The purpose of the present study was twofold: First, the authors investigated if an extended version of the component model of reading (CMR; Model 2), including decoding rate and oral vocabulary comprehension, accounted for more of the variance in reading comprehension than the commonly used measures of the cognitive factors in the CMR. Second, the authors investigated the fitness of a new model, titled the reading efficiency model (REM), which deviates from earlier models regarding how reading is defined. In the study, 780 Norwegian students from Grades 6 and 10 were recruited. Here, hierarchical regression analyses showed that the extended model did not account for more of the variance in reading comprehension than the traditional CMR model (Model 1). In the second part of the study the authors used structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the REM. The results showed that the REM explained an overall larger amount of variance in reading ability, compared to Model 1 and Model 2. This result is probably the result of the new definition of reading applied in the REM. The authors believe their model will more fully reflects students’ differentiated reading skills by including reading fluency in the definition of reading.
AaronP. G.JoshiR. M. (1992). Reading problems: Consultation and remediation. New York, NY: Guildford.
2.
AaronP. G.JoshiR. M.GoodenR.BentumK. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.
3.
AaronP. G.JoshiR. M.WilliamsK. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–137.
4.
AaronP. G.KotvaH. (1999). Component model–based remedial treatment of reading disabilities. In LundbergI.TonnessenE.AustadI. (Eds.), Dyslexia: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 221–244). London, UK: Kluwer.
5.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
AdlofS. M.CattsH. W.LittleT. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component?Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 933–958.
7.
BarthA. E.CattsH. W.AnthonyJ. L. (2009). The component skills underlying reading fluency in adolescent readers: A latent variable analysis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 567–590.
8.
BerningerV. W.DunnA.LinS. C.ShimadaS. (2004). School evolution: Scientist-practitioner educators creating optima learning environments for all students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 500–508.
9.
BlalockH. (1972). Social statistics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
10.
BrazeD.TaborW.ShankweilerD. P.MenclW. E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 226–243.
11.
CattsH. W.AdlofS. M.WeismerS. E. (2006). Language deficit in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.
12.
CattsH. W.HoganH. C.AdlofS. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In CattsH. W.KamhiA. G. (Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CattsH. W.HoganT. P.AdlofS. M.BarthA. E. (2003, June). The simple view of reading: Changes over time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boulder, CO.
14.
ChenR.VellutinoF. R. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 1–24.
15.
ConnersF. A. (2009). Attention control and the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 591–613.
16.
DreyerL.KatzL. (1992). An examination of “the simple view of reading.” In KinzerC. K.LeuD. J. (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives (pp. 169–175). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.
17.
Dudley-MarlingC. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 482–489.
18.
EhriL. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
19.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.SchatschneiderC.MehtaP. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
21.
GeorgiouG. K.DasJ. P.HaywardD. (2008). Revisiting the “simple view of reading” in a group of children with poor reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 76–84.
22.
GoswamiU.BryantP. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
GoughP. B.HooverW. A.PetersonC. L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In CornoldiC.OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and Intervention (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
25.
HøienT. (2007). Håndbok til LOGOS [Handbook to LOGOS]. Stavanger, Norway: Logometrica AS.
26.
Høien-TengesdalI. (2010). Is the simple view of reading too simple?Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54, 451–469.
27.
Høien-TengesdalI. (2011). Remediating reading difficulties. Manuscript submitted for publication.
28.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
29.
HooverW.TunmerW. (1993). The components of reading. In ThompsonG.TunmerW.NicholsonT. (Eds.), Reading acquisition processes. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
30.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
31.
HueyE. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
JohnstonT. C.KirbyJ. R. (2006). The contribution of naming speed to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 339–361.
33.
JoshiR. M. (1999). A diagnostic procedure based on a reading component model. In LundbergI.TonnessenE.AustadI. (Eds.), Dyslexia: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 25-40). London, UK: Kluwer.
34.
JoshiR. M. (2005). Vocabulary: A critical component of comprehension. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 209–219.
35.
JoshiR. M.AaronP. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.
36.
JoshiR. M.AaronP. G. (2008). Assessment of literacy performance based on the componential model of reading. In ReidG.FawcettA.ManisF.SiegelL. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of dyslexia (pp. 268-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
KatzirT.KimY.WolfM.O’BrienB.KennedyB.LovettM. W.MorrisR. D. (2006). Reading fluency: The whole is more than the parts. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 51–82.
38.
KirbyJ. R.ParrilaR.PfeifferS. (2003). Naming speed and phonological processing as predictors of reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 453–464.
39.
KirbyJ. R.SavageR. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading?Literacy, 42, 75–82.
40.
LanderlK.WimmerH.FrithU. (1997). The impact of orthographic consistency on dyslexia: A German–English comparison. Cognition, 63, 315–334.
41.
NationK. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248–265). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
42.
National Reading Panel. (2000). National Reading Panel report: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
43.
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.
44.
PerfettiC. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45.
Saiegh-HaddadE. (2003). Bilingual oral reading fluency and reading comprehension: The case of Arabic/Hebrew (L1)–English (L2) readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 717–736.
46.
SavageR. (2006). Reading comprehension is not always the product of decoding and listening comprehension: Evidence from teenagers who are very poor readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 143–164.
47.
SavageR.WolforthJ. (2007). An additive simple view of reading describes the performance of good and poor readers in higher education. Exceptionality Education Canada, 17, 243–268.
48.
SchumackerR. E.LomaxR. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
SnowlingM. J. (2004). The science of dyslexia: A review of contemporary approaches. In TurnerM.RackJ. (Eds.), The study of dyslexia (pp. 77-90). New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.
50.
Spear-SwerlingL. (2006). Children’s reading comprehension and oral reading fluency in easy text. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 199–220.
TannenbaumK. R.TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 381–399.
53.
ThalerV.EbmerE.WimmerH.LanderlK. (2004). Training reading fluency in dysfluent readers with high reading accuracy: Word specific effects but low transfer to untrained words. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 89–113.
54.
TilstraJ.McMasterK.Van den BroekP.KendeouP.RappD. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 383–401.
55.
TorgesenJ. K.HudsonR. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers. In SamuelsS. J.FarstrupA. (Eds.), Reading fluency: The forgotten dimension of reading success (pp. 25-40). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
56.
TorgesenJ. K.RoseE.LindamoodP.ConwayT.GarvanC. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–594.
57.
TunmerW.GreaneyK. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 229–243.
58.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.LyonG. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
59.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS.ChenR.PrattA.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
60.
VerhoevenL.van LeeuweJ. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407–423.
61.
WolfM. (Ed.). (2001). Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain. Timonium, MD: York Press.
62.
WolfM.Katzir-CohenT. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Study of Reading, 5, 211–238.
