Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The simple view of reading

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

The simple view of reading: is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Literature review › peer-review

Published

Standard

The simple view of reading: is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies? / Florit, Elena; Cain, Kate.
In: Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, 12.2011, p. 553-576.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Literature review › peer-review

Harvard

Florit, E & Cain, K 2011, 'The simple view of reading: is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?', Educational Psychology Review, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6

APA

Florit, E., & Cain, K. (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

Vancouver

Florit E, Cain K. The simple view of reading: is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies? Educational Psychology Review. 2011 Dec;23(4):553-576. Epub 2011 Aug 26. doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6

Author

Florit, Elena ; Cain, Kate. / The simple view of reading : is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?. In: Educational Psychology Review. 2011 ; Vol. 23, No. 4. pp. 553-576.

Bibtex

@article{e2ee06d6b4744de09e9a1c8cf3ed15f4,
title = "The simple view of reading: is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?",
abstract = "We present a meta-analysis to test the validity of the Simple View of Reading Gough & Tunmer (Remedial and Special Education, 7:6-10, 1986) for beginner readers of English and other, more transparent, orthographies. Our meta-analytic approach established that the relative influence of decoding and linguistic comprehension on reading comprehension is different for readers of different types of orthography during the course of early reading development. Furthermore, we identified key differences in the relations among different measures of decoding and reading comprehension between readers of English and other more transparent orthographies. We discuss the implications for reading instruction and the diagnosis of reading difficulties, as well as our theoretical understanding of how component skills influence reading comprehension level.",
keywords = "Simple view of reading, Reading comprehension, Decoding, Linguistic comprehension, Early reading development, DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA, LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, WORD-RECOGNITION, POOR READERS, COMPREHENSION, SKILLS, CHILDREN, ABILITY, PERFORMANCE, FLUENCY",
author = "Elena Florit and Kate Cain",
year = "2011",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "553--576",
journal = "Educational Psychology Review",
issn = "1040-726X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The simple view of reading

T2 - is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?

AU - Florit, Elena

AU - Cain, Kate

PY - 2011/12

Y1 - 2011/12

N2 - We present a meta-analysis to test the validity of the Simple View of Reading Gough & Tunmer (Remedial and Special Education, 7:6-10, 1986) for beginner readers of English and other, more transparent, orthographies. Our meta-analytic approach established that the relative influence of decoding and linguistic comprehension on reading comprehension is different for readers of different types of orthography during the course of early reading development. Furthermore, we identified key differences in the relations among different measures of decoding and reading comprehension between readers of English and other more transparent orthographies. We discuss the implications for reading instruction and the diagnosis of reading difficulties, as well as our theoretical understanding of how component skills influence reading comprehension level.

AB - We present a meta-analysis to test the validity of the Simple View of Reading Gough & Tunmer (Remedial and Special Education, 7:6-10, 1986) for beginner readers of English and other, more transparent, orthographies. Our meta-analytic approach established that the relative influence of decoding and linguistic comprehension on reading comprehension is different for readers of different types of orthography during the course of early reading development. Furthermore, we identified key differences in the relations among different measures of decoding and reading comprehension between readers of English and other more transparent orthographies. We discuss the implications for reading instruction and the diagnosis of reading difficulties, as well as our theoretical understanding of how component skills influence reading comprehension level.

KW - Simple view of reading

KW - Reading comprehension

KW - Decoding

KW - Linguistic comprehension

KW - Early reading development

KW - DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA

KW - LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

KW - WORD-RECOGNITION

KW - POOR READERS

KW - COMPREHENSION

KW - SKILLS

KW - CHILDREN

KW - ABILITY

KW - PERFORMANCE

KW - FLUENCY

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81155130956&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6

DO - 10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6

M3 - Literature review

AN - SCOPUS:81155130956

VL - 23

SP - 553

EP - 576

JO - Educational Psychology Review

JF - Educational Psychology Review

SN - 1040-726X

IS - 4

ER -