Reading and Writing

, Volume 19, Issue 9, pp 933–958

Should the Simple View of Reading Include a Fluency Component?

  • Suzanne M. Adlof
  • Hugh W. Catts
  • Todd D. Little
Article

Abstract

The Simple View of Reading states that reading comprehension is the product of word recognition and listening comprehension. Whereas much research has focused on word recognition accuracy, recent attention has been directed toward word recognition fluency. The current study investigated whether a separate fluency component should be added to the Simple View of Reading. A battery of reading and language measures was administered to 604 children in second, fourth, and eighth grades. Approximately half these children had language and/or nonverbal cognitive impairments in kindergarten, but weighting procedures were used to reduce the potential bias this sampling characteristic may have entailed. Structural equation modeling was used to determine whether fluency accounted for unique variance in reading comprehension after controlling for word recognition accuracy and listening comprehension. Individual profile analyses were conducted to determine the number of individual participants who␣had poor fluency in the spite of good word recognition accuracy and listening comprehension. Results showed that fluency did not account for unique variance in reading␣comprehension and that few individuals had problems in fluency separate from word recognition accuracy or listening comprehension. Thus, it does not appear that a separate fluency component should be added to the Simple View of Reading.

Keywords

Fluency Listening comprehension Reading comprehension Simple View of Reading Word recognition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aaron P. G., Joshi M., Williams K. A., (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike Journal of Learning Disabilities 32: 120–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allington R. L., (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal in reading instruction The Reading Teacher 36: 556–561Google Scholar
  3. Catts H., Hogan T. P., Adlof S. M., (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities In: Catts H., Kamhi A., (eds), Connections between language and reading disabilities Erlbaum Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1378–1396Google Scholar
  5. Catts H. W., Fey M. E., Zhang X., Tomblin J. B., (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation Scientific Studies of Reading 3: 331–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Catts H. W., Hogan T. P., Fey M. E., (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities Journal of Learning Disabilities 36(2): 151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyer L.-G., Katz L., (1992). An examination of “the simple view of reading” National Reading Conference Yearbook 41: 169–175Google Scholar
  8. Dunn L., Dunn L., (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised American Guidance Service Circle Pines, MNGoogle Scholar
  9. Francis D. J., Fletcher J. M., Catts H., Tomblin J. B., (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension In: Paris S.G., Stahl S.A., (eds), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment Erlbaum Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuchs L.S., Fuchs D., Hosp M. K., Jenkins J. R., (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis Scientific Studies of Reading 5: 239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D., Maxwell L., (1988). The validity of informal measures of reading comprehension Remedial and Special Education 9: 20–28Google Scholar
  12. Gough P. B., Hoover W. A., Peterson C. L., (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading In Cornoldi C., Oakhill J., (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention Lawrence Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ, (pp. 1–13)Google Scholar
  13. Gough P. B., Tunmer W. E., (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability RASE: Remedial and Special Education 7(1): 6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graham J. W., Schafer J. L., (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art Psychological Methods 7: 147–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoover W. A., Gough P. B., (1990). The simple view of reading Reading and Writing 2(2): 127–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jöreskog K. G., Sörbom D. (2005). Lisrel SSI Lincolnwood, ILGoogle Scholar
  17. Joshi R., Aaron P. G., (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex Reading Psychology 21: 85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn M. R., Stahl S. A., (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices Journal of Educational Psychology 95: 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LaBerge D., Samuels S., (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading Cognitive Psychology 6: 293–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leslie L., Caldwell J., (1995). Qualitative reading inventory-2 Addison-Wesley New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Lovett M. W. (1987). A developmental approach to reading disability: Accuracy and speed criteria of normal and deficient reading skill Child Development 58: 234–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meyer M. S., Felton R. H., (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions Annals of Dyslexia 49: 283–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. Reports of the subgroups. (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: US Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  24. Newcomer P., (1992). Diagnostic achievement battery-2 PRO-ED. AustinGoogle Scholar
  25. Perfetti C. A., (1985). Reading ability Oxford University Press New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Semel E., Wiig E., Secord W., (1995). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals-third edition Psychological Corporation San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  27. Shinn M. R., Good R. H., Knutson N., Tilly W. D., Collins V. L., (1992). Curriculum-based measurement reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading School Psychology Review 21: 459–479Google Scholar
  28. Tomblin J. B., (1995). Midwest collaboration on specific language impairment National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Tomblin J. B., Records N., 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: 1245–1260Google Scholar
  30. Torgesen J. K., Rashotte C. A., Alexander A. W., (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading In Wolf M. (ed). Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain York Press Timonium, MD (pp. 334–355)Google Scholar
  31. Torgesen J. K., Wagner R. K., Rashotte C. A., (1998). Test of word reading efficiency PRO-ED. AustinGoogle Scholar
  32. Wiederholt J. L., Bryant B. R., (1994). Gray oral reading tests-3 PRO-ED. Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  33. Woodcock R., (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests-revised American Guidance Service Circle Pines, MNGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolf, M. (Ed.) (2001). Dyslexia, fluency, & the brain. Timonium, MD: York PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Young A., Bowers P. G., (1995). Individual difference and text difficulty determinants of reading fluency and expressiveness Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 60: 428–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suzanne M. Adlof
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hugh W. Catts
    • 1
  • Todd D. Little
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Speech-Language-Hearing: Sciences and DisordersUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Life Span InstituteUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations