This study used a meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to build extended versions of the simple view of reading (SVR) model in second and foreign language (SFL) learning contexts (i.e., SVR-SFL). Based on the correlation coefficients derived from primary studies, we replicated and integrated two previous extended meta-analytic SVR models, that is, Quinn and Wagner’s (2018) model with an English-speaking population with a cognitive factor and Peng et al.’s (2021) model with Chinese-speaking readers with metalinguistic skills. A total of 180 independent samples (N = 36,235) obtained from 152 empirical studies in SFL contexts were included in our meta-analytic structural equation model. The results revealed that the collected data successfully replicated H. Lee et al.’s (2022) SVR model in SL contexts (SV2R) in terms of overall model fit and moderation effects; in addition, the results confirmed that the data fit well with the extended SVR-SFL models.
AldersonJ. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press.
2.
AldersonJ. C.HuhtaA.NieminenL. (2016). Characteristics of weak and strong readers in a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 853–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12367
3.
AlptekinC.ErçetinG. (2009). Assessing the relationship of working memory to L2 reading: Does the nature of comprehension process and reading span task make a difference?System, 37(4), 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.007
4.
AlptekinC.ErçetinG. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01412.x
5.
AouadJ.SavageR. (2009). The component structure of preliteracy skills: Further evidence for the simple view of reading. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509336280
ArdashevaY.WangZ.AdesopeO. O.ValentineJ. C. (2017). Exploring effectiveness and moderators of language learning strategy instruction on second language and self-regulated learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 544–582. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689135
8.
BeattieT. K. (2018). Oral reading fluency and the simple view of reading for English language learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Oregon.
9.
BeaufilsV.TominJ. (2020, October30). Stochastic approach to worldwide language classification: The signals and the noise towards long-range exploration. SocArXiv Papers. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/5swba
10.
BehtaryS.DavaribinaM. (2013). Genre variation and its impact on EFL students’ reading comprehension. ESP Across Cultures, 10(1), 75–81.
11.
BrantmeierC. (2005). Effects of reader’s knowledge, text type, and test type on L1 and L2 reading comprehension in Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00264.x
12.
BruckM.GeneseeF. (1995). Phonological awareness in young second language learners. Journal of Child Language, 22(2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009806
13.
CaiY.KunnanA. J. (2020). Mapping the fluctuating effect of strategy use ability on English reading performance for nursing students: A multi-layered moderation analysis approach. Language Testing, 37(2), 280–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219893384
14.
CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
15.
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(4), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671
16.
CattsH. (2018). The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518767563
17.
CattsH.AdolfS. M.WeismerS. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)
18.
ChamH.ReshetnyakE.RosenfeldB.BreitbartW. (2017). Full information maximum likelihood estimation for latent variable interactions with incomplete indicators. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1245600
19.
ChaneyC. (1992). Language development, metalinguistic skills, and print awareness in 3-year-old children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(4), 485–514. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400005774
20.
ChangA. C.MillettS. (2014). The effect of extensive listening on developing L2 listening fluency: Some hard evidence. ELT Journal, 68(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct052
21.
CheungM. W.-L. (2015). metaSEM: An R package for meta-analysis using structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521
ChiappeP.SiegelL. S. (1999). Phonological awareness and reading acquisition in English- and Punjabi-speaking Canadian children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.20
24.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204
25.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T.ShadishW. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
26.
CromleyJ.AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
27.
CromleyJ. G.Snyder-HoganL. E.Luciw-DubasU. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019452
28.
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(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5
29.
DewaeleJ.-M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In RitchieW. C.BhatiaT. K. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 623–646). Emerald.
30.
FloritE.CainK. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6
31.
FrancisD.FletcherJ.CattsH.TomblinJ. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In ParisS.StahlS. (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369–394). Erlbaum.
32.
FrancisD. J.KuleszP. A.BenoitJ. S. (2018). Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers and across texts: The complete view of reading (CVRi). Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325187729
33.
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(1), 74–111. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499616
34.
GoodwinA. P.HugginsA. C.CarloM. S.AugustD.CalderonM. (2013). Minding morphology: How morphological awareness relates to reading for English language learners. Reading and Writing, 26(9), 1387–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9412-5
GrabeW. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
37.
HåkanssonG.NorrbyC. (2010). Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning, 60(3), 628–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00569.x
38.
HjetlandH. N.LervågA.LysterS. A. H.HagtvetB. E.HulmeC.Melby-LervågM. (2018). Pathways to reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from 4 to 9 years of age. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000321
HoribaY.FukayaK. (2015). Reading and learning from L2 text: Effects of reading goal, topic familiarity, and language proficiency. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(1), 22–46. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/66699
JakS.CheungM. W.-L. (2018). Testing moderator hypotheses in meta-analytic structural equation modeling using subgroup analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 50(4), 1359–1373. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1046-3
43.
JakS.CheungM. W.-L. (2020). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling with moderating effects on SEM parameters. Psychological Methods, 25(4), 430–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000245
44.
JeonE. H.YamashitaJ. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12034
45.
JeonE. H.YamashitaJ. (2022). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: An updated meta-analysis. In JeonE. H.In’namiY. (Eds.), Understanding L2 proficiency: Theoretical and meta-analytic investigations (pp. 29–86). John Benjamins.
46.
JinS.LeeH. (2022). Willingness to communicate and its high-evidence factors: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(6), 716–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221092098
47.
KatoS. (2009). Suppressing inner speech in ESL reading: Implications for developmental changes in second language word recognition processes. Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00926.x
48.
KershawS.SchatschneiderC. (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 25, 433–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9278-3
49.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
50.
Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things simple?Reading Research Quarterly, 50(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.99
51.
Larsen-FreemanD.CameronL. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
52.
LeeH.ChungH. Q.ZhangY.AbediJ.WarschauerM. (2020). The effectiveness and features of formative assessment in US K-12 education: A systematic review. Applied Measurement in Education, 33(2), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732383
53.
LeeH.JungG.LeeJ. H. (2022). Simple view of second language reading: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(6), 585–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2087526
54.
LeeH.WarschauerM.LeeJ. H. (2019). The effects of corpus use on second language vocabulary learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 40(5), 721–753. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy012
55.
LeeH.WarschauerM.LeeJ. H. (2020). Toward the establishment of a data-driven learning model: Role of learner factors in corpus-based second language vocabulary learning. Modern Language Journal, 104(2), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12634
56.
LeeS. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00400.x
57.
LoniganC. J.BurgessS. R.SchatschneiderC. (2018). Examining the simple view of reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193251876483
58.
Melby-LervågM.LervågA. (2011). Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding, phonological awareness and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01477.x
59.
MuellerR. O.HancockG. R. (2019). Structural equation modeling. In HancockG. R.StapletonL. M.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (2nd ed., pp. 445–456). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861554
60.
NationK. (2019). Children’s reading difficulties, language, and reflections on the simple view of reading. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 24(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1609272
61.
National Reading Panel. (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: Reports of the subgroups. National Institutes of Health.
62.
NikolovM.CsapóB. (2018). The relationships between 8th graders’ L1 and L2 reading skills, inductive reasoning and socio-economic status in early English and German as a foreign language programs. System, 73, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.11.001
63.
OakhillJ. V.CainK. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.529219
64.
OakhillJ.HarttJ.SamolsD. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18(7), 657–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z
65.
PaeT.-I. (2018). Effects of task type and L2 proficiency on the relationship between L1 and L2 in reading and writing: An SEM approach. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(1), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000462
66.
PengP.LeeK.LuoJ.LiS.JoshiR. M.TaoS. (2021). Simple view of reading in Chinese: A one-stage meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Review of Educational Research, 91(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320964198
ProctorC. P.UccelliP.DaltonB.SnowC. E. (2009). Understanding depth of vocabulary online with bilingual and monolingual children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(4), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560903123502
70.
QuinnJ. M.WagnerR. K. (2018). Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to study developmental change in relations between language and literacy. Child Development, 89(6), 1956–1969. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13049
71.
RoseJ. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Final Report). Department for Education and Skills.
72.
SchmittN. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In SchmittN.McCarthyM. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 199–227). Cambridge University Press.
Shahnazari-DorchehM.AdamsR. (2014). The relationship between working memory and L2 reading comprehension. Applied Research on English Language, 3(2), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.22108/ARE.2014.15492
75.
ShankweilerD.LundquistE.KatzL.StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M.BradyS.FowlerA.DreyerL. G.MarchioneK. E.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(1), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0301_4
76.
ShinJ. (2020). A meta-analysis of the relationship between working memory and second language reading comprehension: Does task type matter?Applied Psycholinguistics, 41(4), 873–900. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716420000272
77.
ShinJ.DronjicV.ParkB. (2019). The interplay between working memory and background knowledge in L2 reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 53(2), 320–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.482
SparksR. L. (2015). Language deficits in poor L2 comprehenders: The simple view. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12163
80.
SparksR. L. (2021). Identification and characteristics of strong, average, and weak foreign language readers: The simple view of reading model. Modern Language Journal, 105(2), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12711
81.
SparksR. L.LuebbersJ.CastañedaM. E. (2017). How well do US high school students achieve in Spanish when compared to native Spanish speakers?Foreign Language Annals, 50(2), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12268
82.
SparksR. L.PattonJ. (2016). Examining the simple view of reading model for United States high school Spanish students. Hispania, 99(1), 17–33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44112823
83.
SparksR. L.PattonJ.GanschowL.HumbachN. (2012). Do L1 reading achievement and L1 print exposure contribute to the prediction of L2 proficiency?Language Learning, 62(2), 473–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00694.x
84.
SparksR. L.PattonJ.LuebbersJ. (2018). For U.S. students, L2 reading comprehension is hard because L2 listening comprehension is hard, too. Hispania, 101(2), 183–210. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26585383
85.
SparksR. L.PattonJ.LuebbersJ. (2019). Individual differences in L2 achievement mirror individual differences in L1 skills and L2 aptitude: Crosslinguistic transfer of L1 to L2 skills. Foreign Language Annals, 52(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12390
86.
SpencerM.WagnerR. K. (2018). The comprehension problems of children with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(3), 331–365. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317749187
87.
Tabatabaee-YazdiM.BaghaeiP. (2018). Reading comprehension in English as a foreign language and some Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive ability factors. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 18(1), 19–26.
88.
TompkinsV.GuoY.JusticeL. M. (2013). Inference generation, story comprehension, and language skills in the preschool years. Reading and Writing, 26(3), 403–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9374-7
89.
VerhoevenL.VoetenM.VermeerA. (2019). Beyond the simple view of early first and second language reading: The impact of lexical quality. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 50, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.03.002
90.
WalterC. (2004). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.315
91.
WellingD. R. (2010). Hearing and language development. In ShulmanB. B.CaponeN. C. (Eds.), Language development: Foundations, processes, and clinical applications (pp. 95–134). Jones & Bartlett.
92.
WothkeW. (2000). Longitudinal and multigroup modeling with missing data. In LittleT. D.SchnabelK. U.BaumertJ. (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues, applied approaches, and specific examples (pp. 219–240). Lawrence Erlbaum.
93.
YangJ. S. (2016). The effectiveness of study-abroad on second language learning: A meta-analysis. Canadian Modern Language Review, 72(1), 66–94. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2344
94.
ZhangS.ZhangX. (2022). The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading/listening comprehension: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 26(4), 696–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913998
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.
