Probing lexical representations: Simultaneous modeling of word and reader contributions to multidimensional lexical representations.

Abstract

The current study models reader, item, and word contdbutions to the lexical representations of 39 morphologically complex words for 172 middle school students using a crossed random-effects item response model with multiple outcomes. We report 3 findings. First, results suggest that lexical representations can be charactedzed by separate but correlated dimensions of derived-word reading, spelling, and meaning. Second, a reader's morphological knowledge of a root word (e.g., isolate) contdbutes to that reader's lexical representations (i.e., mental representation of form and meaning) of a related dedved word (e.g., isolation). Specifically, when controlling for reader and word charactedstics, knowledge of root-word reading and morphological relatives and self-reported knowledge of meaning contdbuted to dedved-word reading. Similarly, knowledge of root-word spelling and morphological relatives and self-reported knowledge of meaning contdbuted to dedved-word spelling. Also, knowledge of root-word morphological relatives and self-reported knowledge of meaning contdbuted to selfreported knowledge of dedved-word meaning. Our third finding is that after controlling for root-word knowledge, part of the remaining vadability in lexical representations can be explained by reader and word charactedstics, with different patterns of results for each lexical representation dimension. The significant reader charactedstics include reading comprehension, morphological awareness, and vocabulary knowledge, whereas the significant word charactedstics include frequency of the derived and root word, orthographic-phonological opaqueness, and phonological opaqueness. A model of what constitutes and contdbutes to lexical representations for adolescent readers is suggested.

How elementary-age children read polysyllabic polymorphemic words.

“…A root word reading effect almost certainly exists, but its magni tude may be smaller than estimated, and this may have reduced the estimated effect of other factors. However, this stable order pro cedure has a precedent in similar studies by Gilbert et al (2011) and Goodwin et al ( , 2014, and the pattern of effects is consistent with extant data.…”

The relationship of morphological analysis and morphological decoding to reading comprehension

“…As in prior research (e.g., McCutchen & Logan, 2011), we found that scores on each of these skills were only moderately correlated. Targeted future studies are needed to evaluate the multidimensional or unidimensional nature of morphological awareness (e.g., Goodwin, Gilbert, Cho, & Kearns, 2014). Future studies with comparable measures of all three skills could help evaluate the dimensionality of morphological awareness.…”

Exploring the dimensionality of morphological knowledge for adolescent readers

“…In contrast, some evidence from studies with multiple morphological measures indicate that morphological knowledge may be multidimensional (e.g., Berninger et al, ; Carlisle, ; Cho, Gilbert, Goodwin, 2013; Elbro & Arnbak, ; Goodwin et al, , ). Model 2 in Table shows such relationships.…”