Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Should the Simple View of Reading Include a Fluency Component?

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gough P. B., Tunmer W. E., (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability RASE: Remedial and Special Education 7(1): 6–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Torgesen J. K., Wagner R. K., Rashotte C. A., (1998). Test of word reading efficiency PRO-ED. Austin

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  • 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Speech-Language-Hearing: Sciences and Disorders, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    Suzanne M. Adlof, Hugh W. Catts & Todd D. Little

  2. Life Span Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    Suzanne M. Adlof

Authors
  1. Suzanne M. Adlof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hugh W. Catts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Todd D. Little
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9024-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation