The Simple View of Reading: Is It Valid for Different Types of Alphabetic Orthographies?

By Elena Florit, K. Cain. 2011

398 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2261c0db20747dd035b43efb45a4870371a3e8c9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Why the Simple View of Reading Is Not Simplistic: Unpacking Component Skills of Reading Using a Direct and Indirect Effect Model of Reading (DIER) (2017, neutral): “…& Little, 2006; Catts, Adlof, & Ellis Weismer, 2006; Foorman, Koon, Petscher, Mitchell, & Truckenmiller, 2015; Joshi, Tao, Aaron, & Quiroz, 2012; Kendeou, Papadopoulos, & Kotzapoulou, 2013; Kendeou, van den Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009; Kim, 2011; Lee & Wheldall, 2009; see Florit & Cain, 2011).”
Examining the Simple View of Reading With Elementary School Children: Still Simple After All These Years (2018, background): “…are more transparent than English (e.g., Caravolas, Lervåg, Defior, Seidlová Málková, & Hulme, 2013); therefore, it seems likely that larger influences of linguistic comprehension on reading comprehension would be seen earlier (e.g., Florit & Cain, 2011; Joshi, Ji, Breznitz, Amiel, & Yulia, 2015).”
Why do boys and girls perform differently on PISA Reading in Finland? The effects of reading fluency, achievement behaviour, leisure reading and homework activity (2018, background): “The strongest predictors of reading comprehension, and most probably of PISA Reading performance, are accurate and fluent reading as well good linguistic comprehension 8 (e.g., Florit & Cain, 2011; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Kirby & Savage, 2008; Stuart, Stainthorp, & Snowling, 2008).”
Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12 (2016, methodology): “…using alternative measures of decoding (i.e., word and non-word reading accuracy and fluency; Florit & Cain, 2011), and language (i.e., vocabulary and listening comprehension; Tunmer & Chapman, 2012), and has been extensively studied in shallow and deep orthographies (Florit & Cain, 2011).”
Decoding and Reading Comprehension (2014, background): “…for readers of English than for readers of other languages, as has been shown in recent Decoding and Reading Comprehension: A Meta-Analysis work (Florit & Cain, 2011), but we note that decoding is influential for shallow languages as well even in good decoders (Sánchez, García, & Gonzalez,…”
A Cross-Linguistic, Longitudinal Study of the Foundations of Decoding and Reading Comprehension Ability (2019, background): “…relatively consistent letter-sound mappings, decoding is a less powerful predictor of reading comprehension than in English (e.g., see reviews in Florit & Cain, 2011; García & Cain, 2014; Salceda et al, 2014) because decoding is acquired more quickly in these orthographies (e.g., Caravolas,…”
Examining the Simple View of Reading in a Transparent Orthography: A Longitudinal Study From Kindergarten to Grade 3 (2016, background): “For example, there was a picture of a bunny (pupu in Finnish) and three distractors (the English word is in parenthesis): pipo (cap), papu (bean), and apu (help).”
Simple View of Reading in Chinese: A One-Stage Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling (2020, background): “These findings are in line with most prior studies on SVR for Chinese reading (e.g., Ho et al., 2017; Joshi et al., 2012) and SVR for some alphabetic languages with relatively transparent orthography (Florit & Cain, 2011).”
Children’s reading difficulties, language, and reflections on the simple view of reading (2019, background): “…have found the same (e.g., Language and Reading Research Consortium [LARRC] & Chui, 2018; Hjetland et al., 2019; Lonigan, Burgess, & Schatschneider, 2018) and findings are robust across alphabetic (Florit & Cain, 2011) and non-alphabetic writing systems (Ho, Chow, Wong, Waye, & Bishop, 2012).”