The Contribution of Naming Speed to the Simple View of Reading

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether naming speed makes a contribution to the prediction of reading comprehension, after taking into account the product of word decoding and listening comprehension (i.e., the Simple View of Reading; [Gough, P.B. & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Remedial and Special Education 7, 6-10]), and phonological awareness. In grade 3, word decoding was measured with the Woodcock [(1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests -Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services]. Word Identification and Word Attack subtests, listening comprehension with the Woodcock (1991) [Woodcock Language Proficiency BatteryRevised. Chicago: Riverside Publishing Company] test of Listening Comprehension, naming speed with a picture naming task, and 4 measures assessed phonological awareness.Reading comprehension was assessed in grades 3, 4, and 5 with the Woodcock (1998) Passage Comprehension subtest and in grade 5 with the GatesMacGinitie reading test. The Simple View was evaluated twice: first, with a pseudoword measure for decoding (Grapheme-Phoneme-conversion product) and, second, with a word identification measure for decoding (word recognition product). Hierarchical regression and commonality analyses indicated that the decoding and listening comprehension products accounted for considerable variance in reading comprehension. Naming speed had a small but significant effect after accounting for the GraphemePhoneme-conversion product (2-3%), but little effect after accounting for the wordrecognition product (0-2%). Subgroup analyses indicated that naming speed had its primary effect for less able readers. Commonality analyses supported the interpretation that naming speed contributes after the Grapheme-Phoneme-conversion product but not after the word recognition product because naming speed has already had its effect upon word recognition. These results indicate that it is important how the Simple View decoding term is defined, and that the Simple View may be incomplete, especially for less able readers.

Word reading and reading comprehension: stability, overlap and independence

“…Furthermore, the phenotypic correlations between word reading and comprehension were higher at initial testing (RD r = 78; control r = .65) than at follow-up (RD r = 54; control r = .48), suggesting that the similarity between them decreases over time. This finding supports results from previous phenotypic studies which suggest that word reading ability is a stronger factor in reading comprehension in younger children (Catts et al, 2005;Curtis, 1980;Johnston & Kirby, 2006;Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2006, submitted).…”

“…Keenan, Betjemann, and Olson (2006, submitted) present cross-sectional evidence that within reading comprehension measures, the amount of phenotypic variance accounted for by performance on tests of listening comprehension and word reading tends to shift over time. They demonstrate that in younger children the reading comprehension tasks are more heavily dependent on word reading skill, while in older children the same tasks measure an increasing amount of comprehension skill that is independent of word reading (see also Johnston & Kirby, 2006;Gough et al, 1996;Hoover & Gough, 1990). This suggests that there may be a developmental shift of focus from word reading to comprehension as children get older.…”

What Is Listening Comprehension and What Does It Take to Improve Listening Comprehension?

“…Much evidence has provided support for the simple view of reading in several languages (Catts, Adlof, & Ellis Weismer, 2006 ;Johnston & Kirby, 2006 ;Joshi & Aaron, 2000 ;Joshi, Tao, Aaron, & Quiroz, 2012 ;Kendeou, van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009 ;Kim, 2015 ;Protopapas, Mousaki, Sideridis, Kotsolakou, & Simos, 2013 ), and showed that oral language skills such as vocabulary and listening comprehension are critical for reading comprehension, and their importance increases as children develop reading skills (Foorman, Koon, Petscher, Mitchell, & Truckenmiller, in press ;Kim & Wagner, 2015 ;Kim, Wagner, & Lopez, 2012 ). Despite its recognized importance, however, what it takes to develop listening comprehension has been nebulous, which is in stark contrast to our understanding about skills that contribute to word reading (see Adams, 1990 ;Bowey, 2005 ;National Early Literacy Panel, 2008 ).…”

Η Μορφολογική Και Συντακτική Επίγνωση Ως Δείκτες Πρόβλεψης Των Αναγνωστικών Δυσκολιών Σε Παιδιά Πρώτης Σχολικής Ηλικίας

“…Η μορφολογική και συντακτική επίγνωση ως δείκτες πρόβλεψης αναγνωστικών δυσκολιών σε παιδιά πρώτης σχολικής ηλικίας Μερικές από τις γνωστικές διαδικασίες που προτείνονται ως επιπλέον συστατικά στο ΑΜΑ είναι η ευχέρεια ανάγνωσης (Adlof, Catts & Little, 2006), η γρήγορη κατονομασία (Johnston et al, 2006), η φωνολογική επίγνωση (Savage & Wolforth, 2007στο Georgiou et al, 2009) και πρόσφατα και ο έλεγχος της προσοχής (attention control) (Conners, 2009). …”

“…Για παράδειγμα, ενώ η ευχέρεια θεωρείται πως συσχετίζεται με την κατανόηση (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp & Jenkins, 2001) οι Adlof et al (2006) σε έρευνα με μαθητές των Β΄, Δ΄ τάξεων του δημοτικού και αρχές Γυμνασίου βρήκαν πως η ευχέρεια δεν εξηγούσε επιπλέον διακύμανση της κατανόησης όταν η αποκωδικοποίηση και η προφορική κατανόηση ελέγχονταν. Όσον αφορά την πιθανή επιρροή της γρήγορης κατονομασίας αντικειμένων η κατάσταση περιπλέκεται ακόμα περισσότερο, αφού ορισμένες έρευνες αποκαλύπτουν μια μικρή αλλά σημαντική συνεισφορά στην κατανόηση πέρα από εκείνη που ασκούν η προφορική κατανόηση και η αποκωδικοποίηση (Johnston et al, 2006, Joshi & Aaron, 2000 σε αντίθεση με κάποιες άλλες (Georgiou et al, 2009, Lee et al, 2009). Παρόμοια εικόνα έχουμε και για την επιρροή της ΦΕ (Savage et al, 2007, Georgiou et al, 2009vs.…”