Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 553–576 | Cite as

The Simple View of Reading: Is It Valid for Different Types of Alphabetic Orthographies?



We present a meta-analysis to test the validity of the Simple View of Reading Gough & Tunmer (Remedial and Special Education, 7:6–10, 1986) for beginner readers of English and other, more transparent, orthographies. Our meta-analytic approach established that the relative influence of decoding and linguistic comprehension on reading comprehension is different for readers of different types of orthography during the course of early reading development. Furthermore, we identified key differences in the relations among different measures of decoding and reading comprehension between readers of English and other more transparent orthographies. We discuss the implications for reading instruction and the diagnosis of reading difficulties, as well as our theoretical understanding of how component skills influence reading comprehension level.


Simple view of reading Reading comprehension Decoding Linguistic comprehension Early reading development 


* References marked with an asterisk indicated studies included in the meta-analysis

  1. * Aaron, P. G. (1991). Can reading disabilities be diagnosed without using intelligence tests? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aaron, P. G., Joshi, M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. * Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing, 19, 933–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2- and 3- year follow-up and a new preschool trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 488–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (2006). Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. E. (2000). Phonological skills and comprehension failure: A test of the phonological processing deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 12, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. * Carver, R. P. (1998). Predicting reading level in gardes 1 to 6 from listening level and decoding level: Testing theory relevant to the simple view of reading. Rading and Writng: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castles, A., & Nation, K. (2006). How does orthographic learning happen? In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Challenges and controversies about word recognition and reading (pp. 151–179). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  10. Catts, H., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. * Chen, R. S., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coltheart, M. (2005). Modelling reading: the dual-route approach. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 6–23). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. * Conners, F. A. (2009). Attentional control and the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 22, 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22, 8–15.Google Scholar
  16. Cunningham, A. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Wilson, M. R. (1990). Cognitive variation in adult college students differing in reading ability. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development (pp. 129–159). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  17. 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, 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. * de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. * Diakidoy, I.N., Stalianou. P., Karefillidou, C., Papageorgiou, P. (2005). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of texts at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26, 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. * Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. * Dryer, L. G., & Katz, L. (1992). An examination of ‘the simple view of reading’. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 41, 169–175.Google Scholar
  22. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellis, N. C., Natsume, I., Stavropoulou, K., Hoxhallari, L., van Daal, V. H. P., Polyzoe, N., et al. (2004). The effects of the orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 438–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. * Florit, E., Levorato, M.C. & Roch, M. (2008). Verba volant, scripta manent. Cambiamenti evolutivi nella comprensione del testo scritto e orale [Verba volant, scripta manent. Developmental changes in reading and listening comprehension] Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 3, 641–662.Google Scholar
  25. Georgiou, G., Das, J. P., & Hayward, D. (2009). Revisiting the “simple view of reading” in a group of children with poor reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A., & Peterson, C. L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties. Processes and intervention (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. * Hagtvet, B. E. (2003). Listening comprehension and reading comprehension in poor decoders: Evidence for the importance of syntactic and semantic skills as well as phonological skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 505–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. * Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, M. D., & McClelland, J. L. (1979). Processing determinants of reading speed. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 108, 151–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. * Jarmulowicz, L., Hay, S. E., Taran, V. L., Ethington, C. A. (2008). Fitting derivational morphology into a developmental model of reading. Reading and Writing, 21, 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnston, T. C., & Kirby, J. R. (2006). The contribution of naming speed to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 19, 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. * Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keenan, J. M., Betjeman, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientifics studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., & Olson, R. K. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on reading and listening comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. * Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., White, M. J., & van den Broek, P. (2008). Children’s inference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. * Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & van den Broek, P. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of decoding and oral language skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kirby, J., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. * Lerkannen, M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. (2004). Predicting reading performance during the first and second year of primary school. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. * Marx, H., & Jungmann, T. (2000). Abhängigkeit der entwicklung des leseverstehens von Hörver-stehen and grundlegenden lese-fertigkeiten im grundschulalter: Eine Prüfung des simple view of reading-ansatzes [Dependency of reading comprehension development on listening and basic reading skills. An examination of the simple view of reading]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 32, 81–93.Google Scholar
  42. Megherbi, H., Seigneuric, A., & Ehrlich, M. F. (2006). Reading comprehension in 1st and 2nd grade children: Contribution of decoding and language comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Müller, K., & Brady, S. (2001). Correlates of early reading performance in a transparent orthography. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 757–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as a foundation of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, 665–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nation, K., & Norbury, C. F. (2005). Why reading comprehension fails: Insights from developmental disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Semantic processing skills and the development of word recognition: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming. Cognition, 70, 81–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. * Neuhaus, G. F., Roldan, L. W., Boulware-Goodan, R., Swank, P. R. (2006). Parsimonious reading models: Identifying teachable subskills. Reading Psychology, 27, 73–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oakhill, J. V. & Cain, K. (2011). The precursors of reading comprehension and word reading in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading (in press).Google Scholar
  50. Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence for component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. * Ouellette, G. & Beers, A. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paris, S. G., Carpenter, R. D., Paris, A. H., & Hamilton, E. E. (2005). Spurious and genuine correlates of children’s reading comprehension. In S. G. Stahl (Ed.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 131–160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C., & Tressoldi, P. E. (1993). Learning to read: Evidence on the distinction between decoding and comprehension skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading Ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. * Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Washington, DC: RAND.Google Scholar
  57. * Roch, M. & Levorato, M. C. (2009). Simple view of reading in Down syndrome: The role of listening comprehension and reading skills. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 2, 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Savage, R. S. (2006). Reading comprehension is not always the product of nonsense word decoding and linguistic comprehension: Evidence from teenagers who are extremely poor readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. * Sears, S., & Keogh, B. (1993). Predicting reading performance using the Slingerland Procedures. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. * Seigneuric, A., & Ehrlich, M. F. (2005). Contribution of working memory capacity to children’s reading comprehension. A longitudinal investigation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 617–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. * Seigneuric, A., Ehrlich, M. F., Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (2000). Working memory resources and children’s reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 13, 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Share, D. L. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Snowling, M. J. (2000). Dyslexia (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. * Sparks, R., Patton, J., Granschow, l., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term cross-linguistic transfer of skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. * Spear-Swerling, L. (2004). Fourth graders’ performance on a state-mandated assessment involving two different measures of reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 25, 121–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. * Spear-Swerling, L. (2006). Children’s reading comprehension and oral reading fluency in easy test. Reading and Writing, 19, 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. * Spooner, A., Baddeley, A., & Gathercole, S. (2004). Can reading accuracy and comprehension be separated in the Nale Analysis of Reading Ability? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 187204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stuart, M., Stainthorp, R., & Snowling, M. (2008). Literacy as a complex activity: Deconstructing the simple view of reading. Literacy, 42, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Su, Y., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. * 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, 383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32.Google Scholar
  74. Wimmer, H. (1993). Charactheristics of developmental Dyslexia in a regular writing system. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 14, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wimmer, H. (2006). Don’t neglect reading fluency! Developmental Science, 9, 447–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Poor reading: A deficit in skill-automatization or a phonological deficit? Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Psicologia dello Sviluppo e dei Processi di SocializzazioneUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations