Reports that good comprehender performance was superior to poor comprehender performance on general lookback use, on differentiation between text-based and reader-based questions, and on text sampling. (AEA)

Concludes that good comprehenders are far more likely to use lookbacks (rereadings) than are poor comprehenders and that training improves performance of both groups. (FL)

Reports on a study that focused on the retrieval strategies and effort allocation at the time of retrieval and adult subjects' corresponding satisfaction with task performance in the presence or absence of a specified criterion. (HOD)

Good and poor comprehenders from grades four, six, and eight were directed to process one of two narratives in which major informational inconsistencies were noted. Younger readers and poorer comprehenders required more attentional assistance to note the inconsistencies. (FL)

Good readers tend to engage in conscious reading strategies that poor readers do not. Expert readers display the following strategic behaviors that novices do not: (1) studying text segments previously found difficult more extensively than easy segments; (2) spending more study time on difficult stories than on easy ones; (3) summarizing just the…