Abstract
As readers struggle to coordinate various reading- and language-related skills during oral reading fluency (ORF), miscues can emerge, especially when processing complex texts. Following a miscue, students often self-correct as a strategy to potentially restore ORF and online linguistic comprehension. Executive functions (EF) are hypothesized to play an interactive role during ORF. Yet, the role of EF in self-corrections while reading complex texts remains elusive. To this end, we evaluated the relation between students’ probability of self-correcting miscues—or P(SC)—and their EF profile in a cohort of 143 participants (aged 9–15) who represented a diverse spectrum of reading abilities. Moreover, we used experimentally-manipulated passages (decoding, vocabulary, syntax, and cohesion) and employed a fully cross-classified mixed-effects multilevel regression strategy to evaluate the interplay between components of ORF, EF, and text complexity. Our results revealed that, after controlling for reading and language abilities, increased production of miscues across different passage conditions was explained by worse EF. We also found that students with better EF exhibited greater P(SC) when reading complex texts. While text complexity taxes students’ EF and influences their production of miscues, findings suggest that EF may be interactively recruited to restore ORF via self-correcting oral reading errors. Overall, our results suggest that domain-general processes (e.g., EF) are associated with production of miscues and may underlie students’ behavior of self-corrections, especially when reading complex texts. Further understanding of the relation between different components of ORF and cognitive processes may inform intervention strategies to improve reading proficiency and overall academic performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aboud, K. S., Bailey, S. K., Del Tufo, S. N., Barquero, L. A., & Cutting, L. E. (2019). Fairy tales versus facts: Genre matters to the developing brain. Cerebral Cortex. https://doi.org/10.1093/cencor/bhz025.
Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Verbal working memory and language production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information. Psychological Bulletin,135(1), 50–68.
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373.
Allington, R. L. (1983a). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher,36(6), 556–561.
Allington, R. L. (1983b). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal,83(5), 548–559.
Altemeier, L. E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2008). Executive functions for reading and writing in typical literacy development and dyslexia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Psychology,30(5), 588–606.
Amendum, S. J., Conradi, K., & Hiebert, E. (2018). Does text complexity matter in the elementary grades? A research synthesis of text difficulty and elementary students’ reading fluency and comprehension. Educational Psychology Review,30, 121–151.
Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online,8(2), 283–297.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with cross random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language,59(4), 390–412.
Baker. (1984). Children’s effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 588–597.
Benjamin, R. G. (2011). Reconstructing readability: Recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educational Psychology Review,24, 63–88.
Berninger, V. W., & Nagy, W. E. (2008). “Flexibility in word reading: Multiple levels of representations, complex mappings, spatial similarities, and cross-modal connections,” in Literacy Process: Cognitive Flexibility in Learning and Teaching, ed. K. B. Cartwright: New York, The Guildford Press.
Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McMamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Top Language Disorders,25(1), 65–83.
Biemiller, A. (1970). The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly,6, 75–96.
Bloom, C. P., Fletcher, C. R., van den Broek, P., Reitz, L., & Shapiro, B. P. (1990). An on-line assessment of causal reasoning during comprehension. Memory & Cognition,18(1), 65–71.
Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In J. C. Impara & L. L. Murphy (Eds.), Buros-Nebraska series on measurement and testing: Issues in measurement of metacognition (pp. 1–41). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
Bowey, J. A. (1986). Syntactic awareness in relation to reading skill and ongoing reading comprehension monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,41(2), 282–299.
Breznitz, Z. (2006). Fluency in reading: Synchronization of processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2015). Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: Prediction takes precedence. Cognition,136, 135–149.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology,96(1), 31–42.
Cartwright, K. B., Marshall, T. R., Huemer, C. M., & Payne, J. B. (2019). Executive function in the classroom: Cognitive flexibility supports reading fluency for typical readers and teacher-identified low-achieving readers. Research in Developmental Disabilities,88, 42–52.
Cattell, M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind,2, 63–85.
Chinn, C. A., Waggoner, M. A., Anderson, R. C., Schommer, M., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1993). Situated actions during reading lessons: A microanalysis of oral reading error episodes. American Educational Research Journal,30(2), 361–392.
Christopher, M. E., Miyake, A., Keenan, J. M., Pennington, B., DeFries, J. C., Wadsworth, S. J., et al. (2012). Predicting word reading and comprehension with executive function and speed measures across development: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,141(3), 470–488.
Cirino, P. T., Miciak, J., Ahmed, Y., Barnes, M. A., Taylor, W. P., & Gerst, E. H. (2019). Executive function: Association with multiple reading skills. Reading and Writing,32, 1819–1846.
Clay, M. M. (1968). A syntactic Analysis of reading errors. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,7(2), 434–438.
Clay, M. M. (1969). Reading errors and self-correction behavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology,39(1), 47–56.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for english language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: CCSSO & National Governors Association.
Compton, D. L., Appleton, A. C., & Hosp, M. K. (2004). Exploring the relationship between text-leveling systems and reading accuracy and fluency in second-grade students who are average and poor decoders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,19(3), 176–184.
Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A. S., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects on fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of Dyslexia,59(1), 34–54.
Cutting, L. E., Saha, N., & Hasselbring, T. (2017). U.S. Patent Application No. 62509856. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
D’Angelo, K. (1981). Correction behavior of good and poor readers. Literacy Research and Instruction,21(2), 123–129.
Daneman, M. (1991). Working memory as a predictor of verbal fluency. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,20(6), 1991.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,19(4), 450–466.
Deak, G. O. (2003). The development of cognitive flexibility and language abilities. Advances in Child Development and Behavior,31, 271–327.
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). The Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
Deutsch, A., & Bentin, S. (1996). Attention factors mediating syntactic deficiency in reading-disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,63, 386–415.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology,64, 135–168.
Doehring, D. G. (1976). Acquisition of rapid reading responses. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development,165(2), 1–54.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., et al. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning the associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly,22(3), 247–368.
Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,104(3), 515–528.
Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,20(6), 641–655.
Ellis, N. C., & Sinclair, S. G. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A(1), 234–250.
Faulkner, H. J., & Levy, B. A. (1994). How text difficulty and reader skill interact to produce differential reliance on word and content overlap in reading transfer. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,58, 1–24.
Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development,3(1), 30–37.
Forbes, S., Poparad, M. A., & McBride, M. (2004). To err is human: To self-correct is to learn. The Reading Teacher,57(6), 566–572.
Frederiksen, J. R. (1981a). Sources of process interactions in reading. In A. M. Lesgold & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Interactive processes in reading (pp. 361–386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Frederiksen, J. R. (1981b). A componential theory of reading skills and their interactions (ONR Final Report No. 4649). Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek & Newman.
Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficult, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,18(3), 277–294.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How growth can we expect? School Psychology Review,22, 27–48.
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(3), 239–256.
Garavan, H., Ross, T. J., Murphy, K., Roche, R. A. P., & Stein, E. A. (2002). Dissociable executive functions in the dynamic control of behavior: Inhibition, error detection, and correction. NeuroImage,17, 1820–1829.
Gerrig, R. J., & O’Brien, E. J. (2005). The scope of memory-based processing. Discourse Processes,39(2–3), 225–242.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading,5(3), 257–288.
Goral, M., Clark-Cotton, M., Sprio, A., III, Obler, L. K., Verkuilen, J., & Albert, M. L. (2011). The contribution of set switching and working memory to sentence processing in older adults. Experimental Aging Research,37, 516–538.
Graesser, A. C., McMamara, D. S., Cai, Z., Conley, M., Li, H., & Pennebaker, J. (2014). Coh-Metrix measures text characteristics at multiple levels of language and discourse. The Elementary School Journal,115(2), 210–229.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York: Guilford.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,36, 193–202.
Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children,24, 41–44.
Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the common core state standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Researcher,42(1), 44–51.
Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., Castaneda, R., & Spichtig, A. (2019). An analysis of the features of words that influence vocabulary difficulty. Education Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010008.
Hoffman, J. V., Roser, N. L., Salas, R., Patterson, E., & Pennington, J. (2001). Text leveling and “Little Books” in first-grade reading. Journal of Literacy Research,33, 507–528.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four Factor Index of Social Status (Unpublished Manuscript). Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Hudson, R. F., Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Torgesen, J. K. (2008). The complex nature of reading fluency: A multidimensional view. Reading & Writing Quarterly,25(1), 4–32.
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003a). Accuracy and Fluency in list and context reading of skilled and reading disabled groups: Absolute and relative performance levels. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,18, 237–245.
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003b). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology,95(4), 719–729.
Johnston, P., & Goatley, V. (2014). Research making its way into classroom practice. The Reading Teacher,68(4), 245–250.
Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Kramer, J., Delis, D. C., & Morris, R. D. (1999). Wechsler individual intelligence scale, third edition: process instrument. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Kendeou, P., van de Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,29(1), 10–16.
Kim, Y.-S. G. (2015). Developmental, component-based model of reading fluency: An investigation of predictors of word-reading fluency, text-reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,50(4), 459–481.
King, J., & Just, A. D. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory,30(5), 580–602.
Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,100(2), 310–321.
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly,45(2), 230–251.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information of processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology,6, 293–323.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory-5 (QRI). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Leu, D. J. (1982). Oral reading error analysis: A critical review of research and application. Reading Research Quarterly,17(3), 420–437.
Locascio, G., Mahone, E. M., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2010). Executive dysfunction among children with reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities,43(5), 441–454.
Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R. (1997). Individual differences in readers’ sentence- and text-level representations. Journal of Memory and Language,36(1), 129–145.
MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology,24(1), 56–98.
Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,12, 191–218.
Marston, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1985). Measuring pupil progress: A comparison of standardized achievement tests and curriculum-related measures. Diagnostique,11(2), 77–90.
McGee, L. M., Kim, H., Nelson, K. S., & Fried, M. D. (2015). Change over time in first graders’ strategic use of information at point of difficulty in reading. Reading Research Quarterly,50(3), 263–291.
McNaughton, S., & Glynn, T. (1981). Delayed versus immediate attention to oral reading errors: Effects on accuracy and self-correction. Educational Psychology,1(1), 57–65.
Mesmer, H. A., Cunningham, J. W., & Hiebert, E. H. (2012). Toward a theoretical model of text complexity for the early grades: Learning from the past. Anticipating the Future. Reading Research Quarterly,47(3), 235–258.
Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia,49, 283–306.
Miller, A. C., Davis, N., Gilbert, J. K., Cho, S.-J., Toste, J. R., Street, J., et al. (2014). Novel approaches to examine passage, student, and question effects on reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,29(1), 25–35.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions. Psychological Science,21(1), 8–14.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., & Howerter, A. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology,41, 49–100.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development,69(4), 996–1011.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2011-457). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
Nevo, E., & Breznitz, Z. (2011). Assessment of working memory components at 6 years of age as predictors of reading achievements a year later. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,109(1), 73–90.
Nevo, E., & Breznitz, Z. (2013). The development of working memory from kindergarten to first grade in children with different decoding skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,114(2), 217–228.
Norris, J. A., & Bruning, R. H. (1988). Cohesion in the narratives of good and poor readers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Sciences,53, 416–424.
Nozari, N., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2011). Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cognitive Psychology,63(1), 1–33.
Nozari, N., & Schwartz, M. (2012). Fluency of speech depends on executive abilities: Evidence for two levels of conflict in speech production. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 61, 183–184.
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.
Olson, M. W., & Gee, T. C. (1988). Understanding narratives: A review of story grammar research. Childhood Education,64(5), 302.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (2nd ed., pp. 609–640). New York: Longman.
Pearlmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1995). Individual differences in probabilistic constrains in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language,34, 521–542.
Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, L., Dardick, W., & Tao, S. (2017). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1).
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C. A., & Roth, S. (1981). Some of the interactive processes in reading and their role in reading skill. In A. Lesgold & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Interactive Processes in Reading (pp. 269–297). Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum.
Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher,58, 510–519.
Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97–131.
Pratt, S. M., & Urbanowski, M. (2015). Teaching early readers to self-monitor and self-correct. The Reading Teacher,69(5), 559–567.
Ramscar, M., Dye, M., Gustafson, J. W., & Klein, J. (2013). Dual routes to cognitive flexibility: Learning and response-conflict resolution in the dimensional change card sort task. Child Development,84(4), 1308–1323.
Rasinski, T. V. (1985). The study of factors involved in reader-text interactions that contribute to fluency in reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader. New York: Scholastic.
Recht, D. R. (1976). The self-correction process in reading. The Reading Teacher,29, 632–636.
Reich, W. (2000). Diagnostic interview for children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,39(1), 59–66.
Roberts, R. J., & Pennington, B. F. (1996). An interactive framework for examining prefrontal cognitive processes. Developmental Neuropsychology,12(1), 105–126.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1985). Toward an interactive model of reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 722–750). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaugh, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., et al. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Schreiber, P. A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of Reading Behavior,12, 177–186.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, A. M., Wisenbaker, J. M., Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2009). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology,96(1), 119–129.
Seanz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education,23(1), 31–41.
Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2009). The contribution of executive skills to reading comprehension. Childhood Neuropsychology,15(3), 232–246.
Smith, J., & Elkins, J. (1985). The use of cohesion by underachieving readers. Reading Psychology,6(1–2), 13–25.
Spencer, M., Cho, S.-J., & Cutting, L. E. (2019). Item response theory analyses of the Delis–Kaplan executive function system card sorting subtest. Child Neuropsychology,25(2), 198–216.
Spencer, M., Gilmour, A. F., Miller, A. C., Emerson, A. M., Saha, N. M., & Cutting, L. E. (2018). Understanding the influence of text complexity and question type on reading outcomes. Reading and Writing,31, 1–35.
St. Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Executive functions and achievements in school: shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,59(4), 745–759.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly,16(1), 32–71.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–367.
Stanovich, K. E., Nathan, R. G., & Zolman, J. E. (1988). The developmental lag hypothesis in reading: Longitudinal and matched reading-level comparisons. Child Development,59(1), 71–86.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1979a). Mechanisms of sentence context effects in reading: automatic activation and conscious attention. Memory & Cognition,7(2), 77–85.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1979b). The effect of orthographic structure on the word search performance of good and poor readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,28(2), 258–267.
Stuss, D. T., & Alexander, M. P. (2000). Executive functions and the frontal lobes: A conceptual view. Psychological Research,63, 289–298.
Swanson, J. (2005). The Delis–Kaplan executive function system: A review. Canadian Journal of School Psychology,20(1/2), 117–128.
Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2007). The influence of working memory on reading growth in subgroups of children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,96(4), 249–283.
Swett, K., Miller, A. C., Burns, S., Hoeft, F., Davis, N., Petrill, S. A., et al. (2015). Comprehending expository texts: The dynamic neurobiological correlates of building a coherent text representation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,7, 171–184.
Thorndike, E. L. (1971). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,8(6), 323–332.
Tortorelli, L. S. (2019). Beyond first grade: Examining word, sentence, and discourse text factors associated with oral reading rate in informational text in second grade. Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1145-019-099565.
Tunmer, W. E., & Nicholson, T. (2011). The development and teaching of word recognition skill. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 405–431). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tunmer, W., & Greaney, K. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities,43(3), 229–243.
Van der Schoot, M., Rijntjes, A., & van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2011). How do children deal with inconsistencies in text? An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in good and poor reading comprehenders. Reading and Writing,25, 1665–1990.
Van der Schoot, M., Vasbinder, A. L., Horsley, T. M., & Van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2008). The role of two reading strategies in text comprehension: An eye fixation study in primary school children. Journal of Research in Reading,31(2), 203–223.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Press.
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2002). The interactive strategies approach to reading intervention. Contemporary Education Psychology,27(4), 573–635.
Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, G., & Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 107–116.
Vortius, C., Radach, R., Mayer, M. B., & Lonigan, C. J. (2013). Monitoring local comprehension monitoring in sentence reading. School Psychology Review,42(2), 191–206.
Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Kolk, H. H. J., & Mulder, G. (2001). Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology,38, 41–63.
Wang, Z., Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Weeks, J. (2018). Decoding and Reading Comprehension: A Test of the Decoding Threshold Hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.
Weber, R.-M. (1970). A linguistic analysis of first-grade reading errors. Reading Research Quarterly,5(3), 427–451.
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale for intelligence. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Wechsler, D. L. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1978). Automatic contextual facilitation in readers of three ages. Child Development,49(3), 717–727.
West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1982). Source of inhibition in experiments on the effect of sentence context on word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology,8(5), 385–399.
Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (1989). Test of language competence-expanded. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., Olson, R. K., Chabildas, N., & Hulslander, J. (2005). Neuropsychological analyses of comorbidity between reading disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: In search of the common deficit. Developmental Neuropsychology,27(1), 35–78.
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading,5(3), 211–239.
Wood, F., Flowers, L., & Grigorenko, E. (2001). On the functional neuroanatomy of fluency, or why walking is just as important to reading as talking is. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 235–244). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Woodcock, R. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery test-revised-normative update. Circle Pines, MN: American Service.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson psychoeducational battery III. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Grant Numbers R01 HD067254, R01 HD044073, and U54 HD083211 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Grant Number UL1 TR000445 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Passage topics and manipulations
Topics | Manipulations | # of passages | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Toads | Baseline only | 1 | |
2 | MO | Moths | Baseline or decoding manipulation | 2 |
3 | WB | The West Branch Flood | Baseline or decoding manipulation | 2 |
4 | SS | Sap and Syrup | Baseline or vocabulary manipulation | 2 |
5 | OC | Octopuses | Baseline or vocabulary manipulation | 2 |
6 | IG | Igloos | Baseline or syntax manipulation | 2 |
7 | BA | Bugs of the Amazon | Baseline or syntax manipulation | 2 |
8 | MU | Mustangs (animal) | Baseline or cohesion manipulation | 2 |
9 | HA | Hot Air Balloons | Baseline or cohesion manipulation | 2 |
Appendix 2: Random group assignment for counterbalancing passage administration order
Group | Manipulation | Decoding | Vocabulary | Syntax | Cohesion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Baseline | MO | OC | BA | MU |
Manipulated | WB | SS | IG | HA | |
B | Baseline | MO | OC | IG | MU |
Manipulated | WB | SS | BA | HA | |
C | Baseline | MO | OC | IG | HA |
Manipulated | WB | SS | BA | MU | |
D | Baseline | MO | OC | IG | HA |
Manipulated | WB | SS | BA | MU | |
E | Baseline | WB | OC | IG | HA |
Manipulated | MO | SS | BA | MU | |
F | Baseline | WB | SS | IG | HA |
Manipulated | MO | OC | BA | MU | |
G | Baseline | WB | SS | BA | HA |
Manipulated | MO | OC | IG | MU | |
H | Baseline | WB | SS | BA | MU |
Manipulated | MO | OC | IG | HA | |
I | Baseline | WB | SS | BA | MU |
Manipulated | MO | OC | IG | HA | |
J | Baseline | MO | SS | BA | MU |
Manipulated | WB | OC | IG | HA |
Appendix 3: Examples of baseline and experimentally-manipulated passages
Baseline versus decoding-manipulated passages
Baseline passage: Moths (305 words)
Most folks do not grasp the difference between moths and butterflies. Both insects have six legs and are the same size. Both come out of cocoons. You may think that butterflies are more appealing, but that is not always correct. In fact, several butterflies are a tawny or pale color. By contrast, the wings of some moths have nice patterns or bright colors. A more dependable method to identify them is to note when they appear. Butterflies are awake during the daytime. Most moths only wake up after sunset. There is also a visible difference in their feelers, which are used for sensing their surroundings. Moths have thick feelers that look like feathers. A butterfly’s feelers are skinny with a minor bump at the tip.
Most moths use their noses like straws for drinking nectar from flowers. In fact, one has a huge nose that is three times as long as the rest of its body! Another moth has a nose that is as sharp as a blade. It uses its nose to stab an animal’s skin and suck out the blood. It is called a “vampire” moth because it likes to drink blood. Some odd names have been given to others, too. There are “silk,” “wax,” and “hawk” moths.
Everyone is aware of the fact that flying insects are enticed by lamps. Yet for hundreds of years, nobody knew why. However, scientists now think they can explain this fact. They have seen that the light from the moon and stars enable moths to find their way in the dark. When moths see a light bulb’s glow, they get confused because they think the light is up in the sky. The moths you see swirling around lamps at night are lost. By turning off the lights, you will assist them to find their way again.
Decoding-manipulated passage: Moths (305 words)
Most folks do not realize the difference between moths and butterflies. Both insects have six legs and are the same size. Both come out of cocoons. You may think that butterflies are more colorful, but that is not always accurate. In fact, various butterflies are a beige or neutral color. By contrast, the wings of some moths have pretty designs or beautiful colors. A more reliable way to distinguish them is to observe when they appear. Butterflies are awake during the daytime. Most moths only wake up after the sun sets. There is also an obvious difference in their feelers, which are used for sensing their surroundings. Moths have thick feelers that look like feathers. A butterfly’s feelers are wiry with a miniature knob at the tip.
