Understanding the relative contributions of lower-level word processes, higher-level processes, and working memory to reading comprehension performance in proficient adult readers

Reading Research Quarterly

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 125-152

  Hannon, Brenda ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862160328     PISSN: 00340553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/RRQ.013     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Aaron, P.G., Frantz, S.S., & Manges, A.R. (1990). Dissociation between comprehension and pronunciation in dyslexic and hyperlexic children. Reading and Writing, 2(3), 243-264. doi:10.1007/BF00257974.
2. Andreassen, R., & Brǎten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(3), 263-283. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01413.x.
3. August, D., Francis, D.J., Hsu, H.A., & Snow, C.E. (2006). Assessing reading comprehension in bilinguals. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 221-238. doi:10.1086/510656. (Pubitemid 44831879)
4. Baddeley, A., Logie, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., & Brereton, N. (1985). Components of fluent reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(1), 119-131. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(85)90019-1.
5. Bell, L.C., & Perfetti, C.A. (1994). Reading skill: Some adult comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 244-255. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.244.
6. Bentler, P.M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.
7. Britton, B.K., Stimson, M., Stennett, B., & Gülgöz, S. (1998). Learning from instructional text: Test of an individualdifferences model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 476- 491. doi:10.1037/0022- 0663.90.3.476.
8. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability and component skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31. (Pubitemid 38397485)
10. Calvo, M.G. (2001). Working memory and inferences: Evidence from eye fixations during reading. Memory, 9(4), 365-381. doi:10.1080/09658210143000083. (Pubitemid 32894063)
11. Calvo, M.G. (2005). Relative contribution of vocabulary knowledge and working memory span to elaborative inferences in reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(1), 53-65. doi:10.1016/j. lindif.2004.07.002. (Pubitemid 40350409)
12. Chabot, R.J., Zehr, H.D., Prinzo, O.V., & Petros, T.V. (1984). The speed of word recognition subprocesses and reading achievement in college students. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2), 147-161. doi:10.2307/747359.
13. Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Pazzaglia, F. (1996). Profiles of reading comprehension difficulties: An analysis of single cases. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 113-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Crain, S. (1989). Why poor readers misunderstand spoken sentences. In D. Shankweiler & I.Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities Monograph No. 6, pp. 133-166). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
15. Cromley, J.G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311- 325. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311.
16. Cunningham, A.E., Stanovich, K.E., & Wilson, M.R. (1990). Cognitive variation in adult college students differing in reading ability. In T.H. Carr & B.A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 129-159). San Diego, CA: Academic.
17. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Ve rbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450-466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6.
18. Daneman, M., & Hannon, B. (2001). Using working memory theory to investigate the construct validity of multiplechoice reading comprehension tests such as the SAT. Journal of Exper imental Psycholog y: General, 130(2), 208-223. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.208. (Pubitemid 33595898)
19. Daneman, M., & Hannon, B. (2007). What do working memory span tasks like reading span really measure? In N. Osaka, R.H. Logie, & M. D'Esposito (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of working memory (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Daneman, M., & Merikle, P.M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422-433. doi:10.3758/BF03214546. (Pubitemid 126421538)
21. Dixon, P., LeFevre, J., & Twilley, L.C. (1988). Word knowledge and working memory as predictors of reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 465-472. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.465.
22. Engle, R.W., Tuholski, S.W., Laughlin, J.E., & Conway, A.R. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 309-331.
23. Ericsson, K.A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211-245. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211.
24. Estevez, A., & Calvo, M.G. (2000). Working memory capacity and time course of predictive inferences. Memory, 8(1), 51-61. doi:10.1080/ 096582100387704. (Pubitemid 30350157)
25. Fan, X., & Sivo, S.A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of twoindex strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(3), 343-367. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1203-1. (Pubitemid 41311758)
26. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 56-83. doi:10.1080/ 10705519909540119.
27. Farr, R., Pritchard, R., & Smitten, B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a multiple-choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(3), 209-226. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984. 1990.tb00744.x.
28. Frith, U., & Snowling, M. (1983). Reading for meaning and reading for sound in autistic and dyslexic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1(4), 329-342. doi:10.1111/j.2044- 835X.1983.tb00906.x.
29. Gernsbacher, M.A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Gough, P.B., Hoover, W.A., & Peterson, C.L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371. (Pubitemid 24976808)
32. Haberlandt, K. (1999). Human memory: Exploration and application. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
33. Halldorson, M., & Singer, M. (2002). Inference processes: Integrating relevant knowledge and text information. Discourse Processes, 34(2), 145-161. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3402-2.
34. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (1998). Facilitating knowledge-based inferences in less-skilled readers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(2), 149-172. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0968. (Pubitemid 128347379)
35. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001a). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in the component processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 103-128. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.103.
36. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001b). Susceptibility to semantic illusions: An individual-differences perspective. Memory & Cognition, 29(3), 449-461. doi:10.3758/BF03196396. (Pubitemid 34163658)
37. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2006). What do tests of reading comprehension ability such as the VSAT really measure? A Componential analysis. In A.V. Mittel (Ed.), Focus on educational psychology (pp. 105-146). New York: Nova Science.
38. Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2009). Age-related changes in reading comprehension: An individual-differences perspective. Experimental Aging Research, 35(4), 432-456. doi:10.1080/03610730903175808.
39. Hannon, B., & Frias, S. (2012). A new measure for assessing the contributions of higher-level component processes to language comprehension in pre-readers. Manuscript submitted for publication.
40. Holmes, V.M. (2009). Bot tom-up processing and reading comprehension in experienced adult readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(3), 309-326. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01396.x.
41. Hoover, W.A., & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160.
42. Hoyle, R.H., & Panter, A.T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
44. Jackson, N.E. (2005). Are university students' component reading skills related to their text comprehension and academic achievement? Learning and Individual Differences, 15(2), 113-139. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2004.11.001.
45. Jenkins, J.R., Fuchs, L.S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S.L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading f luency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719-729. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719. (Pubitemid 37514210)
46. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood and least squares methods. Chicago: National Education Resources.
47. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
48. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2002). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language (Rev. ed.). Chicago: Scientific Software International.
49. Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122-149. doi:10.1037/0033- 295X.99.1.122.
50. Keenan, J.M., & Kintsch, W. (1974). Memory for information inferred during reading. In W. Kintsch (Ed.), The representation of meaning in memory (pp. 153-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M.J., & Lynch, J.S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 765-778. doi:10.1037/a0015956.
52. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.
53. Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294-303. (Pubitemid 24976690)
54. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K.A. (2005). Comprehension. In M.J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209-226). Malden, MA: Blackwel l. doi:10.1002/9780470757642.ch12.
56. Klauda, S.L., & Guthrie, J.T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading f luency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psycholog y, 100(2), 310 -321. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310.
57. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
58. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293-323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2.
59. Landi, N. (2010). An examination of the relationship between reading comprehension, higher-level and lower-level reading subskills in adults. Reading and Writing, 23(6), 701-717. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9180-z.
60. Lomax, R.G., & McGee, L.M. (1987). Young children's concepts about print and reading: Toward a model of word reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(2), 237-256. doi:10.2307/747667.
61. Long, D.L., & De Ley, L. (2000). Implicit causality and discourse focus: The interaction of text and reader characteristics in pronoun resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(4), 545- 570. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2695.
62. Long, D.L., Oppy, B.J., & Seely, M.R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1456-1470. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1456.
63. Long, D.L., Oppy, B.J., & Seely, M.R. (1997). Individual differences in readers' sentence- and text-level representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1), 129-145. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.2485. (Pubitemid 127164550)
64. Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman's (1904) "'General intelligence, ' objectively determined and measured." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 96-111. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.96. (Pubitemid 38134906)
65. Magliano, J.P., Millis, K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D.S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Magliano, J.P., Millis, K.K., the RSAT Development Team, Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2011). Assessing comprehension during reading with the Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (RSAT). Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 131-154. doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9064-2.
