Reading comprehension in university students: relevance of PASS theory of intelligence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined how Planning, Attention, Simultaneous and Successive (PASS) processes predict reading comprehension in a sample of university students (Study 1) and what PASS processes distinguish adults with and without reading difficulties (Study 2). In Study 1, 128 university students were tested on Das‐Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System, reading fluency and reading comprehension. The results of path analysis indicated that successive processing predicted reading comprehension only through the effects of text‐ and word‐reading fluency, whereas simultaneous processing predicted reading comprehension both directly and through the effects of text‐reading fluency. In Study 2, university students with (n = 20) and without (n = 23) reading difficulties were assessed on the same measures as in Study 1. The results of group comparisons indicated that the university students with reading difficulties were experiencing cognitive weaknesses primarily in successive processing. The implications of these findings for PASS theory and comprehension are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it