The primary goal of the present systematic review was to examine the criteria and measures used for assessing students with specific comprehension deficit (SCD) who have adequate decoding skills but still perform poorly on reading comprehension assessments. From a systematic review of 32 studies, we found four predominant selection approaches for classifying students with SCD and a wide range of measurements of reading skills used to distinguish students with SCD from skilled readers. In addition, to develop a reading profile for students with SCD, we performed a meta-analysis to quantify the characteristics of SCD by comparing their reading skills to those of skilled readers. Results revealed that students with SCD demonstrated deficits in oral language (i.e., vocabulary and listening comprehension) and reading comprehension, despite adequate decoding and fluency skills. Their reading comprehension deficits (Hedges’s g = −3.28) were also more severe than their oral language deficits (Hedges’s g = −0.95). We provide recommendations and implications for future researchers and classroom teachers.
AdlofS. M.CattsH. W.LittleT. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component?Reading and Writing, 19, 933–958.
2.
AllingtonR. L. (2013). What really matters when working with struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 66, 520–530.
3.
Álvarez-CañizoM.Suárez-CoallaP.CuetosF. (2015). The role of reading fluency in children’s text comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–8.
4.
American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities-oriented research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 38, 481–486.
5.
BonnotteI.CasalisS. (2010). Semantic priming in French children with varying comprehension skills. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 309–328.
BrazeD.TaborW.ShankweilerD. P.MenclW. E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 226–243.
8.
CainK. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335–351.
9.
CainK. (2006). Individual differences in children’s memory and reading comprehension: An investigation of semantic and inhibitory deficits. Memory, 14, 553–569.
10.
CainK.OakhillJ. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers: Reading comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411410042
11.
CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP. (2000). Investigating the causes of reading comprehension failure: The comprehension-age match design. Reading and Writing, 12, 31–40. https://doi.org/1008058319399
12.
CainK.OakhillJ.LemmonK. (2005). The relation between children’s reading comprehension level and their comprehension of idioms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 65–87.
13.
CapinP.ChoE.MiciakJ.RobertsG.VaughnS. (2021). Examining the reading and cognitive profiles of students with significant reading comprehension difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44, 183–196. https://doi.org/0731948721989973
14.
CarlisleJ. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604
15.
CarrettiB.MottaE.ReA. M. (2016). Oral and written expression in children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 65–76.
16.
CarrettiB.ReA. M.ArfèB. (2013). Reading comprehension and expressive writing: A comparison between good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411417876
17.
CattsH. W.AdlofS. M.HoganT. P.WeismerS. E. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders?Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1378–1396. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/096)
18.
CattsH. W.AdlofS. M.WeismerS. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)
19.
CornoldiC.ColpoG. (1998). Prove di lettura MT per la scuola elementare [Tests of reading MT for primary school]. Organizzazioni Speciali.
20.
CornoldiC.ColpoG. (2011). Prove di lettura MT-II per lascuola primaria [MT-II tasks for the assessment of reading in primary school]. Giunti OS.
21.
DeeneyT. A. (2010). One-minute fluency measures: Mixed messages in assessment and instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63, 440–450.
22.
DukeN. K.WardA. E.PearsonP. D. (2021). The science of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1993
23.
DunnL. M.DunnL. M.WhettonC.PintillieD. (1992). British picture vocabulary scale. NFER-Nelson.
24.
DunnL. M.MarkwardtF. C. (1970). Examiner’s manual: Peabody individual achievement test. American Guidance Service.
25.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.
26.
EhrlichM. F.RemondM. (1997). Skilled and less skilled comprehenders: French children’s processing of anaphoric devices in written texts. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15, 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1997.tb00522.x
27.
ElwérÅ.GustafsonS.ByrneB.OlsonR. K.KeenanJ. M.SamuelssonS. (2015). A retrospective longitudinal study of cognitive and language skills in poor reading comprehension. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 157–166.
FoormanB. R.HerreraS.PetscherY.MitchellA.TruckenmillerA. (2015b). The structure of oral language and reading and their relation to comprehension in kindergarten through grade 2. Reading and Writing, 28, 655–681.
30.
FrickeS.Bowyer-CraneC.HaleyA. J.HulmeC.SnowlingM. J. (2013). Efficacy of language intervention in the early years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12010
31.
GarcíaJ. R.CainK. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84, 74–111.
32.
GeorgiouG. K.DasJ. P.HaywardD. (2009). Revisiting the “simple view of reading” in a group of children with poor reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326210
HartB.RisleyT. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30-million-word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27, 4–9.
35.
HedgesL. V. (1982). Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 490–499. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998601800327
36.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65.
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.
39.
KeenanJ. M.HuaA. N.MeenanC. E.PenningtonB. F.WillcuttE.OlsonR. K. (2014). Issues in identifying poor comprehenders. L’Année Psychologique, 114, 753–777.
40.
KendeouP.SavageR.BroekP. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6
41.
KimY. S. G.PilcherH. (2016). What is listening comprehension and what does it take to improve listening comprehension? In SchiffR.JoshiM. (Eds.), Interventions in learning disabilities (pp. 159–173). Springer.
KlaudaS. L.GuthrieJ. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 310–321.
44.
LeeS. H.TsaiS.-F. (2017). Experimental intervention research on students with specific poor comprehension: A systematic review of treatment outcomes. Reading Writing Quarterly, 30, 917–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9697-x
LiL.WuX. (2015). Effects of metalinguistic awareness on reading comprehension and the mediator role of reading fluency from grades 2 to 4. PLOS ONE, 10, 1–16.
MegherbiH.EhrlichM. F. (2005). Language impairment in less skilled comprehenders: The on-line processing of anaphoric pronouns in a listening situation. Reading and Writing, 18, 715–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-8131-6
49.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040601145166
50.
NationK.SnowlingM. J. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal readers and poor comprehenders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 229–241.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
53.
NealeM. D. (1989). The Neale analysis of reading ability—Revised British edition. NFER-Nelson.
54.
NealeM. D. (1997). Neale analysis of reading ability—Second revised British edition. NFER Nelson.
55.
OakhillJ.HarttJ.SamolsD. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18, 657–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z
56.
O’ReillyT.SabatiniJ.BruceK.PillarisettiS.McCormickC. (2012). Middle school reading assessment: Measuring what matters under a RTI framework. Reading Psychology, 33, 162–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.631865
57.
OuelletteG.BeersA. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23, 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9159-1
58.
PikulskiJ. J.ChardD. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.6.2
59.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension.
60.
RickettsJ.NationK.BishopD. V. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 235–257.
61.
RickettsJ.SperringR.NationK. (2014). Educational attainment in poor comprehenders. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 445. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00445
62.
RønbergL. F.PetersenD. K. (2016). How specific are specific comprehension difficulties? An investigation of poor reading comprehension in nine-year-olds. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 72–89.
63.
SemelE.WiigE. H.SecordW. (1987). Clinical evaluations of language fundamentals-revised. The Psychological Corporation.
64.
SilvaM.CainK. E. (2015). The relations between lower and higher-level comprehension skills and their role in prediction of early reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 321–331.
65.
SilvermanR. D.SpeeceD. L.HarringJ. R.RitcheyK. D. (2013). Fluency has a role in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 108–133.
66.
SolariE. J.GrimmR. P.McIntyreN. S.ZajicM.MundyP. C. (2019). Longitudinal stability of reading profiles in individuals with higher functioning autism. Autism, 23, 1911–1926.
67.
SpencerM.WagnerR. K. (2018). The comprehension problems of children with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88, 366–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317749187
68.
ReutzelD.R.CooterR. B., (2009). The essentials of teaching children to read: What every teacher should know! (2nd ed). Allyn and Bacon Publishing Company.
69.
Tanner-SmithE. E.TiptonE. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 13–30.
70.
TiptonE.PustejovskyJ. E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40, 604–634. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615606099
71.
TongX.DeaconS. H.KirbyJ. R.CainK.ParrilaR. (2011). Morphological awareness: A key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509971
WoodcockR. W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests: WRMT. American Guidance Service.
75.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III tests of achievement. Riverside.
76.
ZajicM. C.SolariE. J.GrimmR. P.McIntyreN. S.MundyP. C. (2020). Relationships between reading profiles and narrative writing abilities in school-age children with autism spectrum disorder. Reading and Writing, 33, 531–1556.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
