according to this article what time took to mild readers to read the text?:
BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT
Time Limitations Enhance Reading Comprehension
Jeffrey J. Walczyk, Kathryn E. Kelly, Scott D. Meche, and Hillary Braud
Louisiana Tech University
Few studies in the domain of reading have explored the relation between time
limitations and reading comprehension. Time limitations may enhance reading comprehension by promoting mindfulness in students, a construct which involves exertion of more effort and motivation. This study explored the effects of time constraints on reading comprehension in adult readers. Mild time constraints should
create greater mindfulness in readers, resulting in enhanced comprehension. College
students read passages under no time pressure, under mild time pressure, or under
severe time pressure. Reading comprehension was assessed in each condition. The
best reading comprehension was observed under mild time pressure. Implications
are discussed.  1999 Academic Press
Among the numerous studies that have explored factors affecting reading,
few investigators have examined experimentally the effect of time limitations
on reading comprehension. This research topic, however, is important to
reading researchers and educational psychologists because of its potential
educational significance. Studies in domains outside reading suggest that
mild levels of time pressure can enhance performance (Blessing & Anderson,
1996; Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1989). Time restrictions placed on readers
may have similar effects on reading comprehension. Moreover, students’
reading achievement is typically assessed via standardized tests involving
time restrictions (Carver, 1992). Does reading under time pressure result in
an underestimation of a reader’s comprehension ability? This study provides
data relevant to these issues.
MINDFULNESS
There is reason to suppose that when reading occurs under mild time constraints, comprehension will be enhanced. Salomon and Globerson (1987)
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jeffrey J. Walczyk, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Box 10048, College of Education, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA
71272. E-mail: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
156
0361-476X/99 $30.00
Copyright  1999 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
TIME AND COMPREHENSION 157
proposed the construct mindfulness to account for successful performance
of students at many tasks. Mindfulness is defined as ‘‘the volitional, metacognitively guided employment of non-automatic, usually effort demanding
processes’’ (p. 625). As the authors note, this construct entails motivational,
attitudinal, and cognitive factors. When a student is mindfully engaged in a
learning task, performance is enhanced. Attention is more sharply focused,
and motivation is greater. When a student performs a task in a nonmindful
manner, automatic processing predominates and performance is less than
optimal.
Salomon and Globerson identify a number of situational factors that can
foster mindfulness in students. When they are challenged by tasks that are
novel, moderately challenging or ambiguous, mindfulness results. Having
students work in teams can have the same effect. The assigning of a mild
level of time pressure, in providing a deadline, may promote mindfulness
by rallying effort and motivation. As the authors note, any task condition
that promotes mindfulness will enhance performance.
TIME RESTRICTION AND READING RESEARCH
Among the few investigations of time pressure and reading comprehension, a study which examined the relation between the two was conductd by
Gilbert, Tafarodi, and Malone (1993). This study underscores the negative
effects of time limitations. Readers were provided with false information
about a college student and then were asked to read a passage about the
individual. Those reading under severe time pressure were more likely to
believe the false information and use it in evaluating the individual. Thus,
under conditions involving severe time pressure, individuals are less likely
to think critically about text information.
Walczyk (1995) experimentally manipulated the amount of time readers
had to complete expository passages. In the no pressure condition, participants read through passages at their own rates. In the severe time pressure
condition, participants had 50% of the amount of time the average reader
needed to complete each passage. Reading comprehension was significantly
higher in the no pressure condition. The experiment was not concerned with
comparing the effects of different levels of time pressure on reading comprehension. Rather, it provided a test of the compensatory-encoding model of
reading.
THE CURRENT STUDY
As noted above, the Walczyk (1995) study is only marginally relevent to
the focus of the current study. Readers were not allowed to read under mild
time pressure. Consequently, it was not possible to test whether mild time
constraints produce optimal reading comprehension. In this study, adults
were asked to read under no time pressure, under mild time pressure, or
158 WALCZYK ET AL.
under severe time pressure. We expected readers to be the most mindfully
engaged when they read under mild time pressure. Under no time pressure,
readers are probably not being optimally challenged (Salomon & Globerson,
1987). Under severe time pressure, readers probably will not have sufficient
time to engage in text modeling activities sufficient for adequate text comprehension.
As a manipulation check, participants responded to the Stress-Arousal
Checklist (SACL) (Mackay, Cox, Burrow, & Lazzerini, 1978) after the reading comprehension task. Two subscales are designed to measure one’s current state of Stress and Arousal. If the manipulation was effective, Stress
and Arousal scores were expected to increase with added pressure.
A secondary purpose of the study was to replicate one of major predictions
of the compensatory-encoding model. According to the model, measures of
reading skill automaticity (verbal efficiency) should be more strongly correlated with reading comprehension when reading occurs under more time
pressure (Walczyk, 1993; 1995). The model, which is concerned with when
reading skill automaticity affects comprehension, predicts that when individuals read under no time pressure, possessing less efficient reading skills will
not impair comprehension. In nonpressured reading, the reader can compensate by reading slowly, reread text, and use other compensatory strategies.
Because compensatory strategies are not possible to use when reading occurs
under pressure, those with greater reading skill automaticity should enjoy a
comprehension advantage. A measure of reading skill automaticity was thus
included to confirm this prediction (Walczyk, 1995). We measure the efficiency of lexical–semantic memory access (Chabot, Miller, & Juola, 1976;
Chabot, Petros, & McCord, 1983).
METHOD
Participants
Eighty-nine undergraduate volunteers, drawn from an introductory psychology pool, participated. All were college freshmen. Fifty-two were females. Participants received class credit
for participating.
Experimental Tasks/Materials
General. Each task was administered on a microcomputer. The program was written in a
compiled BASIC (TurboBASIC). For each participant, the order of the two computer-based
tasks was random. Within each task, the order of test items was random. Latency data, to the
nearest millisecond, and accuracy data (where appropriate) were stored. A timing loop was
used to assess latency. Practice items preceded each task to familiarize a participant with the
procedure.
Semantic access task. The speed with which information is accessed from semantic–lexical
memory involved participants deciding as quickly as possible if two nouns belong to the same
superordinate category (Chabot, Miller, & Juola, 1976; Chabot, Petros, & McCord, 1983).
Three exemplars were selected from each of six categories: furniture, food, sports, plants,
TIME AND COMPREHENSION 159
animals, and clothing. Twenty noun pairings were made. Nouns were drawn evenly from
the three exemplars of the six categories. Ten of the noun pairs were in different semantic
categories.
After reviewing the six categories, the participant was told two nouns would be presented
concurrently at the center of the computer screen. S/he was asked to ‘‘decide as quickly as
possible after the noun pair appeared if they belong to the same semantic category’’ A microphone was placed in front of the participant at the level of her/his mouth. The microphone
was connected to a voicekey apparatus which recorded vocal response latencies to the millisecond. If the noun pair belonged to the same category, the participant was asked utter ‘‘Same’’
into the microphone, otherwise utter ‘‘Different.’’ Three practice pairs preceded the test item.
Reading comprehension task. For the comprehension task, six stories were chosen from
college-level texts. The texts, each 12 sentences in length, involved a variety of topics, for
instance, history and philosophy. Reading comprehension tests were devised for each text
using the sentence verification (SVT) technique of Royer, Hastings, and Hook (1979). This
measure is a sensitive recognition procedure. SVT tests have been shown to be both reliable
and valid (Royer & Hambleton, 1983; Royer, Hastings, & Hook, 1979; Royer, Abronovic, &
Sinatra, 1987).
For each 12 sentence passage, a reader responded, from memory, to 16 test items. S/he
decided (yes/no) if test items had the same meaning as a sentence from the original passage.
During test construction, each of the passage sentences was randomly assigned to three SVT
item types: meaning changes, paraphrases, or originals. Originals are verbatim copies of sentences from the passage (same surface and deep structure). Paraphrases have the same meaning
as sentences from the passage but are expressed in different words (different surface and same
deep structure). Meaning changes have many words in common with original sentences but
are altered in meaning by the addition of a word or two (same surface and different deep
structure). A final test item category is created by writing sentences, distractors, that read as
though they could have appeared in a passage but did not (different surface and deep structures).
The correct answer to eight of the test items (originals and paraphrases) is yes. The correct
answer for the remaining 8 (meaning changes and distractors) is no.
Stress-arousal checklist. The SACL is designed to determine an individual’s level of stress
and arousal at a given instant. This checklist has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure
of these constructs with college students (Mackay, Cox, Burrows, & Lazzerini, 1978; McCormick, Walkey, & Taylor, 1985). This 30-item instrument yields a total score and the two
subscale scores alluded to above: Stress and Arousal.
The Stress subscale measures a sense of well-being by gauging feelings from pleasant to
unpleasant. The responder is asked to endorse or not endorse adjectives such as tense, apprehensive, or worried. Scores can range from 0 to 18. The higher the subscore, the greater the
individual’s subjective sense of stress.
The Arousal subscale is designed to measure a respondent’s state of wakefulness, drowsiness, or vigorousness. Sample adjectives include alert and stimulated. Scores on this subscale
can range from 0 to 12. The higher the subscore, the greater is the individual’s subjective
sense of being aroused. This checklist was added as a manipulation check. We expected Stress
and Arousal scores to be higher in the two pressure conditions; however given the mild nature
of the stressor, scores were not expected to increase dramatically.
Procedure
Pilot study. A pilot study determined passage presentation times for the pressure conditions.
Fifteen adults, not otherwise involved with the experiment, were asked to reach each of the
six passages, presented on the computer, at their leisure. Passage order was random over
160 WALCZYK ET AL.
readers. Unknown to them, the number of seconds taken to read each passage was stored.
Comprehension was assessed (see below) using the sentence verification technique.
Procedure. Each reader was tested individually in a quiet, well-lit room. The reader, seated
at the microcomputer, first read instructions explaining that the experiment investigated the
relation among reading processes. Next, either the semantic access or the reading comprehension task, randomly chosen, was administered. Before each task, instructions explaining each
task were presented. Practice items followed.
For the comprehension task, participants were naive regarding which pressure condition
they were assigned to and the purpose of the study. Those in the no pressure condition read
at their leisure. Passage reading times were noted. Those in the severe pressure condition were
allocated 66% of the average amount of time needed to read each passage as determined in
the pilot study. This time allocation is similar to the amount of time Walczyk (1995) provided
participants in the severe time pressure condition. Those in the mild pressure condition were
provided the median amount time it took the 15 readers of the pilot study to read each passage.
We reasoned that most adults would be able to complete successfully the passages in this
time frame so long as they did not waste time. In the two pressure conditions, at the top of
the computer screen, a count-down timer displayed the number of seconds remaining to complete the passage. When the time was up, the screen was cleared, and the 16 SVT test items
appropriate to that passage followed. In all three conditions, the reader was allowed to respond
to the test items at her/his leisure. Readers responded by pressing either ‘‘Y’’ or ‘‘N’’ on the
keyboard to each of the SVT test items. Immediately following the reading comprehension
task, participants took the Stress-arousal checklist. A single session lasted about 45 min.
RESULTS
Scoring
For each task, latency data were stored on disk. To avoid the potentially
skewing effects of extreme reaction times, the median of the 20 semantic
access latencies (SAL) for each reader was the measure of central tendency.
Six passage reading times were also available for those readers who were
in the no pressure condition. The median reading time was determined for
each reader and used in subsequent analyses.
As noted above, following each passage there were 16 SVT test items.
Across the six passages, there were 96. Thus, reading comprehension scores
could vary from 0 to 96. Total reading comprehension scores were determined for each participant and were converted into percent correct for ease
of interpretation.
Analyses
Summary statistics. Measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion appear for each variable in Table 1 by time pressure condition. The
semantic access latency means are similar in magnitude across the three experimental conditions. The reading time measure of the no pressure condition
suggests variability over readers in the time spent getting through the passages. The best comprehension was observed in the mild pressure condition.
The comprehension standard deviations suggest homogeneous variances (no
TIME AND COMPREHENSION 161
TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations for All Measures by Condition
Condition: No pressure Mild pressure Severe pressure
Measure Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N
Semantic latency 1.09 .12 31 1.10 .19 28 1.19 .29 30
Reading time 108.0 47.49 31 — — — — — —
Reading comp. 69.85 8.50 31 74.86 7.87 28 65.31 6.96 30
Stress 6.34 5.11 26 7.77 5.03 27 8.75 4.94 29
Arousal 4.84 3.79 26 6.59 3.92 27 7.03 3.53 29
Note. Times are expressed in seconds. Reading comprehension scores are expressed as percentages correct. Occasionally a mean is based on less
than full number assigned to a given condition due to nonsystematic factors. For instance, a participant neglected to fill out the Stress-Arousal
Checklist.
162 WALCZYK ET AL.
restriction of range in the pressure conditions) across conditions. The observed cell Stress and Arousal means are larger with greater time pressure.
Inferential statistics. A one-way ANOVA with three levels (No Pressure,
Mild Pressure, Severe Pressure) was performed on the reading comprehension scores. The overall test was highly significant, F(2,86) 5 9.72, MSe 5
61.105, p , .0002. There were only two planned comparisons among the
three means. It was expected that the mild pressure comprehension mean
would be greater than both the no pressure comprehension mean and the
severe pressure comprehension mean. Because of the directional nature of
the hypothesis, two t tests were calculated with alpha set at 5% for each onetail test. The mild pressure comprehension mean was significantly greater
in magnitude than the no pressure comprehension mean, t(57) 5 2.34, p ,
.02. The mild pressure comprehension mean was also significantly larger
than the severe pressure comprehension mean, t(56) 5 4.65, p , .01. Those
in the mild pressure condition comprehended the best.
It was expected that Stress scores would increase with greater time pressure. An ANOVA performed on the Stress data did not reveal a significant
effect for pressure condition, F(2,79) 5 1.59, MSe 5 1997.86, n.s. It was
also expected that Arousal scores would increase with greater pressure. An
ANOVA performed on the Arousal scores yielded a marginally significant
effect for pressure condition, F(2,79) 5 2.57, MSe 5 1180.87, p , .083.
There was a tendency for Arousal scores to increase with added pressure.
Additional analyses. Table 2 provides Pearson correlations between each
of the measures by pressure condition. The most important correlations are
between semantic access latency and reading comprehension. The only significant correlation of the three occurs in the mild pressure condition. The
negative correlation reveals that, for those reading under mild time pressure,
readers with more automated reading skills (shorter responses times) have
better comprehension. The observed correlation of the severe condition is
in the predicted direction but is not significant.
The correlation between arousal and stress was marginally significant in
the no pressure condition, p , .06. This finding is not surprising given that
the two subscores purport to tap similar constructs. No other correlations
were significant.
DISCUSSION
This research explored the effects of time pressure on reading comprehension. Adult readers were asked to read under varying levels of time pressure:
no, mild, or severe. Comprehension was assessed using the SVT procedure
(Royer, Hastings, & Hook, 1979). The best comprehension occurred for
those reading under mild time pressure. More importantly, the enhanced
comprehension of those in the mild pressure condition occurred more effi-
TIME AND COMPREHENSION 163
TABLE 2
Pearson Correlations between Variables by Pressure Condition
SAL RT Comp. Stress Arousal
No pressure
SAL .07(31) .01(31) 2.13(26) .03(26)
RT — .23(31) .05(26) 2.04(26)
Comp. 2.43(28)* — 2.13(26) .07(26)
Stress .05(27) — 2.27(27) 2.38(26)
Arousal .14(27) — .23(27) .18(27)
SAL Comp. Stress Arousal
Severe pressure
SAL 2.28(29) 2.15(29) 2.16(29)
Comp. .03(29) .05(29)
Stress 2.15(29)
Arousal
Note. Number that correlation is based on appears in parentheses. Key: SAL, semantic
access latency; RT, reading time; Comp., SVT comprehension scores 2.
* p , .05.
** p , .01.
ciently than those in the no pressure condition. They achieved greater text
comprehension per unit time. The large standard deviation of those in the
no pressure condition convey that many who read text under no time pressure
spent a lot of time reading, perhaps more than was necessary.
A secondary purpose of the study was to replicate Walczyk’s (1995) finding that larger correlations occur between measures of verbal efficiency and
comprehension under time pressure. Partial support for the compensatoryencoding model was observed. The semantic memory latency-comprehension correlation was significant in the mild pressure condition and was not
significant in the no pressure condition, as expected. The same correlation
in the severe pressure condition was in the predicted condition, but was only
marginally significant (p , .10), perhaps due to the modest sample size.
Although the observed Stress cell means increased with added time pressure, the differences were not significantly. In the case of the Arousal scores,
however, there was a marginally significant tendency for the means to increase with added pressure. Given the fact that both the observed Stress and
Arousal cell means each showed the predicted increase in magnitude with
pressure, it seems likely the experiment lacked the power to find significant
differences.
What accounts for the enhancing effect of mild time pressure on reading
comprehension? We have argued, along with Salomon and Globerson
164 WALCZYK ET AL.
(1987), that having readers read under mild time pressure will increase reader
mindfulness. It seems likely mild time pressure increases motivation and
effort. Although we did not specifically measure this construct, this phenomenon has been observed in domains outside reading (Blessing & Anderson,
1996; Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1989; Salomon & Globerson, 1987). The selfreported Arousal of the participants exhibited a tendency to increase with
time pressure, consistent with this interpretation. Of course, if Arousal becomes too great performance can be deleteriously affected.
What are the educational implications of this research line? If additional
investigations replicate and extend these findings, the results are important.
Teachers and educational innovators can be encouraged to devise instructional approaches involving mild time constraints to increase a reader’s
mindfulness during the act of reading. The result can be enhanced comprehension and learning.
Perhaps a more important aspect of this line of research concerns its implications for assessment. As noted by Carver (1992), standardized reading
achievement tests are given under time constraints. Successful test performance is determined, in part, by the ability to work quickly on such assessments. Are these time constraints adequate for optimal comprehension performance or is the time pressure too severe? Do informal, nonpressured
teacher assessments of reading achievement consistently underestimate a
reader’s comprehension level? Future research along this line can help answer these important questions.