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?

Wagner, Richard K.; Beal, Bethany; Zirps, Fotena A.; Spencer, Mercedes

doi:10.1007/s11881-021-00232-2

Published: 03 June 2021

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?

Richard K. Wagner ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3243-7894¹,
Bethany Beal¹,
Fotena A. Zirps¹ &
Mercedes Spencer²

Annals of Dyslexia volume 71, pages 260–281 (2021)Cite this article

1108 Accesses
2 Citations
63 Altmetric
Metrics details

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, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Early reading diagnostic assessment technical Manual (2^nd 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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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 1^st 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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
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.
Article Google Scholar
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge University Press.

Download references

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

Affiliations

Departments of Psychology and the Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA
Richard K. Wagner, Bethany Beal & Fotena A. Zirps
Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA
Mercedes Spencer

Authors

Richard K. Wagner
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Bethany Beal
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Fotena A. Zirps
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Mercedes Spencer
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard K. Wagner.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

Received: 28 February 2020
Accepted: 17 May 2021
Published: 03 June 2021
Issue Date: July 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00232-2

Keywords

Meta-analysis
Prevalence
Specific reading comprehension deficit