eight top‐ranked library loans and bookstores from 2010 in Taiwan was not very comprehensive as it did not include many important Chinese writers. The second reason was that some previous studies have proposed an association between higher educational level and reading both complex and prestigious books; thus, we considered that it would be meaningful to explore the difference between CART‐highbrow and CART‐popular.</p> <p>The initial authors on the CART‐popular sublist came from eight top‐ranked lists in Taiwan, including five different types of university library loan schemes and the three most popular bookstores. They were the following:</p> <p>National Tsing Hua University Lending Library Top 100 books in 2010;</p> <p>National Yang‐Ming University Lending Library Top 100 books in 2010;</p> <p>National Chiayi University Lending Library Top 100 books in 2010;</p> <p>Feng Chia University Lending Library Top 100 books in 2010;</p> <p>National Normal University Lending Library Top 100 Popular Science books in 2009;</p> <p>KingStone Book Store 100 Best‐selling books in 2010;</p> <p>Eslite Book Store 100 Best‐selling books in 2010 (winter only); and</p> <p>Online Berkeley Book Store (<ulink href="http://www.books.com.tw/">http://www.books.com.tw/</ulink>) 100 Bestselling books in 2010.</p> <p>These eight lists include a total of 440 writers, many of whom have multiple works on the lists, or one particular work on multiple lists. In all, 177 writers out of the 440 (about 40%) were categorised as Chinese writers; that is, their works on these lists were written in Chinese regardless of whether they lived in Taiwan, Mainland China or elsewhere.</p> <p>The initial authors on the CART‐highbrow sublist came from three avid readers, one of whom is a doctoral student majoring in Chinese literature; the other two are Master's students who have won literary awards and have had works published. A highbrow writer refers to an author whose work is relatively important, of the highest literary value, more difficult to read and requires prior knowledge. These three avid readers collected highbrow writers' names from their circles of friends and came up with an initial list of 92 authors.</p> <p>Authors that appeared on both the popular and the highbrow lists were counted as writers on the CART‐highbrow and were deleted from the CART‐popular. Following Stanovich and West's ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref47">25</reflink>] ) rule, authors that had appeared in any of the high‐school curricula were also deleted from the lists. Thus, the CART‐composite list for the pilot test consisted of 233 ‘real’ authors. We also added six ‘foils’, names of famous characters from fiction, on the list, to identify and weed out any random responses, yielding a total of 239 authors on the instrument for pilot testing.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-3">Method</hd> <hd id="AN0110340232-4">Development of the formal Chinese Author Recognition Test</hd> <p>We collected data for the pilot test in September 2011 from 525 college students taking General Education courses at five universities, with two in Northern Taiwan, one in Central Taiwan, one in Southern Taiwan and one in Eastern Taiwan. The universities represent different types of higher institutions in Taiwan in terms of public/private, institution size, institution rank and combination of schools. On the instrument, we asked respondents to indicate whether or not they were familiar with the name of a particular author by putting a check mark next to the name. To prevent the subject from making the mark carelessly and therefore contaminating our data, once any of the six ‘foils’ was checked, that particular respondent's questionnaire was excluded from the data analysis. At the end, data from 248 respondents were categorised as valid. Among them, 104 (41.9%) were women and 144 (58%) were men; 26 (10.5%) were freshmen, 86 (34.7%) were sophomores, 79 (31.9%) were juniors and 57 (23%) were senior students.</p> <p>According to the 248 respondents, the selection rate for each of the 233 ‘real’ authors ranged from 0 to 245, with a mean of 36.11 (SD = 53.181), indicating that many authors were selected by less than 10% of respondents. To be specific, at the two extremes, 156 authors were familiar to less than 10% of respondents, whereas only two authors were familiar to 90% of respondents. Therefore, we took the remaining 75 authors with recognition rates falling between 10% and 90% to be the final list of ‘real authors’ in our CART instrument. Among these 75 authors, 36 belong to the CART‐popular list and 39 belong to the CART‐highbrow list. They roughly represent the following categories: literary fiction and prose (28%), poetry and biography (8%), popular and light reading (20%), Internet fiction later published as print‐based fiction (8%), manga/graphic novels (5%), professional non‐fiction (14%) and practical non‐fiction (15%). The distribution is largely the same as that of the initial list. We added an equal number of 75 ‘foils’, names taken from a list of school teachers on the Internet; we double‐checked each name to be sure that it was not the same as a writer of any kind, this time for the final version. In this final version, in addition to indicating whether or not they were familiar with the name of a particular author, respondents were also asked to report if (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>) they had heard of this author but not read any of his or her books, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>) they had started a book by this author but not finished it, or (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref50">3</reflink>) they had read one or more of this author's books. Therefore, three kinds of scores were generated for the purpose of this study. First is the original CART score, ranging from −75 to 75, calculated by taking the number of the correct items that were checked and by subtracting the number of foils checked. The second one is the PPK‐composite score, ranging from 0 to 75, obtained by summing the number of authors that respondents successfully identified and reported that (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>) they had read one or more of this author's books. The PPK‐composite score equals the PPK‐popular score, ranging from 0 to 36, added to the PPK‐highbrow score, ranging from 0 to 39. And finally, the SPK‐composite score, ranging from 0 to 75, obtained by summing the number of authors that respondents successfully identified and reported that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>) they had heard of this author but not read any of his or her books. The SPK‐composite score also equals the SPK‐popular score, ranging from 0 to 36, added to the SPK‐highbrow score, ranging from 0 to 39.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-5">Conducting the formal study</hd> <p>The formal study was conducted in October and November 2011. The sample consisted of college students enrolled in a highly selective science/engineering research‐oriented university in Northern Taiwan. A total of 358 students were recruited. Among them, 212 (59.2%) were women and 146 (40.8%) were men; 92 (25.7%) were freshmen, 99 (27.7%) were sophomores, 96 (26.8%) were juniors and 71 (19.8%) were in their fourth or fifth (extended) year. Because the final goal of this study was to validate the CART by using hierarchical regression logic to partial out variance in vocabulary size and reading comprehension before comparing linkages between various measures of print exposure (e.g., CART, self‐reported reading habits and CRH) and general reading performance, assessed by the GSAT‐Chinese and the DRT‐Chinese, all respondents were asked to take (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>) the CART, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>) the Vocabulary Size Test and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>) the Reading Comprehension Test, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>) to fill out a reading questionnaire regarding their self‐reported reading habits, CRH and their scores on the GSAT‐Chinese and DRT‐Chinese (if available) when entering college.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-6">Print exposure and experience measures</hd> <hd id="AN0110340232-7">Self‐reported reading habits</hd> <p>Respondents were asked to fill out the questionnaire according to their own experiences of reading. Although earlier studies usually measured self‐reported reading habits by asking respondents to provide an overall time estimate, in this study, we asked respondents to provide reading frequency of various kinds of materials on a four‐point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (frequently), in addition, for comparison purposes, and then computed an average frequency score, as suggested by Acheson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>] ). Furthermore, we differentiated self‐reported reading habits into two major categories: print‐based and Internet‐based, as recent studies have suggested a new trend of reading Internet materials among college students (e.g., Chen & Fang, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref58">7</reflink>] ; Jolliffe & Harl, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>] ; Liu & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>] ). In other words, self‐reported reading habits were measured not only by the overall amount of time respondents estimated spending on extra‐curricular reading in print‐based and Internet‐based formats, respectively, but also on the frequency with which they engaged in reading eight types of materials, some of them print‐based (e.g., printed books – fiction, printed books – non‐fiction, newspapers and magazines) and the others Internet‐based (e.g., e‐fiction, e‐news, blogs and Bulletin Board Systems), resulting in two average scores of reading frequency.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-8">Comparative reading habits</hd> <p>In the CRH section, respondents were asked to compare their own reading habits with those of their peers for six dimensions: time spent reading, reading enjoyment, variety of reading, reading speed, complexity of reading material and comprehension of reading material (Acheson et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>] ). The comparisons were based on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3, with higher numbers indicating a greater amount than their peers. An average score was computed.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-9">Chinese Author Recognition Test</hd> <p>The final version of the CART described previously was used. The instrument includes 75 real authors (e.g., 36 CART‐popular and 39 CART‐highbrow) and 75 ‘foils’. Seven kinds of scores were calculated: CART score, PPK‐composite, PPK‐popular, PPK‐highbrow, SPK‐composite, SPK‐popular and SPK‐highbrow. The Cronbach's α for the CART score was.93; for PPK‐composite,.91; for PPK‐popular,.83; for PPK‐highbrow,.89; for SPK‐composite,.80; for SPK‐popular,.73; and for SPK‐highbrow,.70.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-10">Reading ability measures</hd> <hd id="AN0110340232-11">Vocabulary Size Test</hd> <p>Nearly half a century ago, the National Institute for Compilation and Translation (NICT) collected characters from reading materials used in elementary schools and rank‐ordered these characters according to frequency of use from 1 to 4,708, with 1 being the most and 4,708 being the least frequently used (NICT, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>] ). The ranking largely holds nowadays. On the basis of the NICT norm, Hue ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref63">14</reflink>] ) developed several Vocabulary Size Tests for college students in Taiwan. The Vocabulary Size Test we used for this present study was revised from one of his tests. This test consists of 66 Chinese characters sampled from a standard Chinese dictionary (Kao, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref64">16</reflink>] ), which consists of more than 10,000 character entries. These characters belong to four frequency levels: 16 characters from level 1, which ranks between 1 and 1,500 in the NICT character‐frequency norm; 14 characters rank between 1,501 and 3,000 (level 2); 15 characters rank 3,001 and above (level 3); and 21 were characters not listed in the NICT norm but were listed in the dictionary (level 4). Participants were first asked to respond to each of the test characters by writing down both its pronunciation, using the Mandarin Phonetic Alphabet, and its meaning, by either giving a definition or using the character to compose a word or phrase. Then, they were asked whether they had given that particular response because they (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>) had learned the character before, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>) had seen the character before, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref67">3</reflink>) guessed from the radical or phonetic component contained in the character or (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref68">4</reflink>) simply guessed. A correct response to a test item with a first or second type reason chosen was regarded as a correct response, whereas a correct response with a third or fourth type reason chosen was regarded as a correct guess. The number of characters that the participants knew was estimated (Est) by first subtracting the proportion of correct guesses from the proportion of correct responses for each frequency level (x<subs>1</subs>, x<subs>2</subs>, x<subs>3</subs>, x<subs>4</subs>) and then extrapolating the figure computed to the number of characters in the dictionary within the specified frequency level, and finally adding up the numbers computed for the four frequency levels. The formula for the calculation was as follows:</p> <p>Est=x116×1500+x214×1500+x315×1708+x421×4708</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-12">Reading Comprehension Test</hd> <p>Because there is no standardised test for measuring reading comprehension for college students in Taiwan, a Reading Comprehension Test developed by Chen and Su ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref69">8</reflink>] ) with college students from a university in Northern Taiwan was used for the purpose of this study. Participants had 30 minutes to read eight short vignettes and answer 30 corresponding comprehension questions. The questions cover both literal (e.g., lexical access and parsing) and inferential (e.g., integration, summarisation and analogy) comprehension. The internal consistency reliability reported in the test manual is.76.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-13">General Scholastic Ability Test‐Chinese</hd> <p>This test is taken as a standard means of entry into Taiwanese universities and colleges. In January of each year, senior high‐school students take the GSAT, which assesses their basic competence in Chinese, English, mathematics, and the natural and social sciences. They then seek recommendations from their school or make their own applications to institutions of their choice. All examinees should take the whole set of tests. The score for the GSAT‐Chinese subtest was used in this study as a general measure of achievement in reading and reading‐related domains. The GSAT‐Chinese is composed of two types of tasks: multiple‐choice test items and short essay‐writing tasks. The two types of tasks share the same proportion of score: 54 to 54, with a total score of 108. Then, the raw scores are transformed into scores of ranking, ranging from level 1 to level 15, with a score of level 15 indicating being in the top 1% of examinees. In the multiple‐choice section, around half of the items are related to modern essays, and the others are related to classical literature. You ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref70">33</reflink>] ) examined the GSAT‐Chinese test items related to modern essays from 2000 to 2011 with the framework of PISA as different levels/processes of reading comprehension: retrieving information, forming a broad understanding, developing an interpretation, and reflecting on and evaluating the form of a text. He found that about 32% of the items could be categorised as assessing students' abilities of ‘forming a broad understanding’, 64% as ‘developing an interpretation’ and the remaining 5% as ‘relating to relevant literacy knowledge’, a category not within the framework of PISA. According to You, test items related to classical literature assess not only students' reading comprehension but also their proficiency in ancient Chinese language and culture. As for the short essay‐writing tasks of GSAT‐Chinese, Tseng ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref71">28</reflink>] ) randomly selected examinees' writing scripts from 2002 to 2005, and the analyses revealed that these students' reading comprehension ability had a great impact on their writing performance. Specifically, failures in the writing tasks were mainly due to misunderstandings of the rubrics or of the reading passages serving as prompts for writing. To sum up, GSAT‐Chinese measures various processes of reading comprehension, knowledge of ancient Chinese language/culture and writing abilities.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-14">Department Required Test‐Chinese</hd> <p>Standard means of entry into Taiwanese universities and colleges are held in July. Those who did not apply or get recommended for admission to the institution in January can take a Department Required Test (DRT), depending on the requirements of the particular college or university. This test is designated to assess more advanced knowledge and ability than the GSAT and consists of 10 subjects, namely, Chinese, English, Mathematics, History, Geography, Citizenship and Society, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The score for the DRT‐Chinese subtest was also used in this study as a general measure of achievement in reading and reading‐related domains. The DRT‐Chinese is also composed of two types of tasks: multiple‐choice test items and short essay‐writing tasks, with 55 points for the former and 45 points for the latter, totalling 100 points. In the multiple‐choice section, around one‐third of the items are related to modern essays, and the others are related to classical literature. You ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref72">33</reflink>] ) examined DRT‐Chinese test items related to modern essays from 2000 to 2011, with the framework of PISA, and found that about 6% of the items could be categorised as assessing students' abilities of ‘retrieving information’, 25% as ‘forming a broad understanding’, 50% as ‘developing an interpretation’ and 19% as ‘reflecting on and evaluation of the form of a text’. Similar to GSAT‐Chinese, the test items of DRT‐Chinese related to classical literature assess not only students' reading comprehension but also their proficiency in ancient Chinese language and culture. As for the writing tasks of DRT‐Chinese, Pan ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref73">23</reflink>] ) pointed out that it places more emphasis on the abilities of integration and expression than the GSAT‐Chinese. To sum up, DRT‐Chinese also measures various processes of reading comprehension, plus knowledge of ancient Chinese language/culture and writing abilities. However, for the purpose of screening students more apt for the Humanities and Social Sciences, DRT‐Chinese is designed to assess more advanced knowledge and ability than the GSAT‐Chinese with the following three features: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>) a higher proportion of multiple‐choice items related to classical literature; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>) modern literature‐related multiple‐choice items measuring higher levels of reading comprehension; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>) more difficult writing tasks.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-15">Results</hd> <p>Table [NaN] presents the N, the range of scores, the means and the SDs of the primary measures taken in this study. Table [NaN] presents a matrix displaying correlations among all the variables investigated. Among the seven CART measures, the CART score and three PPK measures (popular, highbrow and composite) were significantly correlated with most of the self‐reported reading habits, with almost all of the CRH measures and with most of the reading measures, whereas hardly any of the three SPK measures were significantly correlated with the other variables. In addition, negative correlations were found between the PPK and the SPK scores. Among the PPK measures, although the PPK‐popular score was significantly associated with reading frequency on both print‐based and Internet‐based materials, the PPK‐highbrow score was significantly linked to reading frequency only for print‐based materials. Furthermore, the PPK‐highbrow score appeared to have higher correlations with CRH and reading measures than the PPK‐popular score.</p> <p>Mean scores (with SD s) of reading and print exposure measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">N</th><th align="center">Min. possible</th><th align="center">Max. possible</th><th align="center">Obtained range</th><th align="center">Mean</th><th align="center">SD</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐reported reading habits (reading frequency of fiction, non‐fiction, newspapers and magazines)</td><td align="char" char=".">352</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">0–3</td><td align="char" char=".">1.53</td><td align="char" char=".">.53</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CRH‐total</td><td align="char" char=".">354</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">0–3</td><td align="char" char=".">1.64</td><td align="char" char=".">.55</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CART score</td><td align="char" char=".">358</td><td align="char" char=".">−75</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td><td align="char" char=".">0–68</td><td align="char" char=".">35.87</td><td align="char" char=".">12.59</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CART‐correct identifications</td><td align="char" char=".">358</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td><td align="char" char=".">0–69</td><td align="char" char=".">39.33</td><td align="char" char=".">13.34</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CART‐foils checked</td><td align="char" char=".">358</td><td align="char" char=".">−75</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">−57 to 0</td><td align="char" char=".">−3.46</td><td align="char" char=".">6.54</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PPK‐composite</td><td align="char" char=".">358</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td><td align="char" char=".">0–57</td><td align="char" char=".">17.72</td><td align="char" char=".">10.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PPK‐popular</td><td align="char" char=".">358</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">36</td><td align="char" char=".">0–33</td><td align="char" char=".">7.28</td><td align="char" char=".">4.89</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PPK‐highbrow</td><td align="char" char=".">358</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">39</td><td align="char" char=".">0–26</td><td align="char" char=".">10.44</td><td align="char" char=".">6.92</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SPK‐composite</td><td align="char" char=".">358</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">75</td><td align="char" char=".">0–44</td><td align="char" char=".">15.54</td><td align="char" char=".">7.43</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SPK‐popular</td><td align="char" char=".">358</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">36</td><td align="char" char=".">0–22</td><td align="char" char=".">7.89</td><td align="char" char=".">4.44</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SPK‐highbrow</td><td align="char" char=".">358</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">39</td><td align="char" char=".">0–24</td><td align="char" char=".">7.65</td><td align="char" char=".">4.29</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocabulary Size Test total</td><td align="char" char=".">338</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">9416</td><td align="char" char=".">0–5604</td><td align="char" char=".">4365.16</td><td align="char" char=".">579.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequency level 1</td><td align="char" char=".">338</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">1500</td><td align="char" char=".">0–1500</td><td align="char" char=".">1464.50</td><td align="char" char=".">135.65</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequency level 2</td><td align="char" char=".">338</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">1500</td><td align="char" char=".">0–1500</td><td align="char" char=".">1427.09</td><td align="char" char=".">154.