Skip to main content

Should the Simple View of Reading Include a Fluency Component?

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Aaron P. G., Joshi M., Williams K. A., (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike Journal of Learning Disabilities 32: 120–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allington R. L., (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal in reading instruction The Reading Teacher 36: 556–561

    Google 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, NJ

    Google 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, 1378–1396

    Google 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: 331–361

    Article  Google 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): 151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dreyer L.-G., Katz L., (1992). An examination of “the simple view of reading” National Reading Conference Yearbook 41: 169–175

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dunn L., Dunn L., (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised American Guidance Service Circle Pines, MN

    Google 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, NJ

    Google 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: 239–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D., Maxwell L., (1988). The validity of informal measures of reading comprehension Remedial and Special Education 9: 20–28

    Google 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): 6–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Graham J. W., Schafer J. L., (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art Psychological Methods 7: 147–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoover W. A., Gough P. B., (1990). The simple view of reading Reading and Writing 2(2): 127–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jöreskog K. G., Sörbom D. (2005). Lisrel SSI Lincolnwood, IL

    Google 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: 85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuhn M. R., Stahl S. A., (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices Journal of Educational Psychology 95: 3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. LaBerge D., Samuels S., (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading Cognitive Psychology 6: 293–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leslie L., Caldwell J., (1995). Qualitative reading inventory-2 Addison-Wesley New York

    Google 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: 234–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Meyer M. S., Felton R. H., (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions Annals of Dyslexia 49: 283–306

    Article  Google 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 Office

  24. Newcomer P., (1992). Diagnostic achievement battery-2 PRO-ED. Austin

    Google Scholar 

  25. Perfetti C. A., (1985). Reading ability Oxford University Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Semel E., Wiig E., Secord W., (1995). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals-third edition Psychological Corporation San Antonio

    Google 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: 459–479

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tomblin J. B., (1995). Midwest collaboration on specific language impairment National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Washington, DC

    Google 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: 1245–1260

    Google 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. Austin

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wiederholt J. L., Bryant B. R., (1994). Gray oral reading tests-3 PRO-ED. Austin, TX

    Google Scholar 

  33. Woodcock R., (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests-revised American Guidance Service Circle Pines, MN

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wolf, M. (Ed.) (2001). Dyslexia, fluency, & the brain. Timonium, MD: York Press

  35. Young A., Bowers P. G., (1995). Individual difference and text difficulty determinants of reading fluency and expressiveness Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 60: 428–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (1-P50-DC02726-04). Longitudinal data collection was provided by the following examiners: Paula Buckwalter, Connie Ferguson, Juanita Limas, Marlea O’Brien, Jodi Schwartz, and Amy Schminke. The authors would also like to thank Tiffany Hogan for help with earlier versions of this project and Chris Lorenzen for providing the figures for this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne M. Adlof.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1. Variable names, weighted means, and weighted standard deviations.

  Variable name Mean SD
1. GORT-3: Accuracy—2nd grade 8.45 2.78
2. WRMT-R: Word ID—2nd grade 103.60 19.25
3. WRMT-R: Word Attack—2nd grade 94.08 16.91
4. PPVT-R—2nd grade 100.41 15.96
5. CELF-3: Listening to Paragraphs—2nd grade 19.62 4.61
6. CELF-3: Concepts & Directions—2nd grade 9.62 2.95
7. GORT-3: Rate—2nd grade 8.90 2.86
8. DAB—2nd grade 9.99 2.76
9. WRMT-R: Passage Comprehension—2nd grade 99.24 15.52
10. GORT-3: Comprehension—2nd grade 9.07 3.55
11. GORT-3: Accuracy—4th grade 7.96 3.67
12. WRMT-R: Word ID—4th grade 96.82 15.62
13. WRMT-R: Word Attack—4th grade 93.62 16.38
14. PPVT-R—4th grade 102.14 15.53
15. CELF-3: Listening to Paragraphs—4th grade 19.44 5.01
16. CELF-3: Concepts & Directions—4th grade 9.63 3.16
17. GORT-3: Rate: 4th grade 9.34 4.09
18. TOWRE: Sight Words—4th grade 98.71 11.47
19. TOWRE: Phonetic Decoding—4th grade 95.15 13.96
20. DAB—4th grade 9.71 3.21
21. WRMT-R: Passage Comprehension—4th grade 95.73 16.15
22. GORT-3: Comprehension—4th grade 9.60 3.23
23. GORT-3: Accuracy—8th grade 7.36 4.27
24. WRMT-R: Word ID—8th grade 92.49 13.17
25. WRMT-R: Word Attack—8th grade 93.75 14.95
26. PPVT-R—8th grade 100.28 15.25
27. QRI-2: Listening Comprehension—8th grade 7.00 4.11
28. CELF-3: Concepts & Directions—8th grade 9.61 4.16
29. GORT-3: Rate: 8th grade 10.95 5.27
30. TOWRE: Sight Words—8th grade 98.09 11.89
31. TOWRE: Phonetic Decoding—8th grade 91.34 14.23
32. WRMT-R: Passage Comprehension—8th grade 95.48 16.63
33. GORT-3: Comprehension—8th grade 9.25 4.29
34. QRI-2: Reading Comprehension—8th grade 9.45 4.16
  1. Note: All analyses used z-scores based on weighted sample means and standard deviations. For most measures listed above, means and standard deviations are reported as standard scores. These scores were derived from national norms and are based on a normative scale with a mean of 10 or 100 and a standard deviation of 3 or 15. Raw scores are reported for CELF-3: Listening to Paragraphs and QRI-2 measures.

Appendix 2. Correlation matrix.

1 1.00                                  
2 .69 1.00                                 
3 .64 .88 1.00                                
4 .31 .52 .47 1.00                               
5 .17 .37 .32 .63 1.00                              
6 .37 .55 .51 .57 .57 1.00                             
7 .84 .74 .67 .40 .31 .46 1.00                            
8 .54 .72 .64 .57 .50 .60 .64 1.00                           
9 .64 .89 .82 .55 .45 .62 .72 .73 1.00                          
10 .51 .63 .56 .50 .45 .52 .61 .62 .66 1.00                         
11 .63 .68 .62 .41 .30 .43 .65 .56 .65 .50 1.00                        
12 .61 .90 .83 .49 .35 .54 .66 .68 .86 .58 .70 1.00                       
13 .61 .82 .83 .38 .25 .46 .60 .60 .76 .51 .66 .87 1.00                      
14 .35 .56 .50 .78 .65 .61 .46 .63 .58 .52 .46 .56 .46 1.00                     
15 .18 .37 .30 .63 .63 .52 .31 .48 .43 .41 .28 .38 .27 .67 1.00                    
16 .33 .54 .50 .54 .51 .69 .40 .53 .57 .46 .40 .54 .50 .58 .52 1.00                   
17 .65 .77 .70 .48 .40 .49 .81 .67 .76 .59 .83 .76 .66 .52 .38 .45 1.00                  
18 .60 .75 .68 .38 .32 .46 .70 .61 .73 .54 .65 .78 .69 .40 .28 .45 .80 1.00                 
19 .65 .79 .79 .39 .24 .41 .69 .59 .71 .50 .71 .81 .83 .42 .24 .44 .77 .73 1.00                
20 .30 .54 .46 .54 .51 .53 .42 .64 .57 .46 .48 .56 .48 .62 .57 .51 .52 .45 .43 1.00               
21 .54 .78 .71 .58 .47 .63 .62 .69 .83 .60 .65 .84 .74 .66 .48 .61 .72 .70 .68 .65 1.00              
22 .30 .46 .38 .52 .54 .53 .37 .47 .51 .50 .41 .49 .39 .55 .54 .49 .42 .42 .34 .52 .55 1.00             
23 .61 .72 .66 .46 .31 .48 .63 .59 .68 .53 .75 .73 .69 .52 .33 .50 .74 .63 .72 .50 .68 .41 1.00            
24 .60 .82 .78 .50 .36 .53 .61 .66 .79 .57 .63 .90 .85 .58 .37 .54 .67 .72 .75 .55 .80 .52 .71 1.00           
25 .57 .74 .76 .35 .19 .45 .55 .54 .69 .48 .60 .80 .86 .43 .23 .46 .59 .63 .76 .41 .68 .34 .65 .83 1.00          
26 .40 .60 .52 .73 .58 .58 .47 .64 .61 .54 .48 .60 .50 .81 .63 .57 .53 .42 .43 .63 .66 .57 .56 .65 .45 1.00         
27 .33 .47 .39 .54 .51 .47 .42 .57 .50 .48 .45 .48 .41 .62 .58 .46 .50 .38 .39 .59 .55 .47 .51 .47 .32 .67 1.00        
28 .27 .45 .44 .44 .41 .64 .33 .47 .53 .41 .37 .50 .45 .48 .44 .66 .40 .44 .36 .45 .60 .47 .42 .54 .49 .49 .39 1.00       
29 .62 .73 .66 .45 .38 .49 .74 .62 .73 .54 .70 .74 .64 .48 .38 .47 .84 .76 .72 .50 .70 .41 .78 .70 .60 .54 .51 .47 1.00      
30 .55 .69 .64 .41 .34 .43 .65 .59 .68 .49 .62 .74 .65 .45 .31 .43 .75 .80 .71 .47 .70 .40 .66 .72 .61 .49 .43 .46 .82 1.00     
31 .62 .77 .75 .37 .24 .43 .65 .60 .72 .50 .71 .82 .81 .46 .28 .46 .75 .72 .85 .48 .72 .37 .75 .79 .80 .48 .46 .45 .76 .75 1.00    
32 .49 .70 .66 .58 .54 .65 .54 .64 .75 .60 .57 .73 .68 .65 .54 .62 .62 .60 .59 .64 .78 .60 .63 .79 .66 .70 .59 .62 .63 .64 .64 1.00   
33 .18 .37 .30 .48 .51 .44 .29 .44 .40 .39 .34 .39 .35 .59 .55 .46 .37 .30 .28 .53 .52 .51 .42 .43 .27 .56 .62 .42 .37 .35 .37 .57 1.00  
34 .35 .54 .46 .62 .57 .56 .40 .61 .57 .48 .41 .55 .45 .67 .62 .49 .47 .44 .39 .61 .60 .56 .46 .58 .39 .72 .72 .51 .51 .47 .44 .66 .59 1.00
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Adlof, S.M., Catts, H.W. & Little, T.D. Should the Simple View of Reading Include a Fluency Component?. Read Writ 19, 933–958 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9024-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fluency
  • Listening comprehension
  • Reading comprehension
  • Simple View of Reading
  • Word recognition