Reading Comprehension as measured over time, Self-Expression Credibility based on the Results of Competency Measures and Functional Talent Discovery Tools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33193/eJHAS.20.2025.388Keywords:
Reading Comprehension and Measured Response Time, Self-Expression Credibility, Modern Competency Measures, Functional Talent Discovery ToolsAbstract
This study aimed to explore the extent to which modern competency measures and functional talent discovery tools (Digital Transformation Leadership, Tourism Proficiency, Personal and Professional Success, Teamwork Personality Traits, Integrative Thinking, Functional Competencies, Value-Based Readiness for Global Competition, Professional Abilities, Career Interests, and Psychological and Value-Based Readiness for Volunteering) predict reading comprehension performance as indicated by response time across ten measures. The study also examined the ability of these measures to predict self-expression credibility, through analyzing contradictions between opposing skills across the ten scales. Additionally, it investigated the relationship between response time on the reading comprehension and self-expression credibility, as well as the significance of differences in reading comprehension and self-expression credibility based on gender and job sector. The study adopted a descriptive-correlational approach and used ten psychometrically validated measures. A cross-sectional convenient sample of 502 participants recorded responses on the Jadeeron platform, based on data completeness and accuracy. The results indicated that all variables contributed significantly to predicting reading comprehension (as measured by response time), except for psychological and value-based readiness for volunteering. The most significant contributors were: Personal and Professional Success (23%), Career Interests (20%), Functional Competencies (18%), Tourism Proficiency (18%), Integrative Thinking (13%), Digital Transformation Leadership (12%), Value-Based Global Readiness (9%), Teamwork Personality Traits (8%), and Professional Abilities (7%). For predicting self-expression credibility, six variables significantly contributed: Psychological and Value-Based Readiness for Volunteering (25%), Professional Abilities (20%), Teamwork Personality Traits (19%), Global Value-Based Readiness (16%), Integrative Thinking (14%), and Tourism Proficiency (11%). Gender-based differences favored females in both reading comprehension and self-expression credibility. Differences were also found in favor of public and private sector employees compared to university and school students. A moderate and statistically significant correlation (r = 0.59) was found between reading comprehension and self-expression credibility.
References
1. الجهني، فيصل. (2024). بناء مقياس الاستعداد القيمي للمنافسة العالمية لدى طلاب التعليم العام في المملكة العربية السعودية. إدارة التعليم في مكة المكرمة. مجلة القراءة والمعرفة. 24. 107-150.
2. الجهني، فيصل حمدي علي.(2025). بطارية القياس الشامل للكفاءات والجدارات الحديثة واستكشاف المواهب الوظيفية، سماوي – الرياض ردمك (ISBN):9786030580309
3. Aya-Roa, K. J., Beltrán-Campos, V., García-Campo, M. L., Vargas-Es cobar, L. M., Hernández-Maria no, J. A., (2025). Psychometric Properties of Tools for Assessing Spirituality: A Scoping Review. Salud Mental, 48(1), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.17711/SM. 0185-3325.2025.006 DOI: 10.17711/SM.0185-3325.2025.006
4. Backes, B., & Cowan, J. (2018). Is the pen mightier than the keyboard? The effect of online testing on measured student achievement. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Working Paper 190. April 2018.
5. Barry, C. L., & Finney, S. J. (2016). Modeling change in effort across a low-stakes testing session: A latent growth curve modeling approach. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(1), 46-64.
6. Bridgeman, B.; Trapani, C.; Curley, E. (2004).Impact of fewer questions per section on SAT I scores. J. Educ. Meas, 41, 291–310.
7. Chen, X., Jin, J., Hao, F., & Xu, D. (2024). A rigorous analysis of reliability and validity measures: Evidence from an educational psychology scale. Journal of Educational Measurement & Screening, Article 100144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.slast.2024.100144
8. Clinton V. (2019).Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading.;42(2):288–325.
9. Creswell. J.W. and Creswell, J.D. (2018) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th Edition, Sage, Newbury Park. https://www.ucg.ac.me/skladiste/blog_609332/objava_105202/fajlovi/Creswell.pdf
10. Danner, D., & Rammstedt, B. (2016). A facet-level analysis of response styles: The role of acquiescence in self-report personality questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 213–218.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.044
11. Danthiir, V.; Wilhelm, O.; Roberts, R.D. (2012). Further evidence for a multifaceted model of mental speed: Factor structure and validity of computerized measures. Learn. Individ. Differ, 22, 324–335.
12. Dodonova, Y.A.; Dodonov, Y.S. (2013). Faster on easy items, more accurate on difficult ones: Cognitive ability and performance on a task of varying difficulty. Intelligence , 41, 1–10.
13. Durán-González, G., Panes-Martínez, M., Monge-Rogel, R., & Juárez-Hernández, L. G. (2023). Psychometric Properties of an Instrument to Evaluate Students’ Perception of Learning Objects in Statistics. Sage Open, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231193192 (Original work published 2023)
14. Ebrahimi, M.R, Hashemi Toroujeni, S.M. & Shahbazi, V. (2019). Score Equivalence, Gender Difference, and Testing Mode preference in a Comparative Study between Computer-Based Testing and Paper-Based Testing. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(07).
15. Fabio, R. A., et al. (2025). Psychometric properties and validation of the Critical Reasoning Assessment (CRA) for the Italian population. Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113344
16. Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A comparison of children’s reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12327
17. Goldammer, Philippe & Annen, Hubert & Stoeckli, Peter & Jonas, Klaus. (2020). Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies. The Leadership Quarterly.4( 31). 101384https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101384
18. Goldhammer, F. (2015), Measuring ability, speed, or both? Challenges, psychometric solutions, and what can be gained from experimental control. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. , 13, 133–164.
19. Jensen, A.R. (2002). Galton’s Legacy to Research on Intelligence. J. Biosoc. Sci. 34, 145–172
20. Jensen, Ragnhild & Roe, Astrid & Blikstad-Balas, Marte. (2024). The smell of paper or the shine of a screen? Students’ reading comprehension, text processing, and attitudes when reading on paper and screen. Computers & Education. 219. 105107. 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105107.
21. Kyllonen, P. C., & Zu, J. (2016). Use of response time for measuring cognitive ability. Journal of Intelligence, 4(4), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence4040014
22. Lee, Y.-H.; Chen, H.(2011). A review of recent response-time analyses in educational testing. Psychol. Test Assess. Model , 53, 359–379.
23. Ludeke, S. G., & Makransky, G. (2016). Does the Overclaiming Technique capture variance in self-enhancement? Journal of Research in Personality, 60, 24–35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.11.001
24. Lyu, Y., & Bolt, D. M. (2024). A Psychometric Perspective on the Associations between Response Accuracy and Response Time Residuals. Journal of Intelligence, 12(8), 74. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/12/8/74
25. Martins, C., Jesus, S., da Silva, J. T., Ribeiro, C., Estêvão, M. D., Mocho, H., Ratinho, E., & Nunes, C. (2024). The Volunteer Motivation Scale (VMS): Adaptation and Psychometric Properties among a Portuguese Sample of Volunteers. Sustainability, 16(1), 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010327
26. Mayerl, J. (2013). Response Latency Measurement in Surveys. Detecting Strong Attitudes and Response Effects. Survey Methods: Insights from the Field. Retrieved from https://surveyinsights.org/?p=1063DOI:10.13094/SMIF-2013-00005
27. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
28. Michaelides, M. P., & Ivanova, M. (2022). Response time as an indicator of test-taking effort in PISA. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 69(3), 1–15. https://www.psychologie-aktuell.com/fileadmin/Redaktion/Journale/ptam_2022-3/PTAM__3-2022_5_kor.pdf
29. Niessen, A. S. M., Meijer, R. R., & Tendeiro, J. N. (2016). A practical method to detect inconsistent responding patterns and its application in a personality test. Psychological Assessment, 28(9), 1052–1065.https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000235
30. Padilla García, José Luis & Benitez Baena, Isabel. (2014). Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema. 26(1). 136-44. 10.7334/psicothema2013.259.
31. Parmač, M., Galić, Z., & Jerneić, Ž. (2009). Response latency as an indicator of personality test item response dissimulation. Suvremena psihologija, 12(1), 43–61. Hrčak
32. Roberts, R.D.; Stankov, L. (1999). Individual differences in speed of mental processing and human cognitive abilities: Towards a taxonomic model. Learn. Individ. Differ, 11, 1–120.
33. Ruchensky, Jared & Edens, John & Donnellan, M. (2024). Development of an Inconsistent Responding Scale for the Big Five Inventory-2. Journal of Personality Assessment. 107(3). 384-391. 10.1080/00223891.2024.2411557.
34. Schnipke, D.L.; Scrams, D.J. (2002).Exploring issues of examinee behavior: Insights gained from response-time analyses. In Computer-Based Testing: Building the Foundation for Future Assessments; Mills, C.N., Potenza, M., Fremer, J.J., Ward, W., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 237–266.
35. Schriesheim, C. A., Eisenbach, R. J., & Hill, K. D. (1991). The Effect of Negation and Polar Opposite Item Reversals on Questionnaire Reliability and Validity: An Experimental Investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511005 (Original work published 1991)
36. Schurig, M., Ropeter, A., & Wilhelm, O. (2021). Minimization of a short computer-based test in reading: Reliability, validity, and fairness. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 684595. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.684595
37. Sheppard, L.D.; Vernon, P.A. (2008). Intelligence and speed of information-processing: A review of 50 years of research. Personal. Individ. Differ, 44, 535–551.
38. Støle, H., Mangen, A., & Schwippert, K. (2020). Assessing children’s reading comprehension on paper and screen: A mode-effect study. Computers & Education, 151, 103861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103861
39. Swan K, Speyer R, Scharitzer M, Farneti D, Brown T, Woisard V and Cordier R (2023) Measuring what matters in healthcare: a practical guide to psychometric principles and instrument development. Front. Psychol. 14:1225850. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1225850
40. Toroujeni S. M. H. (2022). Computerized testing in reading comprehension skill: investigating score interchangeability, item review, age and gender stereotypes, ICT literacy and computer attitudes. Education and information technologies, 27(2), 1771–1810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10584-2
41. Toroujeni, S. M. (2021). Computerized testing in reading comprehension skill: A review of literature. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 35, 94. https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.35.94
42. Van der Linden, W.J. (2009). Conceptual issues in response-time modeling. J. Educ. Meas, 46, 247–272.
43. Weirich, S., Sachse, K. A., Henschel, S., & Schnitzler, C. (2024). Comparing test taking effort between paper based and computer based tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 48(1 2), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216241227535
44. Wygant DB, Burchett D, Harp JP. (2019). Assessment of Noncredible Reporting and Responding. In: Sellbom M, Suhr JA, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Clinical Assessment and Diagnosis. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge University Press; 2019:63-79.
45. Yarkoni, T. (2010). The abbreviation of personality, or how to measure 200 personality scales with 200 items. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(2), 180–198https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.01.002
46. Zehner, F., Goldhammer, F., & Sälzer, C. (2020). PISA reading: Mode effects unveiled in short text responses. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 62(1), 85-105 https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2021/20354/pdf/PTAM_2020_1_Zehner_et_al_PISA_reading_A.pdf
47. Ziegler, Matthias & Buehner, Markus. (2009). Modeling Socially Desirable Responding and Its Effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 69. 548-565. 10.1177/0013164408324469.
2. الجهني، فيصل حمدي علي.(2025). بطارية القياس الشامل للكفاءات والجدارات الحديثة واستكشاف المواهب الوظيفية، سماوي – الرياض ردمك (ISBN):9786030580309
3. Aya-Roa, K. J., Beltrán-Campos, V., García-Campo, M. L., Vargas-Es cobar, L. M., Hernández-Maria no, J. A., (2025). Psychometric Properties of Tools for Assessing Spirituality: A Scoping Review. Salud Mental, 48(1), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.17711/SM. 0185-3325.2025.006 DOI: 10.17711/SM.0185-3325.2025.006
4. Backes, B., & Cowan, J. (2018). Is the pen mightier than the keyboard? The effect of online testing on measured student achievement. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Working Paper 190. April 2018.
5. Barry, C. L., & Finney, S. J. (2016). Modeling change in effort across a low-stakes testing session: A latent growth curve modeling approach. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(1), 46-64.
6. Bridgeman, B.; Trapani, C.; Curley, E. (2004).Impact of fewer questions per section on SAT I scores. J. Educ. Meas, 41, 291–310.
7. Chen, X., Jin, J., Hao, F., & Xu, D. (2024). A rigorous analysis of reliability and validity measures: Evidence from an educational psychology scale. Journal of Educational Measurement & Screening, Article 100144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.slast.2024.100144
8. Clinton V. (2019).Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading.;42(2):288–325.
9. Creswell. J.W. and Creswell, J.D. (2018) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th Edition, Sage, Newbury Park. https://www.ucg.ac.me/skladiste/blog_609332/objava_105202/fajlovi/Creswell.pdf
10. Danner, D., & Rammstedt, B. (2016). A facet-level analysis of response styles: The role of acquiescence in self-report personality questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 213–218.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.044
11. Danthiir, V.; Wilhelm, O.; Roberts, R.D. (2012). Further evidence for a multifaceted model of mental speed: Factor structure and validity of computerized measures. Learn. Individ. Differ, 22, 324–335.
12. Dodonova, Y.A.; Dodonov, Y.S. (2013). Faster on easy items, more accurate on difficult ones: Cognitive ability and performance on a task of varying difficulty. Intelligence , 41, 1–10.
13. Durán-González, G., Panes-Martínez, M., Monge-Rogel, R., & Juárez-Hernández, L. G. (2023). Psychometric Properties of an Instrument to Evaluate Students’ Perception of Learning Objects in Statistics. Sage Open, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231193192 (Original work published 2023)
14. Ebrahimi, M.R, Hashemi Toroujeni, S.M. & Shahbazi, V. (2019). Score Equivalence, Gender Difference, and Testing Mode preference in a Comparative Study between Computer-Based Testing and Paper-Based Testing. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(07).
15. Fabio, R. A., et al. (2025). Psychometric properties and validation of the Critical Reasoning Assessment (CRA) for the Italian population. Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113344
16. Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A comparison of children’s reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12327
17. Goldammer, Philippe & Annen, Hubert & Stoeckli, Peter & Jonas, Klaus. (2020). Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies. The Leadership Quarterly.4( 31). 101384https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101384
18. Goldhammer, F. (2015), Measuring ability, speed, or both? Challenges, psychometric solutions, and what can be gained from experimental control. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. , 13, 133–164.
19. Jensen, A.R. (2002). Galton’s Legacy to Research on Intelligence. J. Biosoc. Sci. 34, 145–172
20. Jensen, Ragnhild & Roe, Astrid & Blikstad-Balas, Marte. (2024). The smell of paper or the shine of a screen? Students’ reading comprehension, text processing, and attitudes when reading on paper and screen. Computers & Education. 219. 105107. 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105107.
21. Kyllonen, P. C., & Zu, J. (2016). Use of response time for measuring cognitive ability. Journal of Intelligence, 4(4), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence4040014
22. Lee, Y.-H.; Chen, H.(2011). A review of recent response-time analyses in educational testing. Psychol. Test Assess. Model , 53, 359–379.
23. Ludeke, S. G., & Makransky, G. (2016). Does the Overclaiming Technique capture variance in self-enhancement? Journal of Research in Personality, 60, 24–35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.11.001
24. Lyu, Y., & Bolt, D. M. (2024). A Psychometric Perspective on the Associations between Response Accuracy and Response Time Residuals. Journal of Intelligence, 12(8), 74. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/12/8/74
25. Martins, C., Jesus, S., da Silva, J. T., Ribeiro, C., Estêvão, M. D., Mocho, H., Ratinho, E., & Nunes, C. (2024). The Volunteer Motivation Scale (VMS): Adaptation and Psychometric Properties among a Portuguese Sample of Volunteers. Sustainability, 16(1), 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010327
26. Mayerl, J. (2013). Response Latency Measurement in Surveys. Detecting Strong Attitudes and Response Effects. Survey Methods: Insights from the Field. Retrieved from https://surveyinsights.org/?p=1063DOI:10.13094/SMIF-2013-00005
27. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
28. Michaelides, M. P., & Ivanova, M. (2022). Response time as an indicator of test-taking effort in PISA. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 69(3), 1–15. https://www.psychologie-aktuell.com/fileadmin/Redaktion/Journale/ptam_2022-3/PTAM__3-2022_5_kor.pdf
29. Niessen, A. S. M., Meijer, R. R., & Tendeiro, J. N. (2016). A practical method to detect inconsistent responding patterns and its application in a personality test. Psychological Assessment, 28(9), 1052–1065.https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000235
30. Padilla García, José Luis & Benitez Baena, Isabel. (2014). Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema. 26(1). 136-44. 10.7334/psicothema2013.259.
31. Parmač, M., Galić, Z., & Jerneić, Ž. (2009). Response latency as an indicator of personality test item response dissimulation. Suvremena psihologija, 12(1), 43–61. Hrčak
32. Roberts, R.D.; Stankov, L. (1999). Individual differences in speed of mental processing and human cognitive abilities: Towards a taxonomic model. Learn. Individ. Differ, 11, 1–120.
33. Ruchensky, Jared & Edens, John & Donnellan, M. (2024). Development of an Inconsistent Responding Scale for the Big Five Inventory-2. Journal of Personality Assessment. 107(3). 384-391. 10.1080/00223891.2024.2411557.
34. Schnipke, D.L.; Scrams, D.J. (2002).Exploring issues of examinee behavior: Insights gained from response-time analyses. In Computer-Based Testing: Building the Foundation for Future Assessments; Mills, C.N., Potenza, M., Fremer, J.J., Ward, W., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 237–266.
35. Schriesheim, C. A., Eisenbach, R. J., & Hill, K. D. (1991). The Effect of Negation and Polar Opposite Item Reversals on Questionnaire Reliability and Validity: An Experimental Investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511005 (Original work published 1991)
36. Schurig, M., Ropeter, A., & Wilhelm, O. (2021). Minimization of a short computer-based test in reading: Reliability, validity, and fairness. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 684595. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.684595
37. Sheppard, L.D.; Vernon, P.A. (2008). Intelligence and speed of information-processing: A review of 50 years of research. Personal. Individ. Differ, 44, 535–551.
38. Støle, H., Mangen, A., & Schwippert, K. (2020). Assessing children’s reading comprehension on paper and screen: A mode-effect study. Computers & Education, 151, 103861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103861
39. Swan K, Speyer R, Scharitzer M, Farneti D, Brown T, Woisard V and Cordier R (2023) Measuring what matters in healthcare: a practical guide to psychometric principles and instrument development. Front. Psychol. 14:1225850. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1225850
40. Toroujeni S. M. H. (2022). Computerized testing in reading comprehension skill: investigating score interchangeability, item review, age and gender stereotypes, ICT literacy and computer attitudes. Education and information technologies, 27(2), 1771–1810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10584-2
41. Toroujeni, S. M. (2021). Computerized testing in reading comprehension skill: A review of literature. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 35, 94. https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.35.94
42. Van der Linden, W.J. (2009). Conceptual issues in response-time modeling. J. Educ. Meas, 46, 247–272.
43. Weirich, S., Sachse, K. A., Henschel, S., & Schnitzler, C. (2024). Comparing test taking effort between paper based and computer based tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 48(1 2), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216241227535
44. Wygant DB, Burchett D, Harp JP. (2019). Assessment of Noncredible Reporting and Responding. In: Sellbom M, Suhr JA, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Clinical Assessment and Diagnosis. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge University Press; 2019:63-79.
45. Yarkoni, T. (2010). The abbreviation of personality, or how to measure 200 personality scales with 200 items. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(2), 180–198https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.01.002
46. Zehner, F., Goldhammer, F., & Sälzer, C. (2020). PISA reading: Mode effects unveiled in short text responses. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 62(1), 85-105 https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2021/20354/pdf/PTAM_2020_1_Zehner_et_al_PISA_reading_A.pdf
47. Ziegler, Matthias & Buehner, Markus. (2009). Modeling Socially Desirable Responding and Its Effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 69. 548-565. 10.1177/0013164408324469.
Downloads
Published
2025-12-16
How to Cite
Dr. Faisal bin Hamdi Ali Al-Juhani. (2025). Reading Comprehension as measured over time, Self-Expression Credibility based on the Results of Competency Measures and Functional Talent Discovery Tools. Era Journal for Humanities and Sociology, (20), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.33193/eJHAS.20.2025.388
Issue
Section
المقالات
