Cover not available

Article published In: Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 27:1 (2024) ► pp.31–63

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Predicting multiple-text integration

The role of single-text comprehension and individual-differences

 | Hemdat Academic College
 | University of Valencia
 | University of Valencia
 | Bar-Ilan University
Published online: 3 June 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00082.pri
Abstract
This study investigated how single-text reading comprehension and individual differences contribute to multiple-text integration. One hundred fourteen students read sets of multiple texts on two distinct topics and completed two multiple-text integration tasks for each topic: an essay and a sentence verification task. The tasks were evaluated across three integration levels: selecting main ideas, forming generalizations, and generating deep-level inferences. The researchers conducted a series of linear regressions and hierarchical linear models separately for each integration task and integration level. The findings revealed that reading comprehension measures differentially influenced the two tasks and three integration processing levels. Additionally, individual differences — including reading strategies, interest, and vocabulary — were found to predict multiple-text integration performance. Overall, the results suggest that reading comprehension skills and individual differences uniquely predict various aspects of intertextual integration, highlighting the complex nature of how readers process and synthesize information across multiple texts.
Article outline
  • 1.Integrating information from multiple texts: A challenging cognitive task
    • 1.1Effects of individual differences, tasks, and texts on MTI
      • 1.1.1Individual differences
        • 1.1.1.1Reading comprehension
        • 1.1.1.2Reading strategies
        • 1.1.1.3Prior knowledge
        • 1.1.1.4Interest
        • 1.1.1.5Working memory
        • 1.1.1.6Vocabulary
    • 1.2Tasks and texts
    • 1.3Aims and research questions
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants and design
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Measures
      • 2.3.1MTI measures
        • 2.3.1.1Essay writing
        • 2.3.1.2Sentence verification task (SVT)
      • 2.3.2Single text reading comprehension measures
        • 2.3.2.1Standardized single-text reading comprehension
        • 2.3.2.2Task-specific reading comprehension
      • 2.3.3Vocabulary
      • 2.3.4Working memory
      • 2.3.5Self-Evaluation measures
        • 2.3.5.1Reading comprehension strategies inventory
        • 2.3.5.2Situational interest and prior knowledge
    • 2.4Procedure
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1RQ1: Which single-text reading comprehension measures contribute to the two MTI tasks, (essay writing and SVT) measured separately across three levels?
      • 3.1.1Overview of analysis
      • 3.1.2Essay writing
      • 3.1.3Sentence verification task
    • 3.2RQ2: Which individual variables contribute to the performance of two MTI tasks (essay writing and SVT) beyond the contribution of single-text reading comprehension?
      • 3.2.1Regression analysis
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1The contribution of reading comprehension to MTI
    • 4.2Which individual differences contribute to MTI beyond reading comprehension?
    • 4.3The role of tasks and texts
    • 4.4Limitations and future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Author declaration
    • Availability of data and material
  • References
References (74)
References
Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 193–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barzilai, S., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Individual differences in multiple document comprehension. Handbook of multiple source use, 99–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blaum, D., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Britt, M. A. (2017). Thinking about global warming: Effect of policy-related documents and prompts on learning about causes of climate change. Discourse Processes, 541, 303–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braasch, J. L., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Incremental theories of intelligence predict multiple document comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 311, 11–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 301, 9–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. (2013). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26(3), 321–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L. (2018). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (2nd. Ed.) (pp. 141–166). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 814–840. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braze, D., Tabor, W., Shankweiler, D. P., & Mencl, W. E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of learning disabilities, 40(3), 226–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Braasch, J. L. (2012). Documents as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. In Reading-from words to multiple texts (pp. 174–193). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 251, 313–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. (2020). Multiple document comprehension. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Larson, A. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (2004). Using intelligent feedback to improve sourcing and integration in students’ essays. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(3, 4), 359–374.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castells, N., Minguela, M., Solé, I., Miras, M., Nadal, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2022). Improving questioning–answering strategies in learning from multiple complementary texts: An intervention study. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(3), 879–912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cerdán, R., Máñez, I. & Serrano-Mendizábal, M. (2021). Reading from Multiple Documents. The role of text availability and question type. Reading Research Quaterly, on-line first. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cerdán, R., Pérez, A., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Rouet, J. F. (2019). To answer questions from text, one has to understand what the question is asking: differential effects of question aids as a function of comprehension skill. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 2111–2124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cervetti, G. N., & Wright, T. S. (2020). The role of knowledge in understanding and learning from text. Handbook of reading research, 51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, C. H., & Chen, M. L. (2023). Role of Fourth Graders’ Vocabulary Ability in Modulating Their Multiple-Text Comprehension: An Eye Tracking Study. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 55(1), 181–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, B. Y., Afflerbach, P., & Han, H. (2018). Strategic processing in accessing, comprehending, and using multiple sources online. Handbook of multiple source use, 133–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 13–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Currie, N. K., & Cain, K. (2015). Children’s inference generation: The role of vocabulary and working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1371, 57–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 101, 277–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daher, T. A., and Kiewra, K. A. (2016). An investigation of SOAR study strategies for learning from multiple online resources. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 461, 10–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 19(4), 450–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demir, B., Haverkamp, Y. E., Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I. (2024). Investigating the role of prior knowledge in comprehending intratextual and intertextual relationships when reading multiple texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 1111, 1024421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Espinas, D. R., & Chandler, B. W. (2024). Correlates of K-12 Students’ Intertextual Integration. Educational Psychology Review, 36(2), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Firetto, C. M., & Van Meter, P. N. (2018). Inspiring integration in college students reading multiple biology texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 651, 123–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Firetto, C. M. (2020). Learning from multiple complementary perspectives. Handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives, 223–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Florit, E., Cain, K., & Mason, L. (2020). Going beyond children’s single-text comprehension: The role of fundamental and higher-level skills in 4th graders’ multiple-document comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 449–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 42–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilboa, A., Kave, G. 2007. The Shipley Institute of Living Scale (SILS) in Hebrew. Haifa University, HaifaGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., Britt, M. A., & Salas, C. R. (2012). The role of CLEAR thinking in learning science from multiple-document inquiry tasks. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5(1), 63–78. [URL]
Guo, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Williams, R. S. (2011). The relation of morphological awareness and syntactic awareness to adults’ reading comprehension: Is vocabulary knowledge a mediating variable? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 159–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L., and Bråten, I. (2014). Relationships between spontaneous note-taking, self-reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. J. Res. Read. 371, 141–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational psychology review, 13(3), 191–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hildenbrand, L., & Wiley, J. (2023). Working memory capacity as a predictor of multiple text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 60(4–5), 378–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karimi, M. N. (2015). L2 multiple-documents comprehension: exploring the contributions of L1 reading ability and strategic processing. System 521, 14–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keenan, J. M. (2012). Measure for measure: Challenges in assessing reading comprehension1. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how to assess reading ability (pp. 77–87). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 121, 281–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linderholm, T., Dobson, J., & Yarbrough, M. B. (2016). The benefit of self-testing and interleaving for synthesizing concepts across multiple physiology texts. Advances in Physiology Education, 401, 329–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2020, October). Strategy use in learning from multiple texts: An investigation of the integrative framework of learning from multiple texts. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 51, p. 578062). Frontiers Media SA. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 581, 228–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
List, A., Stephens, L. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Examining interest throughout multiple text use. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 307–333. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maier, J., and Richter, T. (2016). Effects of text-belief consistency and reading task on the strategic validation of multiple texts. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 311, 479–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(4), 435–451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist, 56(3), 196–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meltzer, L., Katzir-Cohen, T., Miller, L., & Roditi, B. (2001). The impact of effort and strategy use on academic performance: Student and teacher perceptions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(2), 85–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific studies of reading, 16(2), 91–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of educational psychology, 98(3), 554. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Comparing comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology [Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale], 67(3), 215–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., . . . Tao, S. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 48–76. [URL].
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.). The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 88–108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific studies of reading, 11(4), 357–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primor, L., Yeari, M., & Katzir, T. (2021). Choosing the right question: the effect of different question types on multiple text integration. Reading and Writing, 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prior, A. (2012). Too much of a good thing: Stronger bilingual inhibition leads to larger lag-2 task repetition costs. Cognition, 1251, 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Renninger, K. A., & Bachrach, J. E. (2015). Studying triggers for interest and engagement using observational methods. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 58–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: IAP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 521, 200–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students’ processes and products. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 41, 5–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shani, M., Lachman, D., Shalem, Z., Bahat, A., & Zeiger, T. (2006). Alef ad Taf. Ma’arexet le’ivhum likuyim betahalixei kri’a vektiva (Aleph-Taf. Diagnostic test battery for written language disorders). Holon: Mofet Institute and Nitzan Association, Yesod Press [In Hebrew].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shipley, W. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 371–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 241, 7–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stadtler, M. (2017). The art of reading in a knowledge society: commentary on the special issue on models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 225–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tarchi, C., & Ledesma, L. C. (2024). Readers’ awareness in the use of intertextual strategies when writing from multiple texts. Journal of Writing Research. [URL].
Temelman-Yogev, L., Katzir, T., & Prior, A. (2020). Monitoring comprehension in a foreign language: Trait or skill?. Metacognition and Learning, 15(3), 343–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Ockenburg, L., van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2019). Learning to write synthesis texts: A review of intervention studies. Journal of Writing Research, 10(3), 402–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (2003). The reliability and stability of verbal working memory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(4), 550–564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zachary, R. A. (1991). The manual of the Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zink, T., Hahnel, C., Kroehne, U. et al. Fostering multiple document comprehension: motivational factors and its relationship with the use of self-study materials. Z Erziehungswiss 261, 727–750 (2023). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue