The authors propose an integrative theoretical model of reading called the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER) that builds on and extends several prominent theoretical models of reading. According to DIER, the following skills and knowledge are involved in reading comprehension: word reading, listening comprehension, text reading fluency, background knowledge (content knowledge and discourse knowledge), reading affect or socioemotions, higher order cognitions and regulation (e.g., inference, perspective taking, reasoning, and comprehension monitoring), vocabulary, grammatical (morphosyntactic and syntactic) knowledge, phonology, morphology, orthography, and domain–general cognitions (e.g., working memory and attentional control). Importantly, DIER also describes the nature of structural relations—component skills are hypothesized to have (a) hierarchical relations; (b) dynamic (or differential) relations as a function of text, activity (including assessment), and development; and (c) interactive relations. The authors then examined the hierarchical relations hypothesis by comparing a flat or direct relations model with hierarchical relations (or direct and indirect effects) models. Structural equation model results from 201 Korean-speaking first graders supported the hierarchical relations hypothesis and revealed multichanneled direct and indirect effects of component skills. These results are discussed in light of DIER, including instructional and assessment implications for reading development and reading difficulties.
AdamsM. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.
2.
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.
3.
AhmedY.FrancisD. J.YorkM.FletcherJ. M.BarnesM.KuleszP. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 68–82.
4.
AstingtonJ.JenkinsJ. (1999). A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory of mind development. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1311–1320.
BaileyA. L. (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. Yale University Press.
7.
BakerD. L.StoolmillerM.GoodR. H.BakerS. K. (2011). Effect of reading comprehension on passage fluency in Spanish and English for second-grade English learners. School Psychology Review, 40, 331–351.
8.
BakerL. (1984). Children’s effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 588–597.
9.
BakerL.WigfieldA. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452–477. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4
10.
BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.KatzR.FienH.SeeleyJ. R.Kame’enuiE. J.BeckC. T. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high-poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37.
11.
BarnesM. A.DennisM.Haefele-KalvaitisJ. (1996). The effects of knowledge availability and knowledge accessibility on coherence and elaborative inferencing in children from six to fifteen years of age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 216–241.
12.
BinameF.PonceletM. (2015). Order short-term memory capacity predicts nonword reading and spelling in first and second grade. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9577-9
13.
BishopD. V. M.SnowlingM. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different?Psychological Bulletin, 130, 858–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.858
14.
BorstJ. P.TaatgenN. A.van RijnH. (2010). The problem state: A cognitive bottleneck in multitasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 363–382.
15.
BrimoD.ApelK.FountainT. (2017). Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40, 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12050
16.
CainK. (2007). Syntactic awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a special relationship?Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 679–694.
17.
CainK. (2009). Making sense of text: Skills that support text comprehension and its development. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35, 11–14.
18.
CainK.LemmonK.OakhillJ. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–681.
19.
CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.
20.
CarlisleJ. F.KatzL. A. (2006). Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on reading of derived words. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 669–694.
21.
Carrow-WoolfolkE. (1999). Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. Pearson Assessments.
22.
CattsH. W.AdlofS.Ellis WeismerS. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.
23.
CattsH. W.ComptonD.TomblinJ. B.BridgesM. S. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025323
24.
ChapmanJ. W.TunmerW. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related self-perceptions, and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 5–24.
25.
ChoJ.-R. (2009). Syllable and letter knowledge in earlier Korean Hangul reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 938–947.
26.
ChoJ.-R.McBride-ChangC.ParkS.-G. (2008). Phonological awareness and morphological awareness: Differential associations to regular and irregular word recognition in early Korean Hangul readers. Reading and Writing, 21, 255–274.
27.
ChungK. K. H.McBride-ChangC. (2011). Executive functional skills uniquely predict Chinese word reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 909–921. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024744
28.
ChungK. K. H.LoJ. C. M.HoC. S.-H.XiaoX.ChanD. W. (2014). Syntactic and discourse skills in Chinese adolescent readers with dyslexia: A profiling study. Annals of Dyslexia, 64, 222–247.
29.
CollinsA. A.ComptonD. L.LindstromE. R.GilbertJ. K. (2020). Performance variations across reading comprehension assessments: Examining the unique contributions of text, activity, and reader. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 33, 605–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09972-5
30.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.GilbertsJ. K.BarqueroL. A.ChoE.CouchR. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grader readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018448
31.
ConnersF. A. (2009). Attentional control and the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 591–613.
32.
CromleyJ. G.AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.
33.
CurrieN. K.CainK. (2015). Children’s inference generation: The role of vocabulary and working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 137, 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.03.005
34.
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.
35.
DaaneM. C.CampbellJ. R.GriggW. S.GoodmanM. J.OranjeA. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading (NCES 2006-469). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
36.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
37.
DanemanM.MerikleP. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433.
38.
DeaconS. H.KirbyJ. R.Casselman-BellM. (2009). How robust is the contribution of morphological awareness to general spelling outcomes?Reading Psychology, 30, 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802412057
39.
DerewiankaB. (1990). Exploring how text works. Primary English Teaching Association.
40.
DoreR. A.AmendumS. J.GolinkoffR. M.Hirsh-PasekK. (2018). Theory of mind: A hidden factor in reading comprehension?Educational Psychology Review, 30, 1067–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9443-9
41.
EhriL. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135–154). Blackwell.
42.
EllemanA. M.LindoE. J.MorphyP.ComptonD. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1–44.
43.
FloritE.RochM.AltoeG.LevoratoM. C. (2009). Listening comprehension in preschooler: The role of memory. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 935–951.
44.
FoormanB.PetscherY.HerreraS. (2018). Unique and common effects of oral language in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1-10. Learning and Individual Differences, 63, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011
45.
FordD. H.LernerR. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. SAGE.
46.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.CattsH.TomblinJ. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In ParisS. G.StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 35–49). Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.LyonG. R.ShaywitzB. A.ShaywitzS. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380020101
48.
FrancisD. J.KuleszP. A.BenoitJ. S. (2018). Readers and across texts: The complete view of reading (CVRi). Remedial and Special Education, 39, 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325187729
49.
FreedE. M.HamiltonS. T.LongD. L. (2017). Comprehension in proficient readers: The nature of individual variation. Journal of Memory and Language, 97, 135–153.
50.
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(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
51.
FuhsM. W.NesbittK. T.FarranD. C.DongN. (2014). Longitudinal associations between executive funding and academic skills across content areas. Developmental Psychology, 50(6), 1698–1709.
52.
GathercoleS. E.WillisS. S.EmslieH.BaddeleyA. D. (1992). Phonological memory and vocabulary development during the early school years: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 28, 887–898.
53.
GattisM.HolyoakK. J. (1996). Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 213–239.
54.
GoodwinA. P.GilbertJ. K.ChoS. J.KearnsD. M. (2014). Probing lexical representations: Simultaneous modeling of word and person contributions to multidimensional lexical representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034754
55.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
56.
GraesserA. C.SingerM.TrabassoT. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.
57.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
58.
JenkinsJ. R.FuchsL. S.van den BroekP.EspinC.DenoS. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719
59.
JoshiM.AaronP. G. (2012). Componential model of reading (CMR): Validation studies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 387–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411431240
60.
KatzirT.KimY.-S.DotanS. (2018). Reading self-concept and reading anxiety in second grade children: The roles of word reading, emergent literacy skills, working memory, and gender. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01180
61.
KatzirT.LesauxN.KimY.-S. (2009). Reading self-concept and reading comprehension for middle grade elementary school children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9112-8
62.
KearnsD. M. (2015). How elementary-age children read polysyllabic polymorphemic words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 364–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037518
63.
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.
64.
KendeouP.Bohn-GettlerC. M.WhiteM. J.van den BroekP. (2008). Children’s inference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259–272.
65.
KershawS.SchatschneiderC. (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 433–464.
66.
KiefferM. J.BiancarosaG.Mancilla-MartinezJ. (2013). Roles of morphological awareness in English reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking language minority learners: Exploring partial mediation by vocabulary and reading fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 697–725. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000920
67.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. K. (2012). Direct and indirect roles of morphological awareness in the English reading comprehension of native English, Spanish, Filipino, and Vietnamese speakers. Language Learning, 62(4), 1170–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00722.x
68.
KimY.-S. G. (2011). Considering linguistic and orthographic features in early literacy acquisition: Evidence from Korean. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.06.003
69.
KimY.-S. G. (2015a). Developmental, component-based model of reading fluency: An investigation of word-reading fluency, text-reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.107
70.
KimY.-S. G. (2015b). Language and cognitive predictors of text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate analysis. Child Development, 86, 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12293
71.
KimY.-S. G. (2016). Direct and mediated effects of language and cognitive skills on comprehension or oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003
72.
KimY.-S. G. (2017a). Multicomponent view of vocabulary acquisition: An investigation with primary grade children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 120-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.05.004
73.
