Typing versus thinking aloud when reading: implications for computer-based assessment and training tools.

The goal of this study was to assess the impact of modality of production of think-aloud protocols on reading strategies. Readers in two studies spoke or typed protocols for narrative or science texts and completed comprehension tests for each text. Human judges identified the presence of paraphrasing, bridging inferences, and elaborating within the protocols. Reading comprehension skill was assessed with the Nelson-Denny test. With respect to narrative texts, paraphrasing and bridging were less frequent when readers were typing than when they were thinking aloud. With respect to science texts, less-skilled readers made bridging inferences more frequently when typing than when speaking. Conversely, skilled readers generated more paraphrases than bridges when typing thoughts but not when speaking. These results have implications for computer-based tools for reading assessment and intervention.