Bibliography
1. Ackermann, R. (2019). Nonreductive inference. UK: Routledge.
2. Al Dahhan, N. Z., Kirby, J. R., Brien, D. C., & Munoz, D. P. (2017). Eye movements and articulations during a letter naming speed task: Children with and without dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(3), 275-285. DOI: 10.1177/0022219415618502
3. Alderson, J. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Aldunate, N., López, V., Cornejo, C., Moënne-Loccoz, C., & Carr, D. (2019). Analytical and Holistic Approaches Influence the Semantic Integration: Evidence from the N400 effect. Revista signos: estudios de lingüística, 52(100), 217-241.DOI: 10.4067/S0718-0934201 9000200217
5. Aleksandrov, A. A., Dmitrieva, E. S., Volnova, A. B., Knyazeva, V. M., Polyakova, N. V., Ptukha, M. A., & Gainetdinov, R. R. (2019). Effect of alpha-NETA on auditory event related potentials in sensory gating study paradigm in mice. Neuroscience Letters, 712, 134470. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2019.134470
6. Bachman, L. F., Lyle, F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Beker, K., Jolles, D., Lorch, R. F., & van den Broek, P. (2016). Learning from texts: activation of information from previous texts during reading. Reading and Writing, 29(6), 1161-1178. DOI: 10.1007/ s11145-016-9630-3
8. Bergin, T. (2018). An Introduction to Data Analysis: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods. UK: SAGE Publications Limited.
9. Boksem, M. A., Meijman, T. F., & Lorist, M. M. (2005). Effects of mental fatigue on attention: an ERP study. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(1), 107-116. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.011
10. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1), 55-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresrev. 2008.05.003
11. Brouwer, H., & Crocker, M. W. (2017). On the Proper Treatment of the N400 and P600 in Language Comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01327
12. Brown, S., & Knight, P. (2012). Assessing learners in higher education. UK: Routledge.
13. Chang-Jun, S. H. I. (2017). The Element of Critical Thinking in TEM-4 Reading Test-Based on a Comparative Study of the Cognitive Levels of Questions in TEM-4 and IELTS Reading Tests. Journal of Harbin University, (9), 22.
14. Cheyette, S. J., & Plaut, D. C. (2017). Modelling the N400 ERP component as transient semantic over-activation within a neural network model of word comprehension. Cognition, 162, 153-166. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.016
15. Courteau, É., Martignetti, L., Royle, P., & Steinhauer, K. (2019). Eliciting ERP components for morphosyntactic agreement mismatches in grammatical sentences. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1152. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01152
16. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (pp. 146-166). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
17. Danuwijaya, A. A. (2018). Item analysis of reading comprehension test for post-graduate students. English Review: Journal of English Education, 7(1), 29-40. DOI: 10.25134/erjee.v7i1.1493
18. Day, R. R., & Park, J. S. (2005). Developing Reading Comprehension Questions. Reading in a foreign language, 17(1), 60-73.
19. De Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. NY: Guilford Publications.
20. Delahunty, T., Seery, N., & Lynch, R. (2018). Exploring the use of electroencephalography to gather objective evidence of cognitive processing during problem solving. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(2), 114-130. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-017-9712-2
21. Draschkow, D., Heikel, E., Vo, M. L. H., Fiebach, C., & Sassenhagen, J. (2019). A single stage of semantic processing of scenes: MVPA evidence for the identity of N300 and N400. Psyarxiv Preprints, 1-27. DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.09.016
22. Dudschig, C., Mackenzie, I. G., Maienborn, C., Kaup, B., & Leuthold, H. (2019). Negation and the N400: investigating temporal aspects of negation integration using semantic and world-knowledge violations. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(3), 309-319. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2018.1535127
23. Epstein, M. L., Lazarus, A. D., Calvano, T. B., Matthews, K. A., Hendel, R. A., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. The Psychological Record, 52(2), 187-201. DOI: 10.1007/ BF03395423
24. Faust, M. (Ed.). (2015). The handbook of the neuropsychology of language . UK: John Wiley & Sons.
25. Friederici, A. D. (2004). Event-related brain potential studies in language. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 4(6), 466- 470. DOI: 10.1007/s11910-004-0070-0
26. Gebodh, N., Esmaeilpour, Z., Adair, D., Chelette, K., Dmochowski, J., Woods, A. J.,& Bikson, M. (2019). Inherent physiological artifacts in EEG during tDCS. NeuroImage, 185, 408-424. DOI: 10.1016/j. neuroimage.2018.10.025
27. Goçer, A. (2014). The Assessment of Turkish Written Examination Questions Based on the Text in Accordance with the Barrett's Taxonomy. Online Submission, 3, 1-16.
28. Gouvea,A., Philips,C., Kazanina,N.,& Poeppel, D. (2010). The Linguistic Processes Underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(2), 149-188. DOI: 10.1080/01690960902965951
29. Hashemi, A.,& Daneshfar, S, (2018). A review of the IELTS Test: Focus on Validity , Reliability, and Washback. IJELTA (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. 3(1), 39-52. DOI: 10.21093/ijeltal.v3i1.123
30. Hekmatmanesh, A., Wu, H., Li, M., Nasrabadi, A. M., & Handroos, H. (2019). Optimized Mother Wavelet in a Combination of Wavelet Packet with Detrended Fluctuation Analysis for Controlling a Remote Vehicle with Imagery Movement: A Brain Computer Interface Study. In New Trends in Medical and Service Robotics (pp. 186- 195). Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-00329- 6_22
31. Henson, R., Dibello, L.,& Stout, B. (2018). A Generalized Approach to Defining Item Discrimination for DCMs. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 16(1), 18-29. DOI: 10.1080/ 15366367.2018.1436855
32. Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1181- 1197. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1181
33. Hyatt, D.,& Brooks, G.(2009). Investigating Stakeholders’ Perceptions of IELTS as an Entry Requirement for Higher Education in the U.K. IELTS Research Reports, 10(1), 17-68. DOI: 10.1080/0309877X .2012.684043
34. Iralde, I.,& Allain, P. (2019). Text memory and aging: Effect of reading perspective on recall of semantically related information. European Review of Applied Psychology 69(3), 101-110. DOI: 10.1016/j. erap.2019.05.001
35. Isaacs, T.,& Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing Comprehensibility: Identifying the Linguistic Influences on Listeners’ L2 Comprehensibility Ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475-505. doi:10.1017/S0272263112000150
36. Jared, D., Jouravlev, O., & Joanisse, M. F. (2017). The effect of semantic transparency on the processing of morphologically derived words: Evidence from decision latencies and event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(3), 422–450. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000316
37. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson.,& Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(2). DOI: 10.1080/016909600386084
38. Kane, M.,& Bejar, I. (2014). Cognitive Frameworks for Assessment, Teaching, and Learning: A Validity Perspective. Psicologia Educativa, 20, 117-123. DOI: 10.1016/j.pse.2014.11.006
39. Khairani H., & Shamsuddin, H. (2016). Improving Psychological Well-being among Undergraduates: How Creativity in Learning Can Contribute? Malaysian Journal of Communication, 35(2). DOI: 10.17576/JKMJC-2019-3502-21
40. Kovalenko, M. (2018). The Validation Process in the IELTS Reading Component: Reading Requirements for Preparing International Students. Journal of Language and Education, 4(1),63-78. DOI: 10.17323/2411-7390-2018-4-1-63-78
41. Kozleski, E. B. (2017). The uses of qualitative research: Powerful methods to inform evidence-based practice in education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(1), 19-32. DOI: 10.1177/1540796916683710
42. Kropotov, J. D. (2010). Quantitative EEG, event-related potentials and neurotherapy. USA: Academic Press.
43. Labate, D., La Foresta, F., Mammone, N., & Morabito, F. C. (2015). Effects of artifacts rejection on EEG complexity in Alzheimer’s disease. In Advances in Neural Networks: Computational and Theoretical Issues (pp. 129-136). Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/ 978-3-319-18164-6_13
44. Lewis, T. T., Yang, F. M., Jacobs, E. A., & Fitchett, G. (2012). Racial/ ethnic differences in responses to the everyday discrimination scale: a differential item functioning analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175(5), 391-401. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr287
45. Lhatoo, S D., Kahane, P. & Lüders, H. O. (Eds). (2018). Invasive Studies of the Human Epileptic Brain: Principles and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46. Loeches, M., Ouyang, G., Rausch, P., Stürmer, B., Palazova, M., Schacht, A., & Sommer, W. (2017). Test–retest reliability of the N400 component in a sentence-reading paradigm. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(10), 1261-1272. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2017 .1330485
47. Lord, K. M. (2015). Determining the main idea: Instructional strategies that work. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51(3), 138-142. DOI: 10.1080/ 00228958.2015.1056669
48. Luck, S. J., & Kappenman, E. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. Oxford University Press.
49. Mahaney, T. (2018). How and why it Works. USA: change your mind. https://www.changeyourmind.com/ wp-content/uploads/2019/ 02/ How-It-Works-Research-latest.pdf. DOI: 10.2478/squa-2018- 0005
50. Meyer, A. (2017). A biomarker of anxiety in children and adolescents: A review focusing on the error-related negativity (ERN) and anxiety across development. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 58- 68. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2017.08.001
51. Moctezuma, L. A., & Molinas, M. (2020). EEG Channel-selection method for epileptic-seizure classification based on multi-objective optimization. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 593. DOI: 10.3389/fnins .2020.00593
52. Molfese, D. L., Molfese, V. J., & Pratt, N. L. (2007). The use of eventrelated evoked potentials to predict developmental outcomes. Infant EEG and event-related potentials, 199-225. DOI: 10.4324/ 9780203759660
53. Moore, T., Morton, J., & Price, S. (2012). Construct validity in the IELTS academic reading test: A comparison of reading requirements in IELTS test items and in university study. In Studies in language testing (pp. 120-211). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
54. Mori, Y. (2000). Urquhart, S., & Weir, C.(1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 590-591.
55. Morrow Jr, J. R., Mood, D., Disch, J., & Kang, M. (2015). Measurement and Evaluation in Human Performance, 5E. Human Kinetics.
56. Murphy, P. (2018). How Multiracial Individuals Are Addressed in Diversity Courses in Counselor Master’s Degree Programs: A Mixed Methods Content Analysis (PhD dissertation), Auburn University: Alabama.
57. Nidal, K., & Malik, A. S. (Eds.). (2014). EEG/ERP analysis: methods and applications. NY: CRC Press.
58. Nieuwland, M., Barr, D., Bartolozzi, F., Busch-Moreno, S., Donaldson, D., Ferguson, H. J., ... & Ito, A. (2019). Dissociable effects of prediction and integration during language comprehension: Evidence from a large-scale study using brain potentials. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375 (1791). DOI: 10.1098/ rstb.2018.0522
59. O'Reilly, M., & Lester, J. N. (2017). Examining mental health through social constructionism: The language of mental health. USA: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-60095-6
60. O'Sullivan, B. (2018). IELTS (International English Language Testing System). The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-8. DOI:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0359
61. O'Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 53(5-6), 326-338. DOI: 10.1080/0163853X .2015.1123341
62. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31 (6), 785-806. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
63. Patel, G., Arkin, S., Ruiz-Betancourt, D., Jamerson, E., Sanchez-Peña, J., & Javitt, D. C. (2019). F189. Deficits and Compensation in Attentional Networks in Schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 85(10), S286-S287. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.03.726
64. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283. DOI:10.1177%2F1473325002001003636
65. Pavlov, N. (2017). Optimizing Methods with MATLAB. Retrieved from https://www.mathworks.com/ matlabcentral/ profile/authors/ 4710580-pavlov.
66. Prebianca, G. V. V. (2019). Individual differences in main idea identification and text summarization in EFL reading comprehension: an exploratory study. Leitura, 1(39), 199-222. DOI: 10.28998/ 0103-6858.2007v1n39p199-222
67. Prichard, C., & Trowler, P. (2018). Realizing qualitative research into higher education. UK: Routledge.
68. Payne, B. R., Stites, M. C., & Federmeier, K. D. (2019). Event‐related brain potentials reveal how multiple aspects of semantic processing unfold across parafoveal and foveal vision during sentence reading. Psychophysiology, 56(10), e13432. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13432
69. Rabovsky, M., Hansen, S. S., & McClelland, J. L. (2017). Neural responses decrease while performance increases with practice: A neural network model. In CogSci. DOI: 10.1101/546325
70. Ramonda, K., & Sevigny, P. (2019). Graded reader comprehension questions and item discrimination analysis. ELT journal, 73(3), 265– 274. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccy062
71. Raney, G. E., & Bovee, J. C. (2016). Reading integration in bilingual speakers. In Methods in Bilingual Reading Comprehension Research (pp. 157-181). Springer, New York, NY. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939- 2993-1_7
72. Rastelli, S. (2018). Neurolinguistics and second language teaching: A view from the crossroads. Second Language Research, 34(1), 103- 123. DOI: 10.1177%2F0267658316681377
73. Riccio, C. A., Sullivan, J. R., & Cohen, M. J. (2010) . Neuropsychological assessment and intervention for childhood and adolescent disorders. UK: John Wiley & Sons.
74. Riddle, J. P. (2019). A Method for Moving from the Main Idea of a Biblical Text to Sermon Divisions (Doctoral dissertation), South-eastern Baptist Theological Seminary: North Carolina.
75. Roberts, B. W., Kilgannon, J. H., & Trzeciak, S. (2018). Response by Roberts et al to Letters Regarding Article,“Association between Early Hyperoxia Exposure after Resuscitation from Cardiac Arrest and Neurological Disability: Prospective Multi-center Protocol-Directed Cohort Study”. Circulation, 138(24), 2864-2865. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032054
76. Romeo, T., Otgaar, H., Smeets, T., Landström, S., & Jelicic, M. (2019). The memory‐impairing effects of simulated amnesia for a mock crime. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 983-990. DOI: 10.1002 /acp.3508
77. Rouet, J. F., & Potocki, A. (2018). From reading comprehension to document literacy: learning to search for, evaluate and integrate information across texts/De la lectura a la alfabetización documental: aprender a buscar, evaluar e integrar información de diversos textos. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 41(3), 415-446. DOI: 10.1080/02103702.2018.1480313
78. Salo, K. S. T., Mutanen, T. P., Vaalto, S. M., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2020). EEG artifact removal in TMS studies of cortical speech areas. Brain Topography, 33(1), 1-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10548-019-00724-w
79. Sassenhagen, J., & Fiebach, C. J. (2019). Finding the P3 in the P600: Decoding shared neural mechanisms of responses to syntactic violations and oddball targets. NeuroImage, 200(15).425-436. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.048
80. Shahsavar, Y., Ghoshuni, M., & Talaei, A. (2018). Quantifying clinical improvements in patients with depression under the treatment of transcranial direct current stimulation using event related potentials. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 41(4), 973-983. DOI: 10.1007/s13246-018-0696-x
81. Scheffler, A. W. (2019). Modelling Region-Referenced Longitudinal Functional Electroencephalography Data (Doctoral dissertation), University of California: Los Angeles.
82. Sim, S. M., & Rasiah, R. I. (2006). Relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in true/false-type multiple choice questions of a para-clinical multidisciplinary paper. Annals-Academy of Medicine Singapore, 35(2), 67. PMID: 16565756.
83. Small, S. L., & Hickok, G. (2016). The neurobiology of language. In Neurobiology of Language (pp. 3-9). USA: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00001-8
84. Soemer, A., & Schiefele, U. (2019). Text difficulty, topic interest, and mind wandering during reading. Learning and Instruction, 61, 12-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.006
85. Steinhauer, K., Connolly, J. F., Stemmer, B., & Whitaker, H. A. (2008). Event-related potentials in the study of language. Concise Encyclopaedia of Brain and Language, 91-104.
86. Tabullo, Á. J., Shalom, D., Sevilla, Y., Gattei, C. A., París, L., & Wainselboim, A. (2019). Reading Comprehension and Predict- -ability Effects on Sentence Processing: An Event‐Related Potential Study. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1-19. DOI: 10.1111/mbe.12205
87. Tanaka, H., Watanabe, H., Maki, H., Sakriani, S., & Nakamura, S. (2019). EEG-based Single Trial Detection of Language Expectation Violations in Listening to Speech. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 13, 15. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2019.00015
88. Van den Broek, P., Beker, K., & Oudega, M. (2015). Inference generation in text comprehension: Automatic and strategic processes in the construction of a mental representation. Inferences during reading, 94-121. Cambridge University Press.
89. Veeravagu, J., Muthusamy, C., Marimuthu, R., & Michael, A. S. (2010). Using Bloom's Taxonomy to Gauge Students' Reading Comprehension Performance/Utiliser La Taxonomie De Bloom Pour Evaluer Les Performances De Comprehension Ecrite Des Eleves. Canadian Social Science, 6(3), 205.
90. Walliman, N. (2017). Research methods: The basics. UK: Routledge.
91. Ward, J. (2015). The student's guide to cognitive neuroscience. UK: Psychology Press.
92. Weir, C., Hawkey, R., Green, A., Unaldi, A., & Devi, S. (2009). The relationship between the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS and the reading experiences of students in their first year of study at a British university. International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research Reports 2009: Volume 9, 97.
93. Westby, C. (2019). Executive Function in Children with Language Impairment. Word of Mouth, 30(3), 5-7. DOI: 10.1177/10483950 18821153a
94. Zhu, R., Pan, Y. H., Sun, L., Zhang, T., Wang, C., Ye, S., & Zhang, W. (2019). ADAMTS18 Deficiency Affects Neuronal Morphogenesis and Reduces the Levels of Depression-like Behaviors in Mice. Neuroscience, 399, 53-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.12.025
Go to article