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequency level 3</td><td align="char" char=".">338</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">1708</td><td align="char" char=".">0–1366</td><td align="char" char=".">836.82</td><td align="char" char=".">212.96</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequency level 4</td><td align="char" char=".">338</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">4708</td><td align="char" char=".">0–1345</td><td align="char" char=".">636.47</td><td align="char" char=".">262.89</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading Comprehension Test</td><td align="char" char=".">358</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char=".">8–29</td><td align="char" char=".">23.37</td><td align="char" char=".">3.26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">GSAT‐Chinese</td><td align="char" char=".">331</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">15</td><td align="char" char=".">9–15</td><td align="char" char=".">13.22</td><td align="char" char=".">1.16</td></tr><tr><td align="left">DRT‐Chinese</td><td align="char" char=".">186</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td><td align="char" char=".">39–88</td><td align="char" char=".">67.65</td><td align="char" char=".">9.42</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Notes: CRH, comparative reading habits; CART, Chinese Author Recognition Test; PPK, primary print knowledge; SPK, secondary print knowledge; GSAT‐Chinese, General Scholastic Ability Test‐Chinese; DRT‐Chinese, Department Required Test‐Chinese.</p> <p>Correlations among self‐reported reading habits, comparative reading habits, objective print exposure and reading measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Self‐reported reading habits</th><th align="center">Comparative reading habits (CRH)</th><th align="left">Objective print exposure (CART measures)</th><th align="left">Reading measures</th></tr><tr><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">8</th><th align="center">9</th><th align="center">10</th><th align="center">11</th><th align="left">12</th><th align="left">13</th><th align="left">14</th><th align="left">15</th><th align="left">16</th><th align="left">17</th><th align="left">18</th><th align="left">19</th><th align="left">20</th><th align="left">21</th><th align="left">22</th></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="char" char=".">.22<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="char" char=".">.39<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.11<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.15<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.22<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="char" char=".">.41<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.48<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.11<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="char" char=".">.31<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.39<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.64<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="char" char=".">.32<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.28<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.59<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.49<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="char" char=".">.35<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.43<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.59<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.47<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.43<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9</td><td align="char" char=".">.24<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.26<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.16<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.42<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.42<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.36<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.46<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="char" char=".">.21<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.15<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.33<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.33<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.43<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.37<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.35<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">11</td><td align="char" char=".">.41<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.45<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.12<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.81<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.77<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.75<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.75<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.69<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.62<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">12</td><td align="char" char=".">.13<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.35<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.22<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.36<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.18<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.22<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.27<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.18<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.12<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.30<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">13</td><td align="char" char=".">.18<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.30<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.30<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.25<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.12<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.25<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.23<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.21<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.54<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">14</td><td align="char" char=".">.26<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.40<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.45<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.27<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.30<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.38<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.26<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.19<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.42<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.63<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.57<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">15</td><td align="char" char=".">.26<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.40<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.20<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.41<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.23<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.24<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.36<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.27<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.15<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.38<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.67<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.84<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.92<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">16</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.33<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.18<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−.15<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">17</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.11<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.19<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−.21<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.17<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.45<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">18</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.30<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.14<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.19<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.19<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.86<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.85<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">19</td><td align="char" char=".">.15<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.16<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.03<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.11<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.13<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.14<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.12<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.13<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.23<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.20<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.27<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.26<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">20</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.16<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.12<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.20<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.12<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.12<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.27<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">21</td><td