Aaker, DA, Bagozzi, RP, Carman, JM, & Maclachan, JM (1980). On using response latency to measure preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 237–244.
Article
Google Scholar
Ableeva, R (2008). The Effects of Dynamic Assessment on L2 Listening Comprehension. In J. P. Lantolf, & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages (pp. 57–86). London: Equinox.
Google Scholar
Albrecht, JE, & Myers, JL (1995). The role of context in the accessibility of goals during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1459–1468.
Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, A, & Lantolf, JP (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
Article
Google Scholar
Antón, M (2003). Dynamic Assessment of Advanced Foreign Language Learners. Paper Presented at the Meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC.
Google Scholar
Balota, DA, Floresd’Arcais, GB & Rayner, K (Eds.) (1990). Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Google Scholar
Bassil, JN, & Fletcher, JF (1991). Response-time measurement in survey research-a method for CATI and a new look at non-attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 331–346.
Article
Google Scholar
Bassili, JN (1993). Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 54–61.
Article
Google Scholar
Bassili, JN (1996a). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: the case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637–653.
Article
Google Scholar
Bassili, JN (1996b). The how and why of response latency measurement in telephone surveys. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions: methodology for determining cognitive and communicative process in survey research (pp. 319–346). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Bassili, JN, & Krosnick, JA (2000). Do strength-related attitude properties determine susceptibility to response effects? New evidence from response latency, attitude extremity, and aggregate indices. Political Psychology, 21(1), 107–132.
Article
Google Scholar
Bassili, JN, & Scott, BS (1996). Response latency as a signal to question problems in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 390–399.
Article
Google Scholar
Baxter, BW, & Hinson, RE (2001). Is smoking automatic? demands of smoking behavior on attentional resources. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 59–66.
Article
Google Scholar
Bransford, JD, & Johnson, MK (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
Article
Google Scholar
Brown, AL, & Ferrara, RL (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Campione, JC, & Brown, AL (1985). Dynamic assessment: one approach and some initial data. Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Google Scholar
Campione, JC, & Brown, AL (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: an international approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82–115). New York: The Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Carlson, JS, & Wiedl, KH (1992). Principles of dynamic assessment: the application of a specific model. Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 153–166.
Article
Google Scholar
Carlston, DE, & Skowronski, JJ (1986). Trait memory and behavior memory: the effects of alternative pathways on impression judgment response times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 5–13.
Article
Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M, & Getzels, JW (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products: a study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47–52.
Article
Google Scholar
Donato, R, & McCormick, DE (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: the role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 453–464.
Article
Google Scholar
Draisma, S, & Dijkstra, W (2004). Response latency and (Para) linguistic expressions as indicators of response error. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 131–147). New York: Wiley.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Fazio, RH (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Research methods in personality and social psychology, pp. 74–97). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Google Scholar
Feuerstein, R (1979). Dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability in retarded performers: the learning potential assessment device. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), International encyclopedia of neurology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis and psychology. New York: Section XII.
Google Scholar
Fodor, J (1983). The modularity of mind: an essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, MA (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265–304.
Article
Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, MA, Varner, KR, & Faust, M (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445.
Google Scholar
Gibbons, H, & Rammsayer, T (1999). Auswirkungen der vertrautheit mit einer reizdimension auf entscheidungs¬prozesse: Der modulierende einfluss kontrollierter vs. Automatischer informationsverarbeitung. In I. Wachsmuth & B. Jung (Eds.), Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaft (pp. 159–164). Bielefeld: St.Augustin.
Google Scholar
Gick, ML, & Holyoak, KJ (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
Article
Google Scholar
Glanzer, M, Fischer, B, & Dorfman, D (1984). Short-term storage in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 467–486.
Article
Google Scholar
Graesser, AC, & Mandler, G (1975). Recognition memory for the meaning and surface structure of sentences. Journal for Experimental Psychology, 104, 238–248.
Google Scholar
Graesser, AC, Singer, M, & Trabasso, T (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Article
Google Scholar
Graesser, AC, Millis, KK, & Zwaan, RA (1997). Discourse comprehension. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual review of psychology. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.
Google Scholar
Guthke, J (1993). Developments in learning potential assessment. In J. H. M. Hamers & K. Sijtsma (Eds.), Learning potential assessment: theoretical, methodological and practical issues (pp. 43–67). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Google Scholar
Guthke, J, & Beckmann, JF (2000). The learning test concept and its applications in practice. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: prevailing models and applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Google Scholar
Haberlandt, K, Berian, C, & Sandson, J (1980). The episode schema in story processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 635–650.
Article
Google Scholar
Hertel, G, Neuhof, J, Theuer, T, & Kerr, NL (2000). Mood effects on cooperation in small groups: does positive mood simply lead to more cooperation? Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 441–472.
Article
Google Scholar
Johnson, M, Shively, WP, & Stein, RM (1999). Contextual Data and the Study of Elections and Voting Behavior: Connection Individuals to the Environment. Paper presented on the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University.
Google Scholar
Kintsch, W (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Article
Google Scholar
Kintsch, W (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Kozulin, A (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter
Google Scholar
LaBarbera, PA, & MacLachlan, J (1979). Time-compressed speech in radio advertising. Journal of Marketing, 43(1), 30–36.
Article
Google Scholar
Lantolf, JP (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Lantolf, JP (2010). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of applied linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Lantolf, JP, & Poehner, ME (2004). Dynamic assessment: bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49–74.
Article
Google Scholar
MacLachlan, J, & Siegel, MH (1979). Reducing the costs of TV commercials by use of time compression. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(1), 52–57.
Article
Google Scholar
Magliano, JP, Miller, J, & Zwaan, RA (2001). Indexing space and time in film understanding. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 533–545.
Article
Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W, & Tyler, L (1987). Against modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 37–62). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Mayerl, J (2013). Response Latency Measurement in Surveys. Detecting Strong Attitudes and Response Effects. Survey Methods: Insights from the Field.
http://surveyinsights.org/?p=1063.
Mayerl, J, & Urban, D (2008). Antwortreaktionszeiten in survey-analysen: messung, auswertung und anwendungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Google Scholar
McKoon, G, & Ratcliff, R (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.
Article
Google Scholar
McNamara, DS. (Ed.). (2007). Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theory, Interventions, and Technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Google Scholar
McNamara, DS, & Magliano, JP (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 284–297). New York: Elsevier.
Google Scholar
Mulligan, K, Grant, JT, Mockabee, ST, & Monson, JQ (2003). Response latency methodology for survey research: measurement and modeling strategies. Political Analysis, 11(3), 289–301.
Article
Google Scholar
Myers, JL, & O’Brien, EJ (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157.
Article
Google Scholar
Philips, D (2001). Longman complete course for the TOEFL test: preparation for the computer and paper tests. London: Longman.
Google Scholar
Poehner, ME (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting Second Language Development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.
Book
Google Scholar
Shabani, K (2012). Dynamic assessment of L2 Learners’ reading comprehension processes: a vygotskian pperspective. Proccedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 321–328.
Article
Google Scholar
Shabani, K, Bakhoda, I (2014). Mediated Functioning and Processing Time as a Measure of L2 Learners’ ZPD Performance. Humanizing Language Teaching. 16(3). http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jun14/mart03.htm.
Sheppard, LC, & Teasdale, JD (2000). Dysfunctional thinking in major depressive disorder: a deficit in metacognitive monitoring? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(4), 768–776.
Article
Google Scholar
Trabasso, T, & Bartolone, J (2003). Story understanding and counterfactual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 904–923.
Google Scholar
Urban, D, & Mayerl, J (2007). Antwortlatenzzeiten in der survey-basierten Verhaltensforschung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59(4), 692–713.
Article
Google Scholar
Vygotsky, LS (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Vygotsky, LS (1994). The problem of the cultural development of the child. In R Van der Veer & J Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Google Scholar