Participants’ scores on Cognitive strategies, as depicted in Table 4.5, range from 30 to 53 with a mean of 40.92. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (.152/.221= .687) and the ratio of kurtosis by its standard error (-1.018/.438= .0023) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is determined that the distribution is normal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.3.

4.3.1.3 Compensation Strategies

The third category existing in SILL is the Compensation strategies descriptive analysis of this category is shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of the Compensation Strategies
N / Min / Max / Mean / Std.
Deviation / Variance / Skewness / Kurtosis
Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Std. Error
Compensation strategies / 120 / 10.00 / 22.00 / 16.71 / .238 / 2.612 / 6.827 / -.095 / .221 / -.405 / .438
Valid N (listwise) / 120

Participants’ scores on Compensation strategies, as depicted in Table 4.6, range from 10 to 22 with a mean of 16.71. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (-.095/.221= -.429) and the ratio of kurtosis by its standard error (-.405/.438= -.924) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is determined that the distribution is normal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.4.

4.3.1.4 Meta-cognitive Strategies

The descriptive statistics of the next category being Meta-cognitive strategies is shown in table 4.7.

Table 4.7 the Descriptive Statistics of the Meta-cognitive Strategies
N / Min / Max / Mean / Std.
Deviation / Variance / Skewness / Kurtosis
Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Std. Error
Meta Cognitive / 120 / 19.00 / 45.00 / 31.70 / .6076 / 6.656 / 44.313 / -.146 / .221 / -.944 / .438
Valid N (listwise) / 120

Participants’ scores on Meta-cognitive strategies, as described in Table 4.7, range from 19 to 45 with a mean of 31.70. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (-.146/.221= -.660) and the ratio of kurtosis by its standard error (-.944/.438= -1.155) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is determined that the distribution isnormal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.5.

4.3.1.5 Affective Strategies

The descriptive statistics of the next category being Affective strategies is shown in table 4.8.

Table 4.8 the Descriptive Statistics of the Affective Strategies
N / Min / Max / Mean / Std.
Deviation / Variance / Skewness / Kurtosis
Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Std. Error
Affective strategies / 120 / 10.00 / 24.00 / 16.97 / .2804 / 3.07186 / 9.436 / .118 / .221 / -.398 / .438
Valid N (listwise) / 120

Participants’ scores on Affective strategies, as depicted in Table 4.8, range from 10 to 24 with a mean of 16.97. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (.118/.221=.533) and the ratio of kurtosis by its standard error (-.398/.438= -.908) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is established that the distribution is normal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.6.

4.3.1.6 Social Strategies

The descriptive statistics of the next category being Social strategies is shown in table 4.9.

Table 4.9 the Descriptive Statistics of the Social Strategies
N / Min / Max / Mean / Std.
Deviation / Variance / Skewness / Kurtosis
Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Std. Error
Social Strategies / 120 / 11.00 / 26.00 / 18.47 / .344 / 3.775 / 14.251 / .083 / .221 / -.844 / .438
Valid N (listwise) / 120

Participants’ scores on Social strategies, as depicted in Table 4.9, range from 11 to 26 with a mean of 18.47. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (.083/.221=.375) and theratio of kurtosis by its standard error (-.844/.438= -1.92) are within the ranges of ±1.96, it is established that the distribution is normal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.7.

4.3.1.7 Comparing the SILL’s categories

To compare the results of the different parts of SILL questionnaire the mean of the categories are represented in Table 4.10 and Figure 4.8.

Table 4.10Descriptive Statistics of the SILL Categories' Means
N / Minimum / Maximum / Mean / Std. Deviation
Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic
Memory Strategies / 120 / 16.00 / 38.00 / 25.9583 / .42032 / 4.60434
Cognitive strategies / 120 / 30.00 / 53.00 / 40.9250 / .52449 / 5.74553
Compensation Strategies / 120 / 10.00 / 22.00 / 16.7167 / .23851 / 2.61278
Meta-cognitive Strategies / 120 / 19.00 / 45.00 / 31.7000 / .60768 / 6.65677
Affective Strategies / 120 / 10.00 / 24.00 / 16.9750 / .28042 / 3.07186
Social Strategies / 120 / 11.00 / 26.00 / 18.4750 / .34462 / 3.77511
Valid N (listwise) / 120

4.3.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS)

Another instrument of the present study was the SORS questionnaire to determine the extent of participants’ use of reading strategies. The descriptive statistics related to the overall strategy use is presented in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics of the SORS Questionnaire Administration
N / Min / Max / Mean / Std. Deviation / Variance / Skewness / Kurtosis
Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Std. Error
SORS / 120 / 2.03 / 4.34 / 3.25 / .052 / .570 / .326 / -.269 / .221 / -.760 / .438
Valid N (listwise) / 120

Participants’ scores on reading strategies, as depicted in Table 4.11, range from 2.03 to 4.34 with a mean of 3.327. Since, the ratio of skewness over its standard error (-.269/.221=-1.21) and the ratio of kurtosis over its standard error (-.760/.438=.00017) arewithin the ranges of ±1.96, it is concluded that the distribution isnormal. The frequency of scores for the instrument is presented in Figure 4.2.

4.3.3 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Reading Comprehension Test

The PET reading comprehension test was the last instrument which was used to collect the required data for the dependent variable of the study. The descriptive statistics related to the obtained scores of the test appears below in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Reading Comprehension Test Administration
N / Min / Max / Mean / Std. Deviation / Variance / Skewness / Kurtosis
Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Statistic / Statistic / Std. Error / Statistic / Std. Error
Reading Comprehension / 120 / 10 / 28 / 19.81 / .446 / 4.888 / 23.899 / -.040 / .221 / -.784 / .433
Valid N (listwise) / 120