The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the comprehension problems of children who have a specific reading comprehension deficit (SCD), which is characterized by poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding. The meta-analysis included 86 studies of children with SCD who were assessed in reading comprehension and oral language (vocabulary, listening comprehension, storytelling ability, and semantic and syntactic knowledge). Results indicated that children with SCD had deficits in oral language (d = −0.78, 95% confidence interval, CI [−0.89, −0.68], but these deficits were not as severe as their deficit in reading comprehension (d = −2.78, 95% CI [−3.01, −2.54]). When compared with reading comprehension age–matched normal readers, the oral language skills of the two groups were comparable (d = 0.32, 95% CI [−0.49, 1.14]), which suggests that the oral language weaknesses of children with SCD represent a developmental delay rather than developmental deviance. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
*AaronP. G.JoshiM.WilliamsK. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–137. doi:10.1177/002221949903200203
2.
AkinnasoF. N. (1982). On the differences between spoken and written language. Language and Speech, 25, 97–125. doi:10.1177/002383098202500201
3.
BeckI.PerfettiC.McKeownM. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.506
4.
*BishopD. V. M. (2014). [Language and literacy achievement in elementary-aged children: Data from a twin database]. Unpublished raw data.
5.
BishopD. V. M.AdamsC. (1990). A prospective study of the relationship between specific language impairment, phonological disorders and reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 1027–1050. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1990.tb00844.x
6.
BoweyJ. A. (1986). Syntactic awareness in relation to reading skill and ongoing reading comprehension monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 282–299. doi:10.1177/0022219410371676
7.
BusA. G.van IJzendoornM. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403–414. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.403
8.
*CainK. (1994). An investigation into comprehension difficulties in young children (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ETHOS. (240660)
9.
*CainK. (1996). Story knowledge and comprehension skill. In CornoldiC.OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 167–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
*CainK. (1999). Ways of reading: How knowledge and use of strategies are related to reading comprehension. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 293–309. doi:10.1348/026151099165285
11.
*CainK. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335–351. doi:10.1348/026151003322277739
12.
*CainK. (2006). Individual differences in children’s memory and reading comprehension: An investigation of semantic and inhibitory deficits. Memory, 14, 553–569. doi:10.1080/09658210600624481
13.
*CainK. (2009). Making sense of text: Skills that support text comprehension and its development. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35, 11–14.
14.
*CainK. (2010). Reading for meaning: The skills that support reading comprehension and its development. In HallK.GoswamiU.HarrisonC.EllisS.SolerJ. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on learning to read (pp. 74–86). New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
*CainK.OakhillJ. (1996). The nature of the relationship between comprehension skill and the ability to tell a story. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 187–201.
16.
*CainK.OakhillJ. (1998). Comprehension skill and inference-making ability: Issues of causality. In HulmeC.JoshiR. M. (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 329–342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
*CainK.OakhillJ. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11, 489–503. doi:10.1023/A:1008084120205
18.
*CainK.OakhillJ. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 683–696. doi:10.1348/000709905X67610
19.
*CainK.OakhillJ. (Eds.). (2007). Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
*CainK.OakhillJ. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers reading comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 431–443. doi:10.1177/0022219411410042
21.
*CainK.OakhillJ.BarnesM. A.BryantP. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and the relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29, 850–859. doi:10.3758/BF03196414
22.
*CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP. (2000). Phonological skills and comprehension failure: A test of the phonological processing deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 13, 31–56. doi:10.1023/A:1008051414854
23.
*CainK.OakhillJ.ElbroC. (2003). The ability to learn new word meanings from context by school-age children with and without language comprehension difficulties. Journal of Child Language, 30, 681–694. doi:10.1017/S0305000903005713
24.
*CainK.OakhillJ.LemmonK. (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. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671
25.
*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. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.09.003
26.
*CainK.TowseA. S. (2008). To get hold of the wrong end of the stick: Reasons for poor idiom understanding in children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1538–1549. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0269
27.
CarrettiB.BorellaE.CornoldiC.De BeniR. (2009). Role of working memory in explaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 245–251. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.002
28.
*CarrettiB.MottaE.ReA. M. (2014). Oral and written expression in children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 87–96. doi:10.1177/0022219414528539
29.
*CarrettiB.ReA. M.ArfèB. (2011). Reading comprehension and expressive writing: A comparison between good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 87–96. doi:10.1177/0022219411417876
30.
*CataldoM. G.OakhillJ. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 791–799. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.791
31.
*CattsH. W.AdlofS.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. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)
32.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.TomblinJ. B.ZhangX. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142–1157. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/093
33.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.ZhangX.TomblinJ. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0304_2
34.
*ClarkeL. (2009). Inference generation and reading disability. York, England: University of York.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
37.
*CorsoH. V.SperbT. M.SallesJ. F. (2014). Comparison of children with reading comprehension difficulty and control using neuropsychological tasks. In PracanaC. (Ed.), Psychology applications and developments. Lisboa, Portugal: InScience Press.
38.
*CraggL.NationK. (2006). Exploring written narrative in children with poor reading comprehension. Educational Psychology, 26, 55–72. doi:10.1080/01443410500340991
39.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
40.
de JongP. F.van der LeijA. (1999). Specific contributions of phonological abilities to early reading acquisition: Results from a Dutch latent variable longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 450–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.450
41.
DoleJ. A.DuffyG. G.RoehlerL. R.PearsonP. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264. doi:10.3102/00346543061002239
42.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
43.
EhriL. C.NunesS. R.StahlS. A.WillowsD. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447. doi:10.3102/00346543071003393
44.
*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. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1997.tb00522.x
45.
*EhrlichM. F.RemondM.TardieuH. (1999). Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring. Reading and Writing, 11, 29–63. doi:10.1023/A:1007996502372
46.
*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. doi:10.1111/sjop.12188
47.
ElwérÅ.KeenanJ. M.OlsonR. K.ByrneB.SamuelssonS. (2013). Longitudinal stability and predictors of poor oral comprehenders and poor decoders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 497–516. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.001
*Florida Department of Education. (2015). [Florida PMRN data]. Unpublished raw data.
50.
FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.StuebingK. K.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.3
51.
*GarnhamA.OakhillJ.Johnson-LairdP. N. (1982). Referential continuity and the coherence of discourse. Cognition, 11(1), 29–46. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(82)90003-8
52.
*GevaE.Massey-GarrisonA. (2012). A comparison of the language skills of ELLs and monolinguals who are poor decoders, poor comprehenders, or normal readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 387–401. doi:10.1177/0022219412466651
53.
*GiffordD. B. (2013). Identifying specific comprehension deficits in children (Order No. 3566599). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1417048050)
54.
GoughP. B. (1972). One second of reading. In KavanaghJ. F.MattinglyI. G (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye (pp. 331–358). Cambridge: MIT Press.
55.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. doi:10.1177/074193258600700104
56.
HallidayM. A. (1989). Spoken and written language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
57.
HedgesL. V. (1982). Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 490–499.
58.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic.
59.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65.
60.
*HendersonL.SnowlingM.ClarkeP. (2013). Accessing, integrating, and inhibiting word meaning in poor comprehenders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 177–198. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.652721
61.
HolmesV. M. (2009). Bottom-up processing and reading comprehension in experienced adult readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 309–326. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01396.x
62.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160.
63.
HuM.NationI. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403–430.
64.
HulmeC.SnowlingM. J. (2011). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties: Nature, causes, and treatments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 139–142. doi:10.1177/0963721411408673
65.
*IsaksonR. L.MillerJ. W. (1976). Sensitivity to syntactic and semantic cues in good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 787–792.
66.
JermanO. Y. (2007). Does growth in working memory predict growth in crystallized intelligence in children with reading disabilities? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 3270435).
67.
*JusticeL.MashburnA.PetscherY. (2013). Very early language skills of fifth-grade poor comprehenders. Journal of Research in Reading, 36, 172–185. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01498.x
68.
*KasperskiR.KatzirT. (2013). Are confidence ratings test-or trait-driven? Individual differences among high, average, and low comprehenders in fourth grade. Reading Psychology, 34, 59–84. doi:10.1080/02702711.2011.580042
69.
KeenanJ. M.HuaA. N.MeenanC. E.OlsonR. K.PenningtonB. F.WillcuttE. G. (2014). Issues in identifying poor comprehenders. L’année Psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 114, 753–777. doi:10.4074/S0003503314004072
70.
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. doi:10.1037/a0015956
71.
KiefferM. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 851–868. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.851
72.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
73.
KintschW.van DijkT. A. (1983). Strategies of discouse comprehension. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
74.
*KyleF. E.CainK. (2015). A comparison of deaf and hearing children’s reading comprehension profiles. Topics in Language Disorders, 35, 144–156. doi:10.1097/TLD.0000000000000053
75.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
76.
LandiN.PerfettiC. A. (2007). An electrophysiological investigation of semantic and phonological processing in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders. Brain and Language, 102, 30–45. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.11.001
*LesauxN. K.LipkaO.SiegelL. S. (2006). Investigating cognitive and linguistic abilities that influence the reading comprehension skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Reading and Writing, 19(1), 99–131. doi:10.1177/00222194060390040901
79.
*MarshallC. M.NationK. (2003). Individual differences in semantic and structural errors in children’s memory for sentences. Educational & Child Psychology, 20, 7–18.
80.
*Massey-GarrisonA. (2010). Oral language development in ESL and EL1 students with and without reading disabilities (Order No. MR85583). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1328155175)
81.
*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(7), 715–753. doi:10.1007/s11145-005-8131-6
82.
*MegherbiH.SeigneuricA.EhrlichM. F. (2006). Reading comprehension in French 1st and 2nd grade children: Contribution of decoding and language comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 135–147. doi:10.1007/BF03173573
83.
MellardD. F.DeshlerD. D.BarthA. (2004). LD identification: It’s not simply a matter of building a better mousetrap. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 229–242. doi:10.2307/1593675
84.
Microsoft. (2010). Microsoft Excel [Computer software]. Redmond, WA: Author.
85.
*NationK.AdamsJ. W.Bowyer-CraneC.SnowlingM. J. (1999). Working memory deficits in poor comprehenders reflect underlying language impairments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 139–158. doi:10.1006/jecp.1999.2498
86.
*NationK.ClarkeP.SnowlingM. J. (2002). General cognitive ability in children with reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 549–560. doi:10.1348/00070990260377604
87.
*NationK.ClarkeP.MarshallC. M.DurandM. (2004). Hidden language impairments in children: Parallels between poor reading comprehension and specific language impairment?Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 199–211. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/017)
88.
*NationK.CockseyJ.TaylorJ. S. H.BishopD. V. M. (2010). A longitudinal investigation of early reading and language skills in children with poor reading comprehension. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 1031–1039. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02254.x
89.
*NationK.MarshallC. M.AltmannG. T. (2003). Investigating individual differences in children’s real-time sentence comprehension using language-mediated eye movements. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 314–329. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2003.09.001
90.
*NationK.MarshallC. M.SnowlingM. J. (2001). Phonological and semantic contributions to children’s picture naming skill: Evidence from children with developmental reading disorders. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 241–259. doi:10.1080/01690960042000003
91.
NationK.NorburyC. F. (2005). Why reading comprehension fails: Insights from developmental disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 21–32. doi:10.1097/00011363-200501000-00004
92.
*NationK.SnowlingM. J. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359–370. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01250.x
93.
*NationK.SnowlingM. J. (1998a). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 69, 996–1011. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06157.x
94.
*NationK.SnowlingM. J. (1998b). Semantic processing and the development of word recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 85–101. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2564
95.
*NationK.SnowlingM. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming. Cognition, 70, B1–B13. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00004-9
96.
*NationK.SnowlingM. J. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal readers and poor comprehenders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 229–241.
97.
NationK.SnowlingM. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 342–356. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00238.x
98.
*NationK.SnowlingM. J.ClarkeP. (2005). Production of the English past tense by children with language comprehension impairments. Journal of Child Language, 32, 117–137. doi:10.1017/S0305000904006555
99.
*NationK.SnowlingM. J.ClarkeP. (2007). Dissecting the relationship between language skills and learning to read: Semantic and phonological contributions to new vocabulary learning in children with poor reading comprehension. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 131–139. doi:10.1080/14417040601145166
100.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
101.
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). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
102.
*NdlovuK. (2010). Story-writing development from Grades 4 to 6: Do language status and reading profile matter? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
103.
*NesiB.LevoratoM. C.RochM.CacciariC. (2006). To break the embarrassment: Text comprehension skills and figurative competence in skilled and less-skilled text comprehenders. European Psychologist, 11, 128–136. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.128
104.
NippoldM. A.SunL. (2008). Knowledge of morphologically complex words: A developmental study of older children and young adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 365–373. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/034
105.
*OakhillJ. (1982). Constructive processes in skilled and less skilled comprehenders’ memory for sentences. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 13–20. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01785.x
106.
*OakhillJ. (1983). Instantiation in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 35, 441–450. doi:10.1080/14640748308402481
107.
*OakhillJ. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31–39. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1984.tb00842.x
*OakhillJ. (1994). Individual differences in children’s text comprehension. In GernsbacherM. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 821–848). London, England: Academic Press.
110.
*OakhillJ.CainK. (2000). Children’s difficulties in text comprehension: Assessing causal issues. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 51–59. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.1.51
111.
*OakhillJ.CainK. (2007). Issues of causality in children’s reading comprehension. In McNamaraD. S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 47–72). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
112.
*OakhillJ.CainK.YuillN. (1998). Individual differences in children’s comprehension skill: Toward an integrated model. In HulmeC.JoshiR. M. (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 343–367). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
113.
*OakhillJ.HarttJ.SamolsD. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18, 657–686. doi:10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z
114.
*OakhillJ.PatelS. (1991). Can imagery training help children who have comprehension problems?Journal of Research in Reading, 14, 106–115. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.1991.tb00012.x
115.
*OakhillJ.YuillN. (1986). Pronoun resolution in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders: Effects of memory load and inferential complexity. Language and Speech, 29, 25–37. doi:10.1177/002383098602900104
116.
*OakhillJ.YuillN. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. In CornoldiC.OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 69–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
117.
*OakhillJ.YuillN.DonaldsonM. L. (1990). Understanding of causal expressions in skilled and less skilled text comprehenders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 401–410. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1990.tb00854.x
118.
*OakhillJ.YuillN.ParkinA. (1986). On the nature of the difference between skilled and less-skilled comprehenders. Journal of Research in Reading, 9, 80–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.1986.tb00115.x
119.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554
120.
*PelegrinaS.CapodieciA.CarrettiB.CornoldiC. (2014). Magnitude representation and working memory updating in children with arithmetic and reading comprehension disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 658–668. doi:10.1177/0022219414527480
121.
PerfettiC. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
122.
PerfettiC. A.HartL. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In GorfeinD. S. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 67–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
123.
PerfettiC. A.HogaboamT. (1975). Relationship between single word decoding and reading comprehension skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 461–469. doi:10.1037/h0077013
124.
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). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
125.
PerfettiC.StafuraJ. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
*PimpertonH.NationK. (2010a). Suppressing irrelevant information from working memory: Evidence for domain-specific deficits in poor comprehenders. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 380–391. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.005
128.
*PimpertonH.NationK. (2010b). Understanding words, understanding numbers: An exploration of the mathematical profiles of poor comprehenders. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 255–268. doi:10.1348/000709909X477251
129.
*PimpertonH.NationK. (2014). Poor comprehenders in the classroom: Teacher ratings of behavior in children with poor reading comprehension and its relationship with individual differences in working memory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 199–207. doi:10.1177/0022219412454172
130.
RaynerK. (1986). Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 211–236. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(86)90037-8
131.
RaynerK.FoormanB. R.PerfettiC. A.PesetskyD.SeidenbergM. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.00004
132.
*ReA. M.CarrettiB. (2016). Further evidence of poor comprehenders’ difficulty with expressive writing: Exploring the role of inferences. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 51, 145–152. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.01.004
133.
*RickettsJ. (2014). [Language and literacy skills of poor comprehenders and typical readers]. Unpublished raw data.
134.
*RickettsJ.BishopD. V.NationK. (2008). Investigating orthographic and semantic aspects of word learning in poor comprehenders. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 117–135. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00365.x
135.
*RickettsJ.NationK.BishopD. V. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 235–257. doi:10.1080/10888430701344306
136.
*RickettsJ.SperringR.NationK. (2014). Educational attainment in poor comprehenders. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00445
137.
RønbergL. F.PetersenD. K. (2015). How specific are specific comprehension difficulties? An investigation of poor reading comprehension in nine-year-olds. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 72–89. doi:10.1080/00313831.2014.996594
138.
RothF. P.SpeeceD. L.CooperD. H. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the connection between oral language and early reading. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 259–272. doi:10.1080/00220670209596600
139.
RumelhartD. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In SpiroR. J.BruceB. C.BrewerW. E. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
140.
ShadishW. R.HaddockC. K. (2013). Combining estimates of effect sizes. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 257–277), New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
141.
ShankR. C.AbelsonR. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
142.
*ShankweilerD.LundquistE.KatzL.StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M.BradyS.. . . ShaywitzB. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69–94. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0301_4
143.
SnowC. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
144.
SnowC.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
145.
SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (2012). Interventions for children’s language and literacy difficulties. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47, 27–34. doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00081.x
146.
SpencerM.QuinnJ. M.WagnerR. K. (2014). Specific reading comprehension disability: Major problem, myth, or misnomer?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 3–9. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12024
147.
SpencerM.WagnerR. K. (2017). The comprehension problems for second-language learners with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(2), 199–217. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12080
148.
*SpoonerA. L.BaddeleyA. D.GathercoleS. E. (2004). Can reading accuracy and comprehension be separated in the Neale analysis of reading ability?British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 187–204. doi:10.1348/000709904773839833
149.
*SpoonerA. L.GathercoleS. E.BaddeleyA. D. (2006). Does weak reading comprehension reflect an integration deficit?Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 173–193. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00284.x
150.
StahlS. A.HareV. C.SinatraR.GregoryJ. F. (1991). Defining the role of prior knowledge and vocabulary in reading comprehension: The retiring of number 41. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 487–508. doi:10.1080/10862969109547755
151.
*StothardS. E. (1992). Reading difficulties in children: Problems of decoding and comprehension. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (304045821)
152.
*StothardS. E.HulmeC. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties in children: The role of language comprehension and working memory skills. Reading and Writing, 4, 245–256. doi:10.1007/BF01027150
153.
*StothardS. E.HulmeC. (1995). A comparison of phonological skills in children with reading comprehension and children with decoding difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 399–408. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01298.x
154.
*StothardS. E.HulmeC. (1996). A comparison of reading comprehension and decoding difficulties in children. In CornoldiC.OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 93–112). New York, NY: Routledge.
155.
*SwansonH. L.BerningerV. (1995). The role of working memory in skilled and less skilled readers’ comprehension. Intelligence, 21, 83–108. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(95)90040-3
156.
SwansonH. L.TraininG.NecoecheaD. M.HammillD. D. (2003). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73, 407–440. doi:10.3102/00346543073004407
157.
ThorndikeR. L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. New York, NY: Wiley.
158.
TiptonE. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20, 375–393.
159.
*TongX.DeaconS. H.CainK. (2014). Morphological and syntactic awareness in poor comprehenders another piece of the puzzle. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 22–33. doi:10.1177/0022219413509971
160.
*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. doi:10.1037/a0023495
161.
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. 130–158). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
162.
*TorppaM.TolvanenA.PoikkeusA. M.EklundK.LerkkanenM. K.LeskinenE.LyytinenH. (2007). Reading development subtypes and their early characteristics. Annals of Dyslexia, 57, 3–32. doi:10.1007/s11881-007-0003-0
van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
165.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48.
166.
WagnerR. K.MuseA. E.TannenbaumK. R. (2007). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
167.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192
168.
WeekesB. S.HamiltonS.OakhillJ. V.HollidayR. E. (2008). False recollection in children with reading comprehension difficulties. Cognition, 106, 222–233. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.005
169.
WolfeM. B.WoodwykJ. M. (2010). Processing and memory of information presented in narrative or expository texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 341–362. doi:10.1348/000709910X485700
170.
*YuillN. (1998). Reading and riddling: The role of riddle appreciation in understanding and improving poor text comprehension in children. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 17, 313–342.
171.
*YuillN. (2009). The relation between ambiguity understanding and metalinguistic discussion of joking riddles in good and poor comprehenders: Potential for intervention and possible processes of change. First Language, 29, 65–79. doi:10.1177/0142723708097561
172.
*YuillN.JoscelyneT. (1988). Effect of organizational cues and strategies on good and poor comprehenders’ story understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 152–158. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.152
173.
*YuillN.OakhillJ. (1988a). Effects of inference awareness training on poor reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 33–45. doi:10.1002/acp.2350020105
174.
*YuillN.OakhillJ. (1988b). Understanding of anaphoric relations in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 173–186. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1988.tb02282.x
175.
*YuillN.OakhillJ. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
176.
*YuillN.OakhillJ.ParkinA. (1989). Working memory, comprehension ability and the resolution of text anomaly. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 351–361. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02325.x
177.
*YuillN.PearceD.KerawallaL.HarrisA.LuckinR. (2009). How technology for comprehension training can support conversation towards the joint construction of meaning. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 109–125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01384.x
178.
*ZhangJ.McBride-ChangC.WongA. M. Y.TardifT.ShuH.ZhangY. (2014). Longitudinal correlates of reading comprehension difficulties in Chinese children. Reading and Writing, 27, 481–501. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9453-4
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.
