Abstract
Many individuals with poor reading comprehension have levels of reading comprehension that are consistent with deficits in their ability to decode the words on the page. However, there are individuals who are poor at reading comprehension despite being adequate at decoding. This phenomenon is referred to as specific reading comprehension deficit (SRCD). The two purposes of this study were to use a new approach to estimate the prevalence of SRCD and to examine the extent to which SRCD can be explained by the simple view of reading. We used model-based meta-analysis of correlation matrices from standardized tests to create composite correlation matrices for the constructs of reading comprehension, decoding, and listening comprehension. Using simulated datasets generated from the composite correlation matrices, we used residuals from regressing reading comprehension on decoding to create a continuous index of SRCD. The prevalence of SRCD is best represented not as a single number but as a continuous distribution in which prevalence varies as a function of the magnitude of the severity of the deficit in reading comprehension relative to the level of decoding. Examining the joint distribution of the residuals with reading comprehension makes clear that the phenomenon of reading comprehension that is poor relative to decoding occurs throughout the distribution of reading comprehension skill. Although the simple view of reading predictors of listening comprehension and decoding makes significant contributions to predicting reading comprehension, nearly half of the variance is unaccounted for.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This meta-analysis was carried out as part of a larger project. The correlation between reading and listening comprehension from this meta-analysis is the basis of analyses reported by Wagner et al. (2020) in a study of the prevalence of dyslexia. Phonological awareness and vocabulary were not included in the present study.
References
Ahmed, Y. (2014). Joint modeling of the component skills of reading and writing: A meta-analytic SEM approach (Order No. AAI3637936). Available from APA PsycInfo®. (1707078171; 2015-99160-149). Retrieved from https://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu%3A185349
Ahmed, Y., Francis, D. J., York, M., Fletcher, J. M., Barnes, M., & Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44-45, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002.
Becker, B. J., & Aloe, A. M. (2019). Model-based meta-analysis and related approaches. In H. M. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 339–363). Russell Sage.
Breaux, K. C. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Tests III Technical Manual. Pearson.
Cain, K. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151003322277739.
Cain, K. (2006). Individual differences in children’s memory and reading comprehension: An investigation of semantic and inhibitory deficits. Memory, 14, 553–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210600624481.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X67610.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers reading comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411410042.
Cain, K., & Towse, A. S. (2008). To get hold of the wrong end of the stick: Reasons for poor idiom understanding in children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1538–1549. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0269.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2000). Investigating the causes of reading comprehension failure: The comprehension-age match design. Reading and Writing, 12(1-2), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X67610.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850–859. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196414.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Elbro, C. (2003). The ability to learn new word meanings from context by school-age children with and without language comprehension difficulties. Journal of Child Language, 30, 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000903005713.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671.
Carretti, B., Motta, E., & Re, A. M. (2014). Oral and written expression in children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414528539.
Cataldo, G. M., & Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 791–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.791.
Catts, H., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subgrouping peer readers on the basis of reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–164.
Catts, H., Adlof, S., Weismer, S. E., & Ellis, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023.
Cheung, M. W. L. (2015). metaSEM: An R package for meta-analysis using structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521.
Clarke, L. (2009). Inference generation and reading disability. University of York.
Congdon, P. (2003). Applied Bayesian modelling. John Wiley & Sons Ltd..
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3d ed.) Russell Sage Foundation.
Cragg, L., & Nation, K. (2006). Exploring written narrative in children with poor reading comprehension. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500340991.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311.
Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1476727.
Early reading diagnostic assessment technical Manual (2nd ed.) (2003). Pearson.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford.
Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6.
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2004). Stanford technical data report. Pearson.
Henderson, L., Snowling, M., & Clarke, P. (2013). Accessing, integrating, and inhibiting word meaning in poor comprehenders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.652721.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799.
Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. (2003). The Iowa tests: Guide to research and development. Riverside Publishing.
Isakson, R. L., & Miller, J. W. (1976). Sensitivity to syntactic and semantic cues in good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(6), 787–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.68.6.787.
Joshi, R. M., Tao, S., Aaron, P. G., & Quiroz, B. (2012). Cognitive component of componential model of reading applied to different orthographies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432690.
Kasperski, R., & Katzir, T. (2013). Are confidence ratings test-or trait-driven? Individual differences among high, average, and low comprehenders in fourth grade. Reading Psychology, 34, 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2011.580042.
Kaufman A. S., & Kaufman N. L. (with Breaux, K.V.) (2014). Technical and interpretive manual. Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). NCS Pearson
Keenan, J. M., Hua, A. N., Meenan, C. E., Olson, R. K., Pennington, B. F., & Willcutt, E. G. (2014). Issues in identifying poor comprehenders. L’année Psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 114, 573–577. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503314004072.
Kim, Y. G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking component skills of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643.
Marshall, C. M., & Nation, K. (2003). Individual differences in semantic and structural errors in children’s memory for sentences. Educational & Child Psychology, 20, 7–18.
McGrew, K. S., LaForte, E. M., & Schrank, F. A. (2014). Technical manual. Woodcock-Johnson IV.
Megherbi, H., Seigneuric, A., & Ehrlich, M. F. (2006). Reading comprehension in French 1st and 2nd grade children: Contribution of decoding and language comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173573.
Nation, K., & Norbury, C. F. (2005). Why reading comprehension fails: Insights from developmental disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00004.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01250.x.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 69, 996–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06157.x.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal readers and poor comprehenders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400002046.
Nation, K., Marshall, C. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2001). Phonological and semantic contributions to children’s picture naming skill: Evidence from children with developmental reading disorders. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960042000003.
Nation, K., Clarke, P., Marshall, C. M., & Durand, M. (2004). Hidden language impairments in children: Parallels between poor reading comprehension and specific language impairment? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/017.
Nation, K., Snowling, M. J., & Clarke, P. (2007). Dissecting the relationship between language skills and learning to read: Semantic and phonological contributions to new vocabulary learning in children with poor reading comprehension. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 9(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040601145166.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
Nesi, B., Levorato, M. C., Roch, M., & Cacciari, C. (2006). To break the embarrassment: Text comprehension skills and figurative competence in skilled and less-skilled text comprehenders. European Psychologist, 11, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.128.
Oakhill, J., Yuill, N., & Parkin, A. (1986). On the nature of the difference between skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Journal of research in reading, 9(2), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1986.tb00115.x.
Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18, 657–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z.
Pelegrina, S., Capodieci, A., Carretti, B., & Cornoldi, C. (2014). Magnitude representation and working memory updating in children with arithmetic and reading comprehension disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 658–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414527480.
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730.
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687.
Pimperton, H., & Nation, K. (2010). Suppressing irrelevant information from working memory: Evidence for domain-specific deficits in poor comprehenders. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(4), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.005.
Pimperton, H., & Nation, K. (2014). Poor comprehenders in the classroom: Teacher ratings of behavior in children with poor reading comprehension and its relationship with individual differences in working memory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412454172.
Quinn, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to study developmental change in relations between language and literacy. Child Development, 89, 1956–1969. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13049.
Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701344306.
Robeva, R., Penberthy, J. K., Loboschefski, T., Cox, D., & Kovatchev, B. (2004). Combined psychophysiological assessment of ADHD: A pilot study of Bayesian probability approach illustrated by appraisal of ADKD in female college students. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 29, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:APBI.0000017860.60164.66.
Rønberg, L. F., & Petersen, D. K. (2015). How specific are specific comprehension difficulties? An investigation of poor reading comprehension in nine-year-olds. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.996594.
Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S., Fowler, A., Dreyer, L. G., Marchione, K. E., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0301_4.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND.
Spencer, M., & Wagner, R. K. (2017). The comprehension problems for second-language learners with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12080.
Spencer, M., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). The comprehension problems of children with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(3), 366–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317749187.
Spencer, M., Quinn, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). Specific reading comprehension disability: Major problem, myth, or misnomer? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 29, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12024.
Spencer, M., Wagner, R. K., & Petscher, Y. (2019). The reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge of children with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: Evidence from a regression-based matching approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000274.
Spencer, M., Richmond, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2020). Considering the role of executive function in reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 24(3), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1643868.
Spooner, A. L., Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (2006). Does weak reading comprehension reflect an integration deficit? Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00284.x.
Stothard, S. E., & Hulme, C. (1995). A comparison of phonological skills in children with reading comprehension and children with decoding difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01298.x.
Tomblin, J. B., Records, N. L., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., Smith, E., & O’Brien, M. (1997). Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 40(6), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4006.1245.
Tong, X., Deacon, S. H., Kirby, J. R., Cain, K., & Parrila, R. (2011). Morphological awareness: A key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023495.
Tong, X., Deacon, S. H., & Cain, K. (2014). Morphological and syntactic awareness in poor comprehenders another piece of the puzzle. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509971.
Torppa, M., Tolvanen, A., Poikkeus, A. M., Eklund, K., Lerkkanen, M. K., Leskinen, E., & Lyytinen, H. (2007). Reading development subtypes and their early characteristics. Annals of Dyslexia, 57, 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-007-0003-0.
U.S. Department of Education (2019). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data files. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
Wagner, R. K., Edwards, A. A., Malkowski, A., Schatschneider, C., Joyner, R. E., Wood, S., & Zirps, F. A. (2019). Combining old and new for better understanding and predicting dyslexia. New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development, 165, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20289.
Wagner, R. K., Zirps, F. A., Edwards, A. E., Wood, S. G., Joyner, R. E., Becker, B. J., & Liu, G. (2020). The prevalence of dyslexia: A new approach to its estimation and its role in identification. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53, 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420920377.
Woodcock, R. W. (2011). Woodcock reading mastery tests third edition manual (WRMT III). NCS Pearson, Inc.
Yuill, N. (2009). The relation between ambiguity understanding and metalinguistic discussion of joking riddles in good and poor comprehenders: Potential for intervention and possible processes of change. First Language, 29, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723708097561.
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge University Press.
Funding
The research described in this article was supported by Grant Number P50 HD52120 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wagner, R.K., Beal, B., Zirps, F.A. et al. A model-based meta-analytic examination of specific reading comprehension deficit: how prevalent is it and does the simple view of reading account for it?. Ann. of Dyslexia 71, 260–281 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00232-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00232-2