Can the Simple View Deal with the Complexities of Reading

By John R. Kirby, R. Savage. 2008

299 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a424a42835ace6b1a02141b5853f66a1cdcbdfc4

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

A not-so-simple view of reading: how oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story (2010, background): “After all, it should be pointed out that the simple view was presented as just that: a simple overview, and not necessarily a detailed model ( Kirby & Savage, 2008 ).”
The Simple View of Reading: Is It Valid for Different Types of Alphabetic Orthographies? (2011, background): “Yet, although non-word reading may be the most appropriate measure of decoding skill in languages whose scripts are highly transparent, it will not be adequate for a script like English where grapheme–phoneme correspondences are less predictable and for which readers must also rely on orthographic k”
The Simple View of Reading Across Development: Prediction of Grade 3 Reading Comprehension From Prekindergarten Skills (2018, methodology): “Given the influence of the simple view on the teaching of reading (e.g., Kirby & Savage, 2008), we sought to test the reproducibility of the LARRC (2015b) finding for Grade 3 English speakers, with the same measures, but a larger and different set of participants.”
Examining the Simple View of Reading With Elementary School Children: Still Simple After All These Years (2018, result): “…2012), it has been consistently supported by research indicating the combination of decoding and linguistic comprehension predicts reading comprehension in English-speaking learners (e.g., Kirby & Savage, 2008) as well as for learners of non-English orthographies (e.g., Florit & Cain, 2011).”
The cognitive foundations of learning to read: a framework for preventing and remediating reading difficulties (2019, background): “Language comprehension and word recognition can each be analyzed into component processes (Kirby & Savage, 2008), and the development of each is influenced directly and indirectly by several other factors (e.g. Vellutino, Tunmer, Jaccard, & Chen, 2007).”
Fluency Has a Role in the Simple View of Reading (2013, background): “Investigations of SVR differ on a number of design elements including sample, measurement, and analysis strategies (Kirby & Savage, 2008).”
Examining the Simple View of Reading in a Transparent Orthography: A Longitudinal Study From Kindergarten to Grade 3 (2016, methodology): “Since its conception, the SVR model has received considerable empirical support (for reviews, see Kirby & Savage, 2008; Stuart, Stainthorp, & Snowling, 2008) and has had a major influence on reading research and practice.”
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).”
Morphological Awareness: A Key to Understanding Poor Reading Comprehension in English. (2011, background): “…awareness experienced by unexpected poor comprehenders with typical word reading skills Alternatively, morphology, as both a parameter of semantic relationships between words and a predictor of word reading, might straddle the decoding and listening comprehension domains (Kirby & Savage, 2008).”
Decoding and Reading Comprehension: A Test of the Decoding Threshold Hypothesis (2019, background): “…of reading fluency or vocabulary have been shown to explain additional, unique variance to reading comprehension beyond decoding and language comprehension, leading some researchers to conclude that they should be considered as subconstructs of SVR (Kirby & Savage, 2008; Sabatini et al., 2010).”
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, background): “Despite its seeming simplicity (e.g., Cartwright, 2007; Conners, 2009; Kirby & Savage, 2008; Pressley et al., 2009), the authors of the simple view of reading acknowledged that both word reading and listening comprehension involve complex processes (Gough, Hoover, & Peterson, 1996; Hoover & Gough,…”