This study investigated the hypothesis that the contributions of oral language comprehension (C) and word recognition (D) to reading comprehension (R) in the simple view of reading (SVR) are not independent because a component of C (vocabulary knowledge) directly contributes to the variance in D. Three analysis procedures (hierarchical regression analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling) were used to analyze data obtained from a sample (N = 122) of 7-year-old students who were administered tests of vocabulary knowledge, nonword reading, word recognition (two standardized tests), and parallel forms of listening and reading comprehension. Results from the regression analysis indicated that vocabulary made a contribution to R beyond that made by word recognition and listening comprehension; results from the exploratory factor analysis showed that two factors (Decoding and Linguistic Comprehension) were extracted, with vocabulary and listening comprehension loading highly on the Linguistic Comprehension factor; and results from structural equation modeling revealed that the latent construct, C, influenced R not only directly but also indirectly through the latent construct, D.
AaronP. G.JoshiR. M.GoodenR.BentumK. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.
2.
BrazeD.TaborW.ShankweilerD.MenclW. E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 226–243.
3.
ClayM. (2005a). Literacy lessons designed for individuals. Part One: Why? When? and How?Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
4.
ClayM. (2005b). Literacy lessons designed for individuals. Part Two: Teaching procedures. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
5.
CuttingL. E.ScarboroughH. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299.
6.
DunnL. M.DunnL. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
7.
EhriL. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135–154). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
8.
GilmoreA.CroftC.ReidN. (1981). Burt Word Reading Test: New Zealand revision. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
9.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
10.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
11.
HooverW.TunmerW. E. (1993). The components of reading. In ThompsonG. B.TunmerW. E.NicholsonT. (Eds.), Reading acquisition processes (pp. 1–19). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
12.
KeenanJ. M.BetjemannR. S.OlsonR. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.
13.
KendeouP.SavageR.van den BroekP. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 353–370.
14.
KendeouP.van den BroekP.WhiteM. J.LynchJ. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778.
15.
KirbyJ. R.SavageR. D. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading?Literacy, 42, 75–82.
16.
KlineR. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
17.
NationK. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248–265). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
18.
NationK.SnowlingM. J. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of word recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 85–101.
19.
NealeM. M. (1988). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability–Revised. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
20.
OuelletteG. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554–566.
21.
OuelletteG.BeersA. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 189–208.
22.
PerfettiC. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.
23.
RichardsonE.DiBenedettoB. (1985). Decoding Skills Test. Parkton, MD: York Press.
24.
RickettsJ.NationK.BishopD. V. M. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 235–357.
25.
RyderJ. F.TunmerW. E.GreaneyK. T. (2008). Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemically-based decoding skills as an intervention strategy for struggling readers in whole language classrooms. Reading and Writing, 21, 349–369.
26.
SabatiniJ. P.SawakiY.ShoreJ. R.ScarboroughH. S. (2010). Relationships among reading skills of adults with low literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 122–138.
27.
ShankweilerD. (1999). Words to meanings. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 113–127.
28.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 340–406.
29.
StothardS. E.HulmeC. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties in children: The role of language comprehension and working memory skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 245–256.
30.
TunmerW. E.ChapmanJ. W. (2002). The relation of beginning readers’ reported word identification strategies to reading achievement, reading-related skills, and academic self-perceptions. Reading and Writing, 15, 341–358.
31.
TunmerW. E.ChapmanJ. W. (2011). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills?Scientific Studies of Reading. DOI:10.1080/10888438.2010.54252710.1080/10888438.2010.542527
32.
TunmerW. E.GreaneyK. T. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 229–243.
33.
TunmerW. E.HooverW. (1993). Components of variance models of language-related factors in reading disability: A conceptual overview. In JoshiM.LeongC. K. (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 135–173). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
34.
TunmerW. E.NicholsonT. (2011). The development and teaching of word recognition skill. In KamilM. L.PearsonP. D.MojeE. B.AfflerbachP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 405–431). New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
UllmanJ. D.BentlerP. M. (2004). Structural equation modeling. In HardyM.BrymanA. (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 431–458). London, UK: Sage.
36.
VellutinoF. R.TunmerW. E.JaccardJ.ChenS. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32.
37.
VenezkyR. L. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English orthography. New York, NY: Guilford.
38.
WilkinsonG. S. (1993). The Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.