KimY.-S. G. (2017b). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking the simple view of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643
74.
KimY.-S. G. (2020). Hierarchical and dynamic relations of language and cognitive Skills to reading comprehension: Testing the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER). Journal of Educational Psychology, 112, 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000407
75.
KimY.-S. G.ChoJ.-R.ParkS.-G. (2018). Unpacking direct and indirect relations of short term memory, RAN, phonological awareness, morphological awareness, and orthographic awareness to word reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51, 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417724817
76.
KimY.-S. G.ChoJ.-R.ParkS.-G. (in press). The Korean Test of Language and Literacy Skills (KOLLS). Korea Guidance.
77.
KimY.-S. G.GuoQ.LiuY.PengY.YangL. (2020). Multiple pathways by which compounding morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension: Evidence from Chinese children. Reading Research Quarterly.
78.
KimY.-S. G.ParkC.WagnerR. K. (2014). Is oral/text reading fluency a “bridge” to reading comprehension?Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9434-7
79.
KimY.-S. G.ParkS. (2019). Unpacking pathways using the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW) and the contributions of higher order cognitive skills to writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32(5), 1319–1343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9913-y
80.
KimY.-S. G.PetscherY. (2016). Prosodic sensitivity and reading: An investigation of pathways of relations using a latent variable approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 630–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000078
81.
KimY.-S. G.PetscherY. (2020). Influences of individual, text, and assessment factors on text/discourse comprehension in oral language (listening comprehension). Manuscript submitted for publication.
82.
KimY.-S. G.PetscherY.ParkY. (2016). Examining word factors and child factors for acquisition of conditional sound-spelling consistencies: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20, 265–282.
83.
KimY.-S. G.PhillipsB. (2014). Cognitive correlates of listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.74
84.
KimY.-S. G.WagnerR. K. (2015). Text (Oral)reading fluency as a construct in reading development: An investigation of its mediating role for children from Grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 224–242. doi:10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375
85.
KimY.-S. G.WagnerR. K.FosterE. (2011). Relations among oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A latent variable study of first-grade readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 338–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.493964
86.
KimY.-S. G.WagnerR. K.LopezD. (2012). Developmental relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from grade 1 to grade 2. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.03.002
87.
KintschW. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
88.
KintschW.RawsonK. A. (2005). Comprehension. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Blackwell.
89.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
90.
KuhnM. R.SchwanenflugelP. J.MeisingerE. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4
91.
KuhnM. R.StahlS. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3
LepolaJ.LynchJ.LaakkonenE.SilvénM.NiemiP. (2012). The role of inference making and other language skills in the development of narrative listening comprehension in 4- to 6-year old children. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.020
94.
LepolaJ.SalonenP.VaurasM. (2000). The development of motivational orientations as a function of divergent reading careers from pre-school to the second grade. Learning and Instruction, 10, 153–177.
95.
McBride-ChangC.ChoJ.-R.LiuH.WagnerR. K.ShuH.ZhouA.CheukC. S.-M.MuseA. (2005). Changing models across cultures: Associations of phonological awareness and morphological structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second graders from Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.03.009
96.
McBride-ChangC.TardifT.ChoC.-R.ShuH.FletcherP.StrokesS. F.WongA.LeungK. (2008). What’s in a word? Morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in three languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 437–462. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640808020X
97.
McNamaraD. S.KintschE.SongerN. B.KintschW. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.
98.
Melby-LarvagM.RedickT.HumeC. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer”: Evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 512–534.
99.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2013). Mplus 7.4.
100.
MutterB.AlconM. B.WelshM. (2006). Theory of mind and executive function: Working-memory capacity and inhibitory control as predictors of false-belief task performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102, 819–835.
101.
NathanR. G.StanovichK. E. (1991). The causes and consequences of differences in reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849109543498
102.
NationK.SnowlingM. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 342–356.
103.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Institute for Literacy.
104.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). U.S. Government Printing Office.
105.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. The National Academies Press.
106.
OzuruY.DempseyK.McNamaraD. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242.
107.
PelletierJ.BeatyR. (2015). Children’s understanding of Aesop’s fables: Relations to reading comprehension and theory of mind. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1448. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01448
108.
PengP.BarnesM.WangC.WangW.LiS.SwansonH. L.DardickW.TaoS. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 48–76.
109.
PerfettiC. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.
110.
PerfettiC. A.DunlapS. (2008). Learning to read: General principles and writing system variations. In KodaK.ZehlerA. M. (Eds.), Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first- and second-language literacy development (pp. 13–38). Lawrence Erlbaum.
111.
PerfettiC. A.LandiN.OakhillJ. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Blackwell.
112.
PerfettiC. A.StafuraJ. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37.
113.
QuinnJ. M.WagnerR. K.PetscherY.RobertsG.MenzelA. J.SchatschneiderC. (2020). Differential co-development of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112, 608–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000382
ReardonS. F.KalogridesD.FahleE.PodolskyA.ZarateR. C. (2018). The relationship between test item format and gender achievement gaps on math and ELA tests in fourth and eighth grades. Educational Researcher, 47, 284–294.
116.
ScarcellaR. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (Technical Report 2003-1). Linguistic Minority Research Institute, University of California.
117.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431–459.
118.
SchwaighoferM.FischerF.BuhnerM. (2015). Does working memory training transfer? A meta-analysis including training conditions as moderators. Educational Psychologist, 50(2), 138–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1036274
119.
SeidenbergM. (2005). Connectionists model of word reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 238–242.
120.
ShareD. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584
121.
SilvermanR. D.SpeeceD. L.HarringJ. R.RitcheyC. D. (2013). Fluency has a role in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 108–133.
122.
SnowC. E.UccelliP. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In OlsonD. R.TorranceN. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
123.
SnowlingM. J.Melby-LervagM. (2016). Oral language deficits in familial dyslexia: A meta-analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 142(5), 498–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000037
124.
SparksR. R.PattonJ.MurdochA. (2014). Early reading success and its relationship to reading achievement and reading volume: Replication of “10 years later.”Reading and Writing, 27, 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9439-2
125.
SpencerM.WagnerR. K.SchatschneiderC.QuinnJ. M.LopezD.PetscherY. (2014). Incorporating RTI in a hybrid model of reading disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714530967
126.
StanovichK. E. (1998). Twenty-five years of research on the reading process: The grand synthesis and what it means for our field. In ShanahanT.Rodriguez-BrownF. (Eds.), Forty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 44–58). National Reading Conference.
127.
SteinN. L.TrabassoT. (1981). What’s in a story: An approach to comprehension and instruction. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 213–267). Lawrence Erlbaum.
128.
SwansonH. L.AshbakerM. H. (2000). Working memory, short-term memory, speech rate, word recognition and reading comprehension in learning disabled readers: Does executive system have a role?Intelligence, 28, 1–30.
129.
TigheE. L.SchatschneiderC. (2016). Examining the relationships of component reading skills to reading comprehension in struggling adults readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414555415
130.
TompkinsV.GuoY.JusticeL. M. (2013). Inference generation, story comprehension, and language in the preschool years. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 403–429.
131.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency (2nd ed.). Pro-Ed.
132.
TsunemiK.TamuuraA.OgawaS.IsomuraT.ItoH.IdaM.MasatakaN. (2014). Intensive exposure to narrative in story books as a possibly effective treatment of social perspective-taking in schoolchildren with autism. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00002
133.
van den BroekP.KremerK. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In TaylorB. M.GravesM. F.van den BroekP. (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1–31). International Reading Association.
134.
van den BroekP.LorchR. F.JrLinderholmT.GustafsonM. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081–1087.
135.
van den BroekP.RappD. N.KendeouP. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651685
136.
Van DykeJ. A.JohnsC. L.KukonaA. (2014). Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131, 373–403.
137.
VellutinoF. R.TunmerW. E.JaccardJ. J.ChenR. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32.
138.
VerhagenJ.LesemanP. (2016). How do verbal short-term memory and working memory relate to the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar? A comparison between first and second language learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 65–82.
139.
WaescheJ. B.SchatschneiderC.ManerJ. K.AhmedY.WagnerR. K. (2011). Examining agreement and longitudinal stability among traditional and RTI-based definitions of reading disability using the affected-status agreement statistic. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 296–307.
140.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.
141.
WestS. G.FinchJ. F.CurranP. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56–75). SAGE.
142.
WigfieldA.GuthrieJ. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
WolfeM. B. W. (2005). Memory for narrative and expository text: Independent influences of semantic associations and text organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X143902
145.
YangX.PengP.MengX. (2019). Contributions of basic cognitive processing to Chinese reading: The mediation effect of basic language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2670. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02670
146.
YuillN.OakhillJ.ParkinA. (1989). Working memory, comprehension ability and the resolution of text anomaly. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 351–361.
147.
ZieglerJ. C.GoswamiU. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3
148.
ZwaanR. A.RadvanskyG. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.