67. Magliano, J.P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A.C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 615-629. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.615.
68. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103-2. (Pubitemid 38874703)
69. Masson, M.E., & Miller, J.A. (1983). Working memory and individual differences in comprehension and memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 314-318. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.75.2.314.
70. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inferences during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3), 440 - 466. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440.
71. McNamara, D.S., & Magliano, J.P. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297-384). New York: Elsevier Science. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(09) 51009-2.
72. Murray, J.D., & Burke, K.A. (2003). Activation and encoding of predictive inferences: The role of reading skill. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 81-102. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3502-1.
73. Oakhill, J.V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P.E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(4), 443- 468. doi:10.1080/01690960344000008. (Pubitemid 37038286)
74. Olson, R.K., Kliegl, R., & Davidson, B.J. (1983). Dyslexia and normal readers' eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(5), 816-825. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.9.5.816.
75. Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 399-438. doi:10.1080/07370000701632371.
76. Pellegrino, J.W., Baxter, G.P., & Glaser, R. (1999). Addressing the "two disciplines" problem: Linking theories of cognition and learning with assessment and instructional practice. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 307-353. doi:10.3102/0091732X024001307.
77. Pellegrino, J.W., & Glaser, R. (1979). Cognitive correlates and components in the analysis of individual differences. Intelligence, 3(3), 187-215. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(79)90017-5.
78. Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
79. Perfetti, C.A. (1997). Sentences, individual differences, and multiple texts: Three issues in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 337-355. doi:10.1080/01638539709544996.
80. Perfetti, C.A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M.J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227-247). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470757642.ch13.
81. Perfetti, C.A., Marron, M.A., & Foltz, P.W. (1996). Sources of comprehension failure: Theoretical perspectives and case studies. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 137-166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
82. Potts, G.R., & Peterson, S.B. (1985). Incorporation versus compartmentalization in memory for discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(1), 107-118. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(85)90018-X.
83. Prat, C.S., Long, D.L., & Baynes, K. (2007). The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and Language, 100(3), 283-294. doi:10.1016/j. bandl.2006.11.002. (Pubitemid 46400821)
84. Russell, D.W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1629-1646. doi:10.1177/014616702237645. (Pubitemid 41269811)
85. Schmalhofer, F., McDaniel, M.A., & Keefe, D. (2002). A unified model for predictive and bridging inferences. Discourse Processes, 33(2), 105-132. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3302-01.
86. Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
87. Singer, M., Andrusiak, P., Reisdorf, P., & Black, N.L. (1992). Individual differences in bridging inference processes. Memory & Cognition, 20(5), 539-548. doi:10.3758/BF03199586.
88. Singer, M., Graesser, A.C., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Minimal or global inference during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 421-441. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1020.
89. Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J.C., & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences in discourseunderstanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(4), 507-524. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90026-T.
90. Singer, M., Harkness, D., & Stewart, S.T. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24(2/3), 199-228. doi:10.1080/01638539709545013.
91. Singer, M., & Ritchot, K.F.M. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory & Cognition, 24(6), 733-743. doi:10.3758/BF03201098. (Pubitemid 126448388)
92. Steiger, J.H. (1989). EzPATH: Causal modeling, a supplementary module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH, PC/MS-DOS. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT.
93. Steiger, J.H., & Lind, J.C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
94. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
95. Tunmer, W.E. (2008). Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 299-316. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9108-4.
96. Turner, M.L., & Engle, R.W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127-154. doi:10.1016/0749- 596X(89)90040-5.
97. Verhaeghen, P., Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L. (1993). Facts and fiction about memory aging: A quantitative integration of research findings. The Journal of Gerontolog, 48(4), P157-P171.
98. West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
99. Zhang, H., & Hoosain, R. (2001). The influence of narrative text characteristics on thematic inference during reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(2), 173-186. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00140.