In this article, I highlight the impact that the simple view of reading (SVR) has had on the field of reading over the last 30 years. I argue that the SVR has led to many significant advancements in our understanding of reading comprehension. I also contend that it has contributed to some false impressions concerning comprehension that impact research and practice in important ways.
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.
AaronP. G.JoshiR. M.WilliamsK. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–137.
3.
AdlofS.CattsH.LittleT. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component?Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 933–958.
4.
BonifacciP.TobiaV. (2017). The simple view of reading in bilingual language-minority children acquiring a highly transparent second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 109–119.
5.
BoulayB.GoodsonB.FryeM.BlocklinM.PriceC. (2015). Summary of research generated by striving readers on the effectiveness of interventions for struggling adolescent readers (NCEE 2016-4001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
6.
BrazeD.KatzL.MagnusonJ.MenclW. E.TaborW.Van DykeJ. A.. . . ShankweilerD. (2016). Vocabulary does not complicate the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 435–451.
7.
BrazeD.TaborW.ShankweilerD.MenclW. E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 226–243.
8.
CainK. (2006). Children’s reading comprehension: The role of working memory in normal and impaired development. In PickeringS. (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 61–91). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic Press.
9.
CainK.OakhillJ. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 489–503.
10.
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.
11.
CattsH. W.HerraraS.NielsenD.BridgesM. (2015). Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple view framework. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 1407–1425.
12.
CattsH. W.HoganT.AdlofS. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In CattsH.KamhiA. (Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CattsH. W.NielsenD.BridgesM.LiuY. (2016). Early identification of reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 451–465.
14.
ChiuM. M.McBride-ChangC.LinD. (2012). Ecological, psychological, and cognitive components of reading difficulties: testing the component model of reading in fourth graders across 38 countries. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 391–405.
15.
ComptonD. L.MillerA. C.GilbertJ. K.SteacyL. M. (2013). What can be learned about the reading comprehension of poor readers through the use of advanced statistical modeling techniques? In CuttingL. E.MillerB.McCardleP. (Eds.), Unraveling the behavioral, neurobiological, & genetic components of reading comprehension (pp. 135–147). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
16.
de JongP. F.van der LeijA. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 51–77.
17.
DentonC. A.TolarT. D.FletcherJ. M.BarthA. E.VaughnS.FrancisD. J. (2013). Effects of tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 633–648.
18.
DouglasK. M.AlbroE. R. (2014). The progress and promise of the reading for understanding research initiative. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 341–355.
19.
ElbertK. D.ScottC. M. (2016). Bringing the simple view of reading to the clinic: Relationships between oral and written language skills in a clinical sample. Journal of Communication Disorders, 62, 147–160.
20.
EllemanA.LindoE.MorphyP.ComptonD. (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.
21.
FloritE.CainK. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?Educational Psychology Review, 23, 553–576.
22.
FoormanB. R.TorgesenJ. K.CrawfordE.PetscherY. (2009). Assessments to guide reading instruction in K-12: Decisions supported by the new Florida system. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35, 13–19.
23.
FuchsD.HendricksE.WalshM. E.FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. D.TracyW.. . . KimW. (in press). Evaluating the efficacy of a multidimensional reading comprehension program for at-risk students and reconsidering the lowly reputation of tests of near transfer. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.
24.
GoughP.HooverW.PetersonC. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In CornoldiC.OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
GoughP.TunmerW. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
26.
HoS.ChowB.WongS.WayeM.BishopD. V. M. (2012). The genetic and environmental foundation of the simple view of reading in Chinese. PLoS ONE, 7(10), Article e47872.
27.
HooverW.GoughP. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
28.
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.
29.
JoshiM.AaronP. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.
30.
JoshiM.JiX.BreznitzZ.AmielM.YuliaA. (2015). Validation of the simple view of reading in Hebrew—A semitic language. Scientific Studies in Reading, 19, 243–252.
31.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
32.
KendeouP.van den BroekP.WhiteM.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.
33.
KershawS.SchatschneiderC. (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 433–464.
34.
KintschW.van DijkT. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
35.
KirbyJ. R.SavageR. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading?Literacy, 42, 75–82.
36.
Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things simple?Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 151–169.
37.
Language and Reading Research Consortium, & LoganJ. (2017). Pressure points in reading comprehension: A quantile multiple regression analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 451–464.
38.
LervagA.HulmeC.Melby-LervagM. (2017). Unpicking the developmental relationship between oral language skills and reading comprehension: It’s simple, but complex. Child Development. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/cdev.12861
39.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J.FallerS. E.KelleyJ. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 196–228.
40.
LipsonM. Y.WixsonK. K. (1986). Reading disability research: An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56, 111–136.
41.
LovettM. W.FrijtersJ. C.WolfM.SteinbachK. A.SevcikR. A.MorrisR. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 889–914.
42.
McNamaraD. S.GraesserA. C.LouwerseM. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across the ages and genres. In SabatiniJ. P.AlbroE.O’ ReillyR. T. (Eds.), Measuring up (pp. 89–119). Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
43.
NationK.CockseyJ.TaylorJ. S.BishopD. V. (2010). A longitudinal investigation of early reading and language skills in children with poor reading comprehension. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 51, 1031–1039.
44.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
45.
OrtizM.FolsomJ. S.Al OtaibaS.GreulichL.Thomas-TateS.ConnorC. M. (2012). The componential model of reading: Predicting first grade reading performance of culturally diverse students from ecological, psychological, and cognitive factors, assessed at kindergarten entry. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 406–417.
46.
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.
47.
PearsonD. P.ValenciaS. W.WixsonK. (2014). Complicating the world of reading assessment: Toward better assessments for better teaching. Theory Into Practice, 53, 236–246.
48.
PhillipsB. M.KimY.-S.LoniganC. J.ConnorC. M. (2015, July). Language for understanding: Two large-scale studies of small-group language interventions in prekindergarten and kindergarten. Presentation at Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Kona, HI.
49.
PiastaS., Language and Reading Research Consortium, & JiangH. (2016, July). Targeting lower- and higher-level language skills to support comprehension: Initial results for let’s know. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Porto, Portugal.
50.
ProtopapasA.MouzakiA.SideridisG. D.KotsolakouA.SimosP. G. (2013). The role of vocabulary in the context of the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 168–202.
51.
ProtopapasA.SimosP. G.SideridisG. D.MouzakiA. (2012). The components of the simple view of reading: A confirmatory factor analysis. Reading Psychology, 33, 217–240.
52.
RoseJ. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading. Nottingham, UK: DfES Publications.
53.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG.VaughnS. R.StuebingK. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390.
54.
SnowC. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
55.
StorchS. A.WhitehurstG. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947.
56.
SwansonE.HairrellA.KentS.CiulloS.WanzekJ. A.VaughnS. (2014). A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 178–195.
57.
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.
58.
TobiaV.BonifacciP. (2015). The simple view of reading in a transparent orthography: The stronger role of oral comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 939–957.
59.
TunmerW. E.ChapmanJ. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 453–466.
60.
van WingerdenE.SegersE.van BalkomH.VerhoevenL. (2017). Foundations of reading comprehension in children with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 60, 211–222.
61.
VerhoevenL.van LeeuweJ. (2012). The simple view of second language reading throughout the primary grades. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 1806–1818.
62.
WanzekJ.SwansonE.VaughnS.RobertsG.FallA. M. (2016). English learner and non-English learner students with disabilities: Content acquisition and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 82, 428–442.
63.
WillinghamD. T. (2006). How knowledge helps. American Educator, 30, 30–37.
