Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 591–611 | Cite as

The role of word recognition, oral reading fluency and listening comprehension in the simple view of reading: a study in an intermediate depth orthography

  • Irene Cadime
  • Bruna Rodrigues
  • Sandra Santos
  • Fernanda Leopoldina Viana
  • Séli Chaves-Sousa
  • Maria do Céu Cosme
  • Iolanda Ribeiro
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Empirical research has provided evidence for the simple view of reading across a variety of orthographies, but the role of oral reading fluency in the model is unclear. Moreover, the relative weight of listening comprehension, oral reading fluency and word recognition in reading comprehension seems to vary across orthographies and schooling years. This study aims to examine the direct effects of these three variables on reading comprehension and to test for the existence of indirect effects of word recognition and listening comprehension on reading comprehension via oral reading fluency in European Portuguese, an orthography of intermediate depth. A sample of 264 students was assessed at the end of grades 2 and 4. Structural equation modeling analyses indicated that listening comprehension, word recognition and oral reading fluency predicted reading comprehension in both grade 2 and grade 4. Moreover, the three variables measured in grade 2 predicted later reading comprehension in grade 4. Listening comprehension was always the strongest predictor. Oral reading fluency mediated the relationship between word recognition and reading comprehension, but it was not a mediator variable in the relationship between listening comprehension and reading comprehension. These findings indicate that, similarly to what has been found for other orthographies, the simple view of reading is a valid framework to account for reading comprehension variability in European Portuguese and that interventions to increase reading comprehension levels should focus on word recognition, fluency, and, especially, listening comprehension.

Keywords

Listening comprehension Word recognition Oral reading fluency Reading comprehension Simple view of reading 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted at Psychology Research Centre, University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds and when applicable co-financed by FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (UID/PSI/01662/2013) and by Grant FCOMP-01-0124- FEDER-010733 from Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) through the European program COMPETE (Operational Programme for Competitiveness Factors) under the National Strategic Reference Framework (QREN). The first and third authors are also supported by grants from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Grants SFRH/BPD/102549/2014 and SFRH/BD/94763/2013).

References

  1. Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing, 19(9), 933–958. doi: 10.1007/s11145-006-9024-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Vermeulen, K., & Fulton, C. M. (2006). Paths to reading comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(4), 334–351. doi: 10.1177/00222194060390040701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equation models with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Cain, K., Catts, H., Hogan, T., & Lomax, R. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things simple? Reading Research Quarterly, 50(2), 151–169. doi: 10.1002/rrq.99.Google Scholar
  6. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 683–696. doi: 10.1348/000709905X67610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carvalho, A. C. (2010). Teste de avaliação da fluência e precisão da leitura: O REI [Reading fluency and accuracy assessment test: O REI]. Vila Nova de Gaia: Edipsico.Google Scholar
  8. Catts, H., Hogan, T. P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Chaves-Sousa, S., Ribeiro, I., Viana, F. L., Vale, A. P., Santos, S., & Cadime, I. (2015). Validity evidence of the Test of Word Reading for Portuguese elementary students. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000307.Google Scholar
  10. Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277–299. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Catts, H. W., & Tomblin, J. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369–394). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Gilakjani, A. P., & Ahmadi, M. R. (2011). A study of factors affecting EFL learners’ English listening comprehension and the strategies for improvement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 977–988. doi: 10.4304/jltr.2.5.977-988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A., & Peterson, C. L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equational modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., Broek, P., Van Den Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719–729. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85–97. doi: 10.1080/02702710050084428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. doi: 10.1177/0022219411432690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 765–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, Y. (2011). Proximal and distal predictors of reading comprehension: Evidence from young Korean readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(2), 167–190. doi: 10.1080/10888431003653089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, Y. (2016). Direct and mediated effects of language and cognitive skills on comprehension of oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 101–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, Y., Park, C. H., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). Is oral/text reading fluency a “bridge” to reading comprehension? Reading and Writing, 27(1), 79–99. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9434-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim, Y., & Wagner, R. K. (2015). Text (oral) reading fluency as a construct in reading development: An investigation of its mediating role for children from grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 224–242. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Foster, E. (2011). Relations among oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A latent variable study of first-grade readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(4), 338–362. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.493964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2012). Developmental relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from grade 1 to grade 2. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(1), 93–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Maccallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error sample. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 611–637. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  30. 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 implication for reading instruction. NIH Publication No. 00-4769. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  31. Padeliadu, S., & Antoniou, F. (2014). The relationship between reading comprehension, decoding, and fluency in Greek: A cross-sectional study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30(1), 1–31. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2013.758932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peeters, M., Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, M., Vink, G., & van de Schoot, R. (2015). How to handle missing data: A comparison of different approaches. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(4), 377–394. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2015.1049526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perfetti, C., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–519. doi: 10.1598/RT.58.6.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  36. Ribeiro, I., Cadime, I., Freitas, T., & Viana, F. L. (2016). Beyond word recognition, fluency, and vocabulary: The influence of reasoning on reading comprehension. Australian Journal of Psychology, 68(2), 107–115. doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Santos, S., Cadime, I., Viana, F. L., Prieto, G., Chaves-Sousa, S., Spinillo, A. G., et al. (2016). An application of the Rasch model to reading comprehension measurement. Psicologia: Reflexão E Crítica, 29(38), 1–19. doi: 10.1186/s41155-016-0044-6.Google Scholar
  38. Santos, S., Viana, F. L., Ribeiro, I., Prieto, G., Brandão, S., & Cadime, I. (2015). Development of listening comprehension tests with narrative and expository texts for Portuguese students. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18(e5), 1–7. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2015.7.Google Scholar
  39. Seymour, P., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174. doi: 10.1348/000712603321661859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Silverman, R. D., Speece, D. L., Harring, J. R., & Ritchey, K. D. (2013). Fluency has a role in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(2), 108–133. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.618153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spear-Swerling, L., Lopes, J., Oliveira, C., & Zibulsky, J. (2015). How Portuguese and American teachers plan for literacy instruction. Annals of Dyslexia. doi: 10.1007/s11881-015-0107-x.Google Scholar
  42. Sucena, A., Castro, S. L., & Seymour, P. (2009). Developmental dyslexia in an orthography of intermediate depth: The case of European Portuguese. Reading and Writing, 22, 791–810. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9156-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., Van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 383–401. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01401.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tobia, V., & Bonifacci, P. (2015). The simple view of reading in a transparent orthography: The stronger role of oral comprehension. Reading and Writing, 28(7), 939–957. doi: 10.1007/s11145-015-9556-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Valencia, S. W., Smith, A. T., Reece, A. M., Li, M., Wixson, K. K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 270–291. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.45.3.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407–423. doi: 10.1002/acp.1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Viana, F. L., Santos, S., Ribeiro, I., Chaves-Sousa, S., Brandão, S., Cadime, I., et al. (2015). Listening comprehension assessment: Validity studies of two vertically scaled tests for Portuguese students. Universitas Psychologica, 14(1), 345–354. doi: 10.11144/Javeriana.upsy14-1.lcav.Google Scholar
  48. Westland, J. C. (2015). Structural equation models: From paths to networks. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Cadime
    • 1
  • Bruna Rodrigues
    • 2
  • Sandra Santos
    • 2
  • Fernanda Leopoldina Viana
    • 1
  • Séli Chaves-Sousa
    • 2
  • Maria do Céu Cosme
    • 2
  • Iolanda Ribeiro
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de Investigação em Estudos da Criança, Instituto de EducaçãoUniversidade do MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Centro de Investigação em Psicologia, Escola de PsicologiaUniversidade do MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options