Most moths use their noses like straws for drinking nectar from flowers. In fact, one has a giant nose that is three times as long as the rest of its body! Another moth has a nose that is as sharp as a knife. It uses its nose to pierce an animal’s skin and suck out the blood. It is called a “vampire” moth because it likes to drink blood. Some unusual names have been given to other ones, too. There are “emperor,” “rough,” and “gypsy” moths.
Everyone is familiar with the knowledge that flying insects are beguiled by lamps. Yet for hundreds of years, nobody knew why. However, scientists now know they can explain this curiosity. They have learned that the light from the moon and stars enable moths to find their way in the dark. When moths see a light bulb’s glow, they get confused because they believe the light is up in the sky. The moths you see circling around lamps at night are lost. By turning off the lights, you will encourage them to find their way again.
Baseline versus vocabulary-manipulated passages
Baseline passage: Octopuses (309 words)
It is hard to say exactly what an octopus looks like. The body is like a soft floppy bag. An octopus is a very flexible animal. That is because there are no bones to give the octopus a shape. In fact, one of its best skills is changing how it looks. Sometimes an octopus will lie flat like a pancake. At other times the octopus will puff up like a balloon. When making itself look bigger, it hopes to scare away an enemy. All octopuses can also control the color and pattern of their skin. Because they can change color patterns, they can hide anywhere at all. An octopus is always trying to make itself blend in with the things by it.
An octopus has eight long arms. Each arm reaches out in all directions to touch and feel things. Unless there is a hurry, the octopus inches around on its arms. Whenever it needs to go faster, it can also shoot through the water. There is a valve by its head that sucks in a big drink of water. Then the water gets shot out all at once. This helps the octopus move forward quickly.
A hungry octopus is a sneaky hunter. While hiding behind a rock, he watches for a kill with his big eyes. He waits and waits until he finally sees something good to eat. Suddenly, the octopus’s arms dart out to grab and carry the food to his mouth. The mouth has a sharp beak like a bird’s. The octopus uses the beak to crack open the shells of favorite treats, like clams and crabs. There is a long tongue inside the beak with little points on it like a fork. Next, he uses his tongue to scoop the meat out of the shells. Finally, the octopus enjoys the yummy snack that he caught.
Vocabulary-manipulated passage: Octopuses (309 words)
It is tricky to say exactly what an octopus looks like. The body is like a soft floppy bag. An octopus is a very supple animal. That is because there are no bones to give the octopus a shape. In fact, one of its best talents is altering how it looks. Sometimes an octopus will lie flat like a pancake. At other times the octopus will puff up like a balloon. When making itself look bigger, it hopes to scare away an enemy. All octopuses can manage the hue and pattern of their skin. Because they can alter color patterns, they can hide anyplace at all. An octopus is always trying to make itself blend in with the objects nearby it.
An octopus possesses eight long arms. Each arm reaches out in all directions to touch and feel items. Unless there is a hurry, the octopus crawls around on its arms. Whenever it wishes to go faster, it can also zip through the water. There is a valve by its head that sucks in a big gulp of water. Then the water gets spat out all at once. This helps the octopus move forward swiftly.
A famished octopus is a sneaky predator. While hiding behind a reef, he watches for a target with his big eyes. He waits and waits until he finally glimpses something yummy to eat. Suddenly, the octopus’s arms dart out to grab and transmit the food to his mouth. The mouth has a sharp beak like a bird’s. The octopus uses the beak for cracking open the shells of favorite treats, like scallops and prawns. There is a long tongue inside the beak with little points on it like a fork. Next, he uses his tongue to scoop the meat out of the shells. Finally, the octopus enjoys the yummy snack that he caught.
Baseline versus syntax-manipulated passages
Baseline passage: Bugs of the Amazon (310 words)
The animals of the Amazon rain forest make it a rare kind of place. There are more types of bugs living there than any other place on earth. In the Amazon rain forest, many bugs have clever ways of killing other animals. Their victims may be bitten or even eaten alive. Some killers attack their prey directly. However, others are more sneaky hunters. Some bugs hide in plain sight to make their victims feel safe. The most deadly killers are the smallest animals in the rain forest.
Spiders can be deadly hunters. The venom from a “black widow” spider is fifteen times stronger than a snake’s. The black widow can kill large animals with just one bite. However, other spiders have to work harder for their meals. The “net-casting spider” spins a small web that it holds like a net. Then the spider waits and waits until a bug comes by. Next, the spider jumps on the bug and covers it with the net very quickly. Finally, when the bug stops moving, the spider gives it a fatal bite.
Bugs from the mantis family are also expert killers. They make a trap to trick their prey. A “dead leaf” mantis sways in the breeze to make itself look like a dead leaf. The “praying” mantis looks like a twig when it sits very still. When a bug lands near, it jumps on its victim for the kill. A mantis will only hunt alone. But other bugs, such as “army ants,” hunt together. They march in big groups, just like human soldiers. These ants attack and eat anything that gets in the way. Every living thing is food to these hunters. Bigger animals have to run away when a colony of army ants attacks. The good news is the Amazon rain forest and all of its scary bugs are far away.
Syntax-manipulated passage: Bugs of the Amazon (310 words)
The animals of the Amazon rain forest make it a rare kind of place. More types of bugs live there than any other place on earth. In the Amazon rain forest, many bugs have clever ways of killing other animals. Their victims may be bitten or eaten alive. Some killers attack their prey directly. However, others are more sneaky hunters. Even in plain sight, some bugs can hide to make their victims feel safe. By far, the smallest animals in the rain forest are the deadliest.
Spiders and other bugs in the Amazon can be deadly hunters. The venom from a “black widow” spider is fifteen times stronger than a snake’s. With just one bite, a black widow can kill large animals. However, other spiders work harder for their meals. The “net-casting spider” spins a small web that it holds like a net. Then, with its net ready, the spider waits for a bug to come by. Next, in a flash, the spider jumps on the bug and covers it. Finally, as soon as the bug stops moving, the spider gives it a fatal bite.
Bugs from the mantis family are also expert killers. They make a trap to trick their prey. A “dead leaf” mantis sways in the breeze to make itself look like a dead leaf. The “praying” mantis looks like a twig when it sits very still. When a bug lands near, it jumps on its victim for the kill. Lone hunters such as the mantis do not hunt in groups. But other bugs, such as “army ants,” hunt together. Just like human soldiers, they march in big groups. Anything that gets in the way will be eaten. For these hunters, every living thing is food. When a colony of army ants attacks, bigger animals run away. However, the Amazon rain forest and all of its scary bugs are very far away.
Baseline versus cohesion-manipulated passages
Baseline passage: Mustangs (309 words)
Spanish soldiers took their horses to America over five hundred years ago. Many of the horses escaped over time, and today their offspring are called “mustangs.” They live in big herds in the open lands of the far west. In the past, mustangs were not protected by any law. It was not against the law for humans to hunt them. A hundred years ago, mustangs had been hunted to make dog food. But Congress finally changed the law thirty-five years ago. In fact, harming a mustang is now a crime that could send a person to prison. Today, state ranchers protect these animals from harm.
Mustang herds are booming these days. State ranchers use airplanes to locate and survey the herds each year. When herds grow too big for their land, some horses are moved to new lands. Other mustangs are put up for adoption, but first the wild horses must be tamed. One of the main places where they tame them is in jails. The inmates are trained to break in horses. To win the trust of the horses, they must be calm and kind. At first, the wild horses do not trust humans. But the mustangs start to enjoy working with their handlers in the end.
The tamed horses are finally ready for new human handlers after a few months of training. The inmates get the horses ready for their new owners. Then, families who want to adopt a mustang visit the jail. They meet the inmates and talk to them about the horses. Next, the inmates explain about the personality of each mustang. Horses differ in how calm, kind, and playful they are. It is important for each owner to choose the right horse. Finally, signing a contract is the last step. It says that the state will take the mustang back if it is hurt.
Cohesion-manipulated passage: Hot Air Balloons (303 words)
Spanish soldiers took their horses to America over five hundred years ago. Over time, many of them have escaped. Today their offspring are called “mustangs.” Now, big herds live in the open plains way out in the far west. A hundred years ago, humans hunted them to make dog food. In the past, there were not any laws to help mustangs. It was not illegal to hunt them. Congress finally changed the law thirty-five years ago. Now, harming a horse is a crime that could send a person to prison. Park rangers protect these animals from danger.
Using airplanes, state ranchers locate and survey mustang herds each year. These days, they are booming. When the herds get too spread out for their area, some horses are moved to new lands. The others must be tamed before they can be adopted. One of the places where that happens is in jails. The inmates take a lot of classes about how to break in horses. To win their trust, prisoners must be kind and calm all the time. The broncos do not like their handlers at first. The mustangs start to enjoy working with them, in the end. Needless to say, it is a very difficult job.
The tamed steeds are ready to be adopted after a few months of hard work. The inmates wash and brush their coats to get them ready to meet their new owners. Families that want to adopt visit the jail. They meet the trainers and talk to them about the horses. Next, the inmates explain about the personality of each mustang. They differ in how calm, kind, and playful they are. It is important to choose the right one. Signing a contract is the last step. It says that the state will take the mustang back if it is hurt.
Appendix 4: Summary of regression results predicting WCPM from EF and reading and language skills for baseline passages only
WCPM | ||
|---|---|---|
B | se | |
Fixed effects | ||
Intercept | − 0.039 | 0.115 |
+ Executive functioning | ||
Reasoning | 0.007 | 0.067 |
Cognitive flexibility | 0.017 | 0.072 |
Planning/organization | 0.148* | 0.072 |
Working memory | 0.171** | 0.065 |
+ Reading + language | ||
Decoding | 0.248** | 0.087 |
Vocabulary | 0.185* | 0.084 |
Morphology | 0.073 | 0.062 |
+ Demographics | ||
Sex | 0.062 | 0.109 |
Age | 0.154** | 0.048 |
Socioeconomic status | − 0.027 | 0.057 |
Random effects | σ | sd |
Participant | 0.226 | 0.476 |
Topic | 0.034 | 0.186 |
Group | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Residual | 0.641 | 0.476 |
Appendix 5: Summary of regression results predicting WCPM
Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | se | B | se | B | se | |
Fixed effects | ||||||
Intercept | − 0.723** | 0.233 | − 0.709** | 0.233 | − 0.705** | 0.241 |
+ Passage covariates | ||||||
Decoding | − 0.291* | 0.114 | − 0.292* | 0.115 | − 0.291** | 0.114 |
Vocabulary | − 0.429** | 0.100 | − 0.423** | 0.099 | − 0.423** | 0.099 |
Syntax | − 0.297* | 0.134 | − 0.280* | 0.135 | − 0.284* | 0.136 |
Cohesion | − 0.030 | 0.111 | − 0.029 | 0.110 | − 0.029 | 0.110 |
+ Executive functioning | ||||||
Reasoning | 0.035 | 0.072 | 0.010 | 0.071 | ||
Cognitive flexibility | 0.056 | 0.077 | 0.095 | 0.075 | ||
Planning/organization | 0.146† | 0.077 | 0.210** | 0.075 | ||
Working memory | 0.214** | 0.070 | 0.206** | 0.071 | ||
+ Reading + language | ||||||
Decoding | 0.305** | 0.091 | ||||
Vocabulary | 0.214* | 0.088 | ||||
Morphology | 0.075 | 0.065 | ||||
+ Demographics | ||||||
Sex | 0.151 | 0.102 | − 0.107 | 0.096 | − 0.125 | 0.080 |
Age | 0.177** | 0.039 | 0.084* | 0.040 | 0.088* | 0.038 |
Socioeconomic status | 0.121† | 0.049 | 0.048 | 0.050 | 0.035 | 0.043 |
Random effects | σ | sd | σ | sd | σ | sd |
Participant | 0.523 | 0.723 | 0.172 | 0.415 | 0.082 | 0.287 |
Topic | 0.076 | 0.275 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Group | 0.009 | 0.094 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 0.092 |
Residual | 0.483 | 0.695 | 0.721 | 0.849 | 0.724 | 0.851 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nguyen, T.Q., Pickren, S.E., Saha, N.M. et al. Executive functions and components of oral reading fluency through the lens of text complexity. Read Writ 33, 1037–1073 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10020-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10020-w