align="char" char=".">.15<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.15<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.20<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.12<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.16<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.11</td><td align="char" char=".">.19<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.12<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.20<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.21<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.24<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.27<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.29<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.17<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.16<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">22</td><td align="char" char=".">.21<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.23<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.14</td><td align="char" char=".">.11</td><td align="char" char=".">.11</td><td align="char" char=".">.15<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.15<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.11</td><td align="char" char=".">.14</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.24<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.30<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.31<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.32<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.43<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">—</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Notes: 1, Time spent reading – Print‐based; 2, Time spent reading – Internet‐based; 3, Reading frequency of fiction, non‐fiction, newspapers and magazines; 4, Reading frequency of e‐fiction,e‐news, blogs and Bulletin Board Systems; 5, comparative reading habits (CRH) – time spent reading; 6, CRH – variety of reading; 7, CRH – complexity of materials; 8, CRH – reading enjoyment; 9, CRH – reading speed; 10, CRH – comprehension of materials; 11, CRH – total; 12, Chinese Author Recognition Test (CART) score; 13, PPK‐popular; 14, PPK‐highbrow; 15, PPK‐composite; 16, SPK‐popular; 17, SPK‐highbrow; 18, SPK‐composite; 19, Vocabulary Size Test; 20, Reading Comprehension Test; 21, GSAT‐Chinese; 22, DRT‐Chinese. *p <.05; ** p <.01; ***p <.001.</p> <p>Among the four self‐reported reading habits, we found that reading of print‐based materials had significant correlations with CRH, PPK and most reading performance measures, whereas reading of Internet‐based materials had little or no significant correlations with these variables. Regarding CRH, the composite score was found to have significant correlations with PPK and most reading performance measures.</p> <p>To further explore these relationships, a factor analysis was performed. Table [NaN] provides the factor loadings of a principal component analysis after varimax rotation for the measures used in the present study. Six factors were extracted, using both the Scree test and Kaiser's rule of eigenvalues greater than 1. The combination of the six factors extracted accounted for 73.77% of the variance in the measures of respondents' reading performance and print exposure. CART‐total, PPK‐composite, PPK‐popular and PPK‐highbrow clustered under the first factor; SPK‐composite, SPK‐popular and SPK‐highbrow clustered under the second factor; two self‐reported reading habits, for print‐based materials and CRH, clustered together under the third factor; both general measures of reading achievement (i.e., GSAT‐Chinese and DRT‐Chinese) clustered under the fourth factor; two specific reading measures (vocabulary size and reading comprehension) clustered under the fifth factor; and finally, two self‐reported reading habits related to Internet‐based materials clustered under the sixth factor. In other words, the factor analysis indicated that there are several dimensions along which reading performance and print exposure can be measured, all of which seem to capture slightly different aspects of reading.</p> <p>Principal components factor analysis after varimax rotation.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Factor</th></tr><tr><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Time spent reading – Print‐based</td><td align="char" char=".">.034</td><td align="char" char=".">−.046</td><td align="char" char=".">.757</td><td align="char" char=".">.280</td><td align="char" char=".">−.022</td><td align="char" char=".">.143</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Time spent reading – Internet‐based</td><td align="char" char=".">−.138</td><td align="char" char=".">−.146</td><td align="char" char=".">.197</td><td align="char" char=".">.130</td><td align="char" char=".">−.260</td><td align="char" char=".">.712</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading frequency of fiction, non‐fiction, newspapers and magazines</td><td align="char" char=".">.334</td><td align="char" char=".">−.055</td><td align="char" char=".">.729</td><td align="char" char=".">.011</td><td align="char" char=".">.147</td><td align="char" char=".">.070</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading frequency of e‐fiction, e‐news, blogs and BBSs</td><td align="char" char=".">.244</td><td align="char" char=".">.044</td><td align="char" char=".">−.014</td><td align="char" char=".">−.166</td><td align="char" char=".">.224</td><td align="char" char=".">.793</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CRH‐total</td><td align="char" char=".">.220</td><td align="char" char=".">.026</td><td align="char" char=".">.763</td><td align="char" char=".">−.011</td><td align="char" char=".">.065</td><td align="char" char=".">−.022</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CART score</td><td align="char" char=".">.780</td><td align="char" char=".">.299</td><td align="char" char=".">.218</td><td align="char" char=".">.018</td><td align="char" char=".">.104</td><td align="char" char=".">−.020</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PPK‐popular</td><td align="char" char=".">.831</td><td align="char" char=".">−.123</td><td align="char" char=".">.039</td><td align="char" char=".">.207</td><td align="char" char=".">.025</td><td align="char" char=".">.183</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PPK‐highbrow</td><td align="char" char=".">.836</td><td align="char" char=".">−.213</td><td align="char" char=".">.283</td><td align="char" char=".">.123</td><td align="char" char=".">.020</td><td align="char" char=".">−.080</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PPK‐composite</td><td align="char" char=".">.923</td><td align="char" char=".">−.193</td><td align="char" char=".">.199</td><td align="char" char=".">.176</td><td align="char" char=".">.025</td><td align="char" char=".">.035</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SPK‐popular</td><td align="char" char=".">−.036</td><td align="char" char=".">.854</td><td align="char" char=".">.007</td><td align="char" char=".">−.110</td><td align="char" char=".">.004</td><td align="char" char=".">−.123</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SPK‐highbrow</td><td align="char" char=".">−.086</td><td align="char" char=".">.825</td><td align="char" char=".">−.051</td><td align="char" char=".">.079</td><td align="char" char=".">.025</td><td align="char" char=".">.063</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SPK‐composite</td><td align="char" char=".">−.070</td><td align="char" char=".">.991</td><td align="char" char=".">−.024</td><td align="char" char=".">−.024</td><td align="char" char=".">.016</td><td align="char" char=".">−.041</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocabulary Size Test</td><td align="char" char=".">.146</td><td align="char" char=".">.006</td><td align="char" char=".">.216</td><td align="char" char=".">.300</td><td align="char" char=".">.599</td><td align="char" char=".">−.010</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading Comprehension Test</td><td align="char" char=".">−.025</td><td align="char" char=".">.024</td><td align="char" char=".">−.003</td><td align="char" char=".">.024</td><td align="char" char=".">.844</td><td align="char" char=".">.000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">GSAT‐Chinese</td><td align="char" char=".">.138</td><td align="char" char=".">−.081</td><td align="char" char=".">.078</td><td align="char" char=".">.796</td><td align="char" char=".">.025</td><td align="char" char=".">−.029</td></tr><tr><td align="left">DRT‐Chinese</td><td align="char" char=".">.202</td><td align="char" char=".">.058</td><td align="char" char=".">.111</td><td align="char" char=".">.763</td><td align="char" char=".">.215</td><td align="char" char=".">−.003</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Notes: BBSs, Bulletin Board Systems; CRH, comparative reading habits; CART, Chinese Author Recognition Test; PPK, primary print knowledge; SPK, secondary print knowledge; GSAT‐Chinese, General Scholastic Ability Test‐Chinese; DRT‐Chinese, Department Required Test‐Chinese.</p> <p>Tables [NaN] and [NaN] present two sets of hierarchical regression analyses examining the relative extent to which various kinds of print exposure measures predict college students' two general reading performances. GSAT‐Chinese assesses students' basic competence of reading comprehension (i.e., forming a broad understanding and developing an interpretation), knowledge of ancient Chinese language/culture and writing abilities. In Table [NaN] , Model 1 reveals that vocabulary size and reading comprehension (i.e., lexical access, parsing, integration, summarisation and analogy) scores altogether helped predict 4.7% of the variance in performance on the GSAT‐Chinese test. Model 2 shows that in addition to vocabulary size and reading comprehension, self‐reported reading habits still contribute to a significant increase in the overall model fit. Model 3, however, reveals that when CRH was entered, the unique contribution of self‐reported reading habits was reduced to non‐significance. Moreover, when objective print exposure level measured with the PPK‐composite score was entered, as in Mode1 4, the contribution of both self‐reported reading habits and CRH was reduced to non‐significance (R<sups>2</sups> = .11).</p> <p>Hierachical regressions of vocabulary size, reading comprehension and print exposure measures on the General Scholastic Ability Test‐Chinese.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Model 1</th><th align="center">Model 2</th><th align="center">Model 3</th><th align="center">Model 4</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocabulary Size Test</td><td align="char" char=".">.135<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.118<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.114<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.075</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading Comprehension Test</td><td align="char" char=".">.135<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.132<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.122<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.115<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐reported reading habits (Reading frequency of fiction, non‐fiction, newspapers and magazines)</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.121<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.058</td><td align="char" char=".">.003</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Comparative reading habits (comparative reading habits‐total)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.136<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.091</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Objective print exposure (primary print knowledge composite)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.205<sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup> Change</td><td align="char" char=".">.047<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.014<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.014<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.032<sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.047</td><td align="char" char=".">.061</td><td align="char" char=".">.075</td><td align="char" char=".">.107</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 *p <.05; ** p <.01; ***p <.001.</p> <p>Hierachical regressions of vocabulary size, reading comprehension and print exposure measures on the Department Required Test‐Chinese.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Model 1</th><th align="center">Model 2</th><th align="center">Model 3</th><th align="center">Model 4</th><th align="center">Model 4–1</th><th align="center">Model 4–2</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocabulary Size Test</td><td align="char" char=".">.295<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.255<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.254<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.221<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.223<sup>**</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.225<sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading Comprehension Test</td><td align="char" char=".">.082</td><td align="char" char=".">.078</td><td align="char" char=".">.078</td><td align="char" char=".">.090</td><td align="char" char=".">.084</td><td align="char" char=".">.090</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐reported reading habits (Reading frequency of fiction, non‐fiction, newspapers and magazines)</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.163<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.150</td><td align="char" char=".">.086</td><td align="char" char=".">.109</td><td align="char" char=".">.093</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Comparative reading habits (CRH‐total)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.027</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.014</td><td align="char" char=".">−.003</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Objective print exposure (PPK‐composite)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.202<sup>*</sup></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Objective print exposure (PPK‐popular)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.169<sup>*</sup></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Objective print exposure (PPK‐highbrow)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.178<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup> Change</td><td align="char" char=".">.105<sup>***</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.025<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.032<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.025<sup>*</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.024<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="char" char=".">.105</td><td align="char" char=".">.129</td><td align="char" char=".">.130</td><td align="char" char=".">.162</td><td align="char" char=".">.155</td><td align="char" char=".">.154</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 Notes: CRH, comparative reading habits; PPK, primary print knowledge.</item> <item>6 *p <.05; ** p <.01; ***p <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>The DRT‐Chinese is designed to assess more advanced knowledge and ability than the GSAT in the sense that it measures higher levels of reading comprehension (e.g., reflecting on and evaluating the form of a text), knowledge of ancient Chinese language/culture and more sophisticated writing skills. In Table [NaN] , Model 1 reveals that vocabulary size and reading comprehension scores altogether helped predict 10.5% of the variance in performance on the DRT‐Chinese test, with vocabulary size found to be the only significant predictor. Model 2 shows that in addition to vocabulary size and reading comprehension, self‐reported reading habits again contribute to a significant increase in the overall model fit. Model 3 reveals that CRH failed to make an additional contribution. As far as objective print exposure is concerned, Model 4 reveals that when the PPK‐composite was entered, it contributed to a significant increase in the overall model fit (R<sups>2</sups> = .16). Models 4–1 and 4–2 were designed to probe the relative extent to which PPK‐popular and PPK‐highbrow predict DRT‐Chinese. Similar results were found for these two models.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-16">Discussion</hd> <p>In this study, we constructed a CART‐popular subtest as well as a CART‐highbrow subtest, on the basis of the literature that indicates an association between higher educational level and cultural consumption (e.g., Chen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref77">6</reflink>] ; Kraaykampt & Dijkstra, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref78">17</reflink>] ). Three kinds of scores were generated from CART in this study: the original CART score, the PPK and the SPK. In a previous study, Martin‐Chang and Gould ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref79">19</reflink>] ) found that SPK was a significant predictor of both vocabulary and reading comprehension, but PPK had more predictive power than SPK because it accounted for variance in the criterion variables after the effects of SPK had been factored out. In addition, they found that PPK and SPK were not correlated with each other. However, in this present study, negative correlations were found between the PPK and the SPK scores. Moreover, the SPK scores were found to have no correlations with vocabulary size, reading comprehension, GSAT‐Chinese or DRT‐Chinese. In other words, these results appeared to suggest that SPK can be removed from the CART for college students in the future. In contrast, we found that the PPK scores were significantly correlated with all four reading performance measures and that they had the strongest predictive power for both GSAT‐Chinese and DRT‐Chinese beyond the joint contribution of vocabulary size and reading comprehension among the self‐reported reading habits, CRH and objective print exposure variables. These results are consistent with previous findings that the ART serves as a better index than self‐reported reading habits for providing a relative level of print exposure for college students (e.g., Burt & Fury, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>] ; Chateau & Jared, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref81">4</reflink>] ; Martin‐Chang & Gould, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref82">19</reflink>] ; Stanovich & Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>] ; Stanovich & West, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref84">25</reflink>] ; Stanovich et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>] ; West & Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref86">32</reflink>] ). At the same time, these results corroborate previous findings in the linkage between print exposure and reading achievement, providing more empirical evidence from Taiwanese college students. Finally, a difference between CART‐popular and CART‐highbrow subtests was not supported in the present study because the results from the regression analysis revealed that they have about the same predictive power for DRT‐Chinese beyond vocabulary size, reading comprehension and other reading habit variables.</p> <p>Acheson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>] ) proposed a CRH index for print exposure and found it to have a stronger association with general reading performance than the ART. They suggested that CRH is a more effective instrument than the ART, as the ART is unable to capture a broad range of reading experiences, especially with regard to Internet‐based materials. Nevertheless, our results suggested that there is no correlation between CRH and Internet reading time and frequency. Our results also suggested that CRH had little or no predictive power for GSAT or DRT. Future study is therefore needed in this area.</p> <p>Compared with the results of studies from English‐speaking countries, the magnitude of correlation coefficients among CART measures and reading ability measures, and the R<sups>2</sups> for the joint contribution of vocabulary size, reading comprehension and various print exposure measures were quite moderate in this study. There are two probable explanations. First, this study suffered from limitations because of the lack of suitable measurements for assessing the reading‐related skills of college students in Taiwan. And second, tests derived in a Western culture may not be suitable for a population from an Eastern culture. An ART is bound to be book market‐dependent and therefore culture dependent. Because the CART developed in this study could not cover reading experiences related to translated books, a major source of reading materials for Taiwanese readers, a complementary instrument might be needed. Although the application of the CART constructed in this study should be confined to Taiwanese college students, the process of developing such an instrument can be shared with other Chinese‐speaking regions. Similar procedures can be adopted for other age‐appropriate norms or for the general public. Future investigations across cultures are encouraged.</p> <hd id="AN0110340232-17">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China for financially supporting this research under Contract No. NSC 100‐2420‐H‐007‐001‐MY3.</p> <ref id="AN0110340232-18"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Acheson, D.J., Wells, J.B. & MacDonald, M.C. ( 2008 ). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40 ( 1 ), 278 – 289. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Allen, L., Cipielweski, J. & Stanovich, K.E. ( 1992 ). Multiple indicators of children's reading habits and attitudes: Construct validity and cognitive correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 ( 4 ), 489 – 503. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Burt, J.S. & Fury, M.B. ( 2000 ). Spelling in adults: The role of reading skills and experience. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 1 – 30. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref1" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Chateau, D. & Jared, D. ( 2000 ). Exposure to print and word recognition processes. Memory & Cognition, 28 ( 1 ), 143 – 153. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref35" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Chen, S.Y. ( 2007 ). Extracurricular reading habits and reading interests of college students in Taiwan: Findings from two national surveys. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 50 ( 8 ), 642 – 655. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref38" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Chen, S.Y. ( 2009 ). Adult Taiwanese book readers' practices: The role of age, gender, education and reading for enjoyment, knowledge, relaxation and social conversation. Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 13–17 April. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref58" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Chen, S.Y. & Fang, S.P. ( 2012 ). College students' reading practices and profiles in both print‐based and Internet‐based format. National Science Council, Taipei, Taiwan: Report for project NSC 100‐2420‐H‐007‐001‐MY3. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref69" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Chen, J.‐L. & Su, Y.‐F. ( 2010 ). The effects of different reading strategy instructions on low reading ability college students' reading strategy performance: Evidences from think aloud data. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse, Chicago, IL. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref25" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Cipielewski, J. & Stanovich, K.E. ( 1992 ). Predicting growth in reading ability from children's exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 74 – 89. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref26" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Cunningham, A.E. & Stanovich, K.E. ( 1990 ). Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skill in children: A quick measure of reading experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 ( 4 ), 733 – 740. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref27" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Ecalle, J. & Magnan, A. ( 2008 ). Relations between print exposure and literacy skills: New evidence from Grade 1–5. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26 ( 4 ), 525 – 544. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref10" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Gallik, J.D. ( 1999 ). Do they read for pleasure? Recreational reading habits of college students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42 ( 6 ), 480 – 489. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref11" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Guthrie, J.T. ( 1981 ). Reading in New Zealand: Achievement and volume. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 6 – 27. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref63" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Hue, C.‐W. ( 2003 ). Number of characters a college student knows. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 31, 300 – 339. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref36" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Jolliffe, D.A. & Harl, A. ( 2008 ). Texts of our institutional lives: Studying the ‘reading transition’ from high school to college: What are our students reading and why? College English, 70 ( 6 ), 599 – 617. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref64" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Kao, S.F. ( 1985 ). Guomin Biaozhun Zidian [Guo‐Min Standard Character Dictionary]. Taipei, Taiwan : Cheng‐Chung. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref39" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Kraaykamp, G. & Dijkstra, K. ( 1999 ). Preferences in leisure time book reading: A study on the social differentiation in book reading for the Netherlands. Poetics, 26, 203 – 234. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref37" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Liu, Z. & Huang, X. ( 2008 ). Gender differences in the online reading environment. Journal of Documentation, 64 ( 4 ), 616 – 626. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref4" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Martin‐Chang, S.L. & Gould, O.N. ( 2008 ). Revisiting print exposure: Exploring differential links to vocabulary, comprehension and reading rate. Journal of Research in Reading, 31 ( 3 ), 273 – 284. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref23" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Masterson, J. & Hayes, M. ( 2007 ). Development and data for UK versions of an author and Title Recognition Test for adults. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 212 – 219. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref28" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>McBride‐Chang, C. & Chang, L. ( 1995 ). Memory, print exposure, and metacognition: Components of reading in Chinese. International Journal of Psychology, 30 ( 5 ), 607 – 616. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref62" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>National Institute for Compilation and Translation ( 1967 ). A study on the high frequency words used in Chinese elementary school reading materials. Taipei, Taiwan : Chung Hwa Book Co., Ltd. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref73" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Pan, L.I. ( 2009 ). Review and reflection on the design of non‐multiple‐choice test of the Department Required Test – Chinese. Available from: <ulink href="http://www.cere.edu.tw/CeecMag/Articles/177/177‐3.htm#">http://www.cere.edu.tw/CeecMag/Articles/177/177‐3.htm#</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref7" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Stanovich, K.E. & Cunningham, A.E. ( 1992 ). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literacy society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory and Cognition, 20, 51 – 69. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref3" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Stanovich, K.E. & West, R.F. ( 1989 ). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402 – 433. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref14" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E. & West, R.F. ( 1998 ). Literacy experiences and the shaping of cognition. In S. Paris & H. Wellman (Eds.), Global prospects for education: Development, culture and schooling. (pp. 253 – 288 ). Washington, DC : American Psychological Association. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref5" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F. & Harrison, M.R. ( 1995 ). Knowledge growth and maintenance across the life span: The role of print exposure. Developmental Psychology, 31, 811 – 826. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref71" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Tseng, P.‐F. ( 2008 ). The impact of examinees' reading comprehension ability on their performance in the General Scholastic Ability Chinese test. Bulletin of Testing and Assessment, 5, 53 – 87. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref40" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Van Eijck, K. ( 1999 ). Socialization, education, and lifestyle: How social mobility increases the cultural heterogeneity of status group. Poetics, 26, 309 – 28. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref41" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Van Rees, K., Vermunt, J. & Verboord, M. ( 1999 ). Cultural classifications under discussion latent class analysis of highbrow and lowbrow reading. Poetics, 26, 349 – 65. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref12" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Walberg, H.J. & Tsi, S. ( 1984 ). Mathew effects in education. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 442 – 451. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref6" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>West, R.F. & Stanovich, K.E. ( 1991 ). The incidental acquisition of information from reading. Psychological Science, 2 ( 5 ), 325 – 330. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref70" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>You, S.H. ( 2012 ). The reading tasks on Chinese modern essays of College Entrance Examination (2002–2011). Bulletin of Testing and Assessment, ( 10 ), 31 – 69. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Su‐Yen Chen and Sheng‐Ping Fang</p> <p></p> <p>Su‐Yen Chen has a PhD degree from the University of Texas at Austin in the United States and currently is a Professor at the Institute of Learning Sciences at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan.</p> <p>Sheng‐Ping Fang has a PhD degree from the University of California at Riverside in the United States and currently is a Professor at the Department of Chinese Literature at National Tsing Hua University.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1078185
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Developing a Chinese Version of an Author Recognition Test for College Students in Taiwan
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chen%2C+Su-Yen%22">Chen, Su-Yen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fang%2C+Sheng-Ping%22">Fang, Sheng-Ping</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Reading%22"><i>Journal of Research in Reading</i></searchLink>. Nov 2015 38(4):344-360.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recognition+%28Psychology%29%22">Recognition (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Habits%22">Reading Habits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chinese%22">Chinese</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary%22">Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prediction%22">Prediction</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Taiwan%22">Taiwan</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1467-9817.12018
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-0423
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study set out to develop a Chinese Author Recognition Test (CART) that might be used as a measure of objective print exposure for college students in Taiwan. We found that there is a linkage between print exposure and general reading achievement for college students. We also found that, among self-reported reading habits, comparative reading habits and CART, primary print knowledge scores within the CART family have the strongest prediction power for both the "General Scholastic Ability Test-Chinese" and the "Department Required Test-Chinese" beyond the joint contributions of vocabulary size and reading comprehension. By sharing the process of developing the instrument, we shed some light for researchers from regions other than English-speaking countries on how they might move forward in future investigations.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1078185
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1078185
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1467-9817.12018
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 344
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recognition (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Habits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chinese
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prediction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Taiwan
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Developing a Chinese Version of an Author Recognition Test for College Students in Taiwan
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chen, Su-Yen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fang, Sheng-Ping
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-0423
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Reading
              Type: main
ResultId 1