Listening comprehension and reading comprehension in poor decoders: Evidence for the importance of syntactic and semantic skills as well as phonological skills

By B. Hagtvet. 2003

125 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ca0cf858a4d48b3bc1c5560bcdbe2b67599e258a

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

Citations in the corpus

The Simple View of Reading: Is It Valid for Different Types of Alphabetic Orthographies? (2011, background): “Thus, contrary to the suggestion of Gough and Tunmer (1986) that non-word decoding is the most appropriate measure of the decoding component, real word decoding appears to be particularly influential for languages such as English, with a deep orthography.”
A not-so-simple view of reading: how oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story (2010, background): “In fact, there is considerable research supporting this perspective ( Hagtvet, 2003; Muter et al., 2004).”
The Components of the Simple View of Reading: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (2012, background): “Hagtvet ( 2003 ) found significant differences in vocabulary scores between 2nd-grade poor, average, and good decoders.”
What's Meaning Got to Do With It: The Role of Vocabulary in Word Reading and Reading Comprehension (2006, background): “Once more, however, the nature of these associations has not been fully explained, and thus the role of oral vocabulary in reading development is not well understood (Hagtvet, 2003).”
Prediction of Reading Comprehension: Relative Contributions of Word Recognition, Language Proficiency, and Other Cognitive Skills Can Depend on How Comprehension Is Measured (2006, background): “, 2005; Juel, 1988; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Tanzman, 1994), age does not appear to account fully for this variability, because differences of similar magnitude have been seen between samples of the same age, for example, 23% versus 44% for first graders (Hagtvet, 2003; Juel,”
The Role of Vocabulary