Parsimonious reading models: Identifying teachable subskills

Reading Psychology

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 37-58

  Neuhaus, Graham F ^a,d   Roldan, Luis W ^a   Boulware Gooden, Regina ^b   Swank, Paul R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON DOWNTOWN   (United States)

^b Neuhaus Education Center   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644629318     PISSN: 02702711     EISSN: 15210685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02702710500468724     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 462-502.
2. Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158-173.
3. Bell, S. M., McCollum, R. S., & Cox, E. A. (2003). Toward a research-based assessment of dyslexia: Using cognitive measures to identify reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(6), 505-516.
4. Boehner, P. (Ed.). (1957). Ockham: Philosophical Writings. Edinburgh, Scotland: Nelson.
5. Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97-120.
6. Boulware-Gooden, R.J., & Carreker, S. (2005). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhance reading comprehension, spelling, and vocabulary achievement of third grade students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
7. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451-455.
8. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2- and 3- year follow-up and a new preschool trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 488-503.
9. Bus, A., & van Ijzendoorn, M. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403-414.
10. Carreker, S. H., Neuhaus, G. F., Swank, P. R., Monfils, M. J., Montemayor, M. L., & Johnson, P. (2005). Teachers with linguistically- informed knowledge of reading subskills are associated with a Matthew Effect in reading comprehension. Manuscript submitted for publication.
11. Carreker, S. H., Neuhaus, G. F., Swank, P. R., Tillman-Dowdy, L., Monfils, M. J., Montemayor, M. L., &: Johnson, P. (2005). Language enrichment teacher preparation and practice predicts third grade reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Psychology, 26(4), 401-432.
12. Carver, R. P., & David, A. H. (2001). Investigating reading achievement using a causal model. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(2), 107-140.
13. Castle, J. M., Riach, J., & Nicholson, T. (1994). Getting off to a better start in reading and spelling: The effects of phonemic awareness instruction within a whole language program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 350-359.
14. Chen, R. S., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 1-24.
15. Chiaravalloti, N. D., Christodoulou, C., Demaree, H. A., & DeLuca, J. (2003). Differentiating simple versus complex processing speed: Influence on new learning and memory performance. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25(4), 489-501.
16. Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 139-168.
17. de Jong, P. F., &: van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(1), 51-78.
18. Demaree, H. A., DeLuca, J. Gaudino, E. A., & Diamond, B. J. (1999). Speed of information processing as a key deficit in multiple sclerosis: Implications for rehabilitation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 67, 661-663.
19. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. (1976). Rapid "automatized" naming R.A.N.: Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471-479.
20. Dreyer, L. G., & Katz, L. (1992). An examination of "The simple view of reading." Yearbook of National Reading Conference, 41, 169-176.
21. Ehri, L. C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sign word reading and its relationship to decoding. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading Acquisition (107-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala &: L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word Recognition in Beginning Literacy (3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. C. (1983). Development of word identification speed in skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 3-18.
24. Elbro, C. (1996). Early linguistic abilities and reading development: A review and a hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 8, 1-15.
25. Forster, M., & Sober, E. (1994). How to tell when simpler, more unified, or less ad hoc theories will provide more accurate predictions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45, 1-35.
26. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
27. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
28. Hoover, W. A., & Gough P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.
29. Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85-97.
30. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
31. Kail, R. (1992). Processing speed, speech rate, and memory. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 899-904.
32. Kail, R., & Hall, L. K., (1994). Processing speed, naming speed, and reading. Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 949-954.
33. Kirby, J. R., Parrilla, R. K., & Pfeiffer, S. L. (2003). Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 453-464.
34. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
35. Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27.
36. McInnes, A., Humphries, T., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Tannock, R. (2003). Listening comprehension and working memory are impaired in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder irrespective of language impairment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(4), 427-444.
37. Meyer, M. S., Wood, F. B., Hart, L. A., & Felton, R. H. (1998). The selective predictive values in rapid automatized naming within poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 106-117.
38. Mole, P. (2003). Ockham's razor cuts both ways: The uses and abuses of simplicity in scientific theories. Skeptic, 10(1), 40-47.
39. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
40. Neuhaus, G. F. (1998). Rapid naming scoring apparatus [computer software]. Houston, TX: Cognitive Concepts and Consultation.
41. Neuhaus, G. F. (2004). Rapid Reading recording software [computer software and instructions]. Available at http://www.rapidreading.us (retrieved April 1, 2004)
42. Neuhaus, G. F., Carlson, C. D., Jeng, W. M., Post, Y., & Swank, P. R. (2001). The reliability and validity of Rapid Automatized Naming scoring software for the determination of pause and articulation component durations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(3), 490-504.
43. Neuhaus, G. F., Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., & Carlson, C. (2001). Measures of information processing in Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and their relation to reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 78, 359-373.
44. Neuhaus, G. F., & Swank, P. (2002). Understanding the relations between RAN letter subtest components and word reading in first-grade students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(2), 158-174.
45. Newton, I. (1687/1729). Principia, Book III (A. Motte, trans.). Available at http://www.members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm (retrieved April 20, 2005)
46. Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In M. Daneman, E. MacKinnon, & G. Waller (Eds.), Reading Acquisition (pp. 145-176). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Schatschneider, C., Carlson, C. D., Francis, D. J., Foorman, B. R., & Fletcher, J. M. (2002). Relationship of rapid automatized naming and phonological awareness in early reading development: Implications for the double-deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(3), 245-256.
48. Siegel, L. S. (1998). The discrepancy formula: Its use and abuse. In B. K. Shapiro, P.J. Accardo, & A.J. Capute (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 21-32). Timonium, MD: York Press.
49. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151-218.
50. Sherman, E. S. E., Straus, E., & Spellacy, F. (1997). Validity of the paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) in adults referred for neuropsychological assessment after head injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 34-45.
51. Sober, E. (2000). Instrumentalism, parsimony, and the Akaike framework. Philosophy of Science, 69, 112-123.
52. Solomon, A. (2004, July 10) The closing of the American book [editorial]. The NewYork Times, p. A17.
53. Tiu, R. D., Thompson, L. A., & Lewis, B. A. (2003). The role of IQ in a component model of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(5), 424-236.
54. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Educational Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 2003 Reading Assessments. Available at http://necs.ed. gov/nationsreportcard/
55. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1994). Components of reading ability: Issues and problems in operationalizing word identification, phonological coding, and orthographic coding. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
56. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967/2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-91.
57. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
58. Westby, C. (1991). Assessing and remediating text comprehension problems. In A. G. Kahmi & H. W. Catts (Eds.), Reading disabilities: A developmental languageperspective (pp. 199-260). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
59. Wolf, M. Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387-407.
60. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
61. Zwaan, R., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.