A componential approach to understanding reading and its difficulties in preadolescent readers

Abstract

The present study is predicated on the logic of interrelated functional information processing components as an approach to understanding reading and its difficulties in preadolescent readers. The structural equation modelling (and its variants) involved these three latent components: (a) orthographic/phonological component, (b) morphological component, and (c) sentence and paragraph comprehension component. These components were subserved by a total of ten measurable tasks, all administered on-line via the microcomputer under laboratory conditions with reaction time measures as indices of mental representation of word knowledge and sentence/paragraph comprehension. The latent dependent component of reading performance was subserved by standardized vocabulary and reading comprehension tests. The total sample consisted of 298 children in grades, 4, 5, and 6. Maximum likelihood analyses using LISREL show that the data in general do not disconfirm the proposed model for grade 4 readers. The three-component model, with some variables set free, provides a reasonable fit for the grade 5 data but less claim could be made about the goodness of fit for grade 6. The results show the mutually reinforcing and mutually facilitating effects of multilevels and multicomponents of reading. Word structure and word knowledge are particularly predictive of reading. The present Phase 1 work would be validated in a follow-up of another cohort of readers and would also lead to the systematic training of some of the components with poor readers.

Knowledge of suffixed words: A comparison of reading disabled and nondisabled readers

“…Included in her recent findings, Carlisle (1995) found that a test of morphological production given to first graders was a stronger predictor of reading comprehension in second grade than a test of phonological awareness. In addition, Leong (1988Leong ( , 1989 has reported studies with upper elementary students whose results suggest that knowledge of derivational morphology is important for reading comprehension. In one study, of ten independent variables presumed to contribute to reading proficiency, the variable that was the most predictive of reading performance measured the student's ability to offer a derived form, given the base form of the word.…”

“…In one study, of ten independent variables presumed to contribute to reading proficiency, the variable that was the most predictive of reading performance measured the student's ability to offer a derived form, given the base form of the word. Leong (1988) explained that derived words go beyond meaning to include morphosyntactic representation; therefore serving as a nexus linking word meaning and paragraph comprehension. Since accurate reading comprehension is the final goal of reading achievement, it behooves educators to recognize that morphological knowledge may play an increasingly important role in reading achievement as students progress through the grades, beginning as early as second grade.…”

From ITPA Language Profiles to the Componential Analysis of Early Reading Processes

“…Grossly simplifying, there was an overall good t for the Grade 4 structure and a reasonable t for the Grade 5 structure, while the t for Grade 6 was not unambiguous. In fact, the GFI seemed to be reasonably robust for the 10-to 11-year-old groups both in the Phase 1 study (Leong, 1988) and the Phase 2 cohort (Leong, Component Processes 139 1992). The results of the two-phase, two-cohort studies of Leong seem to add to the ndings of the "orchestration" of multiple codes in word reading (Berninger, 1989).…”

“…With this in mind, two developmental studies were undertaken to examine the nature of the different constituents of reading and spelling (Leong, 1988(Leong, , 1992. In these developmental studies it was posited that the latent components of phonology, morphology and simple sentence comprehension, subserved by a number of measurable indicators, and the interaction of the components may explain the reading performance of 10-to 12-year-old students in Grades 4 to 6 and may pinpoint their dif culties.…”

“…The two-phase, two-cohort developmental projects (Leong, 1988(Leong, , 1992 with nearly 300 children in Grades 4, 5, and 6 were predicated on the assumption that skilled reading performance bene ts from a system of integrated, automatic processing of varying component-speci c reading tasks and that the time course of processing of the components and the ef ciency of processing are of particular importance. Moreover, skilled and less skilled readers differ in their mechanisms of processing the components and there are considerable individual differences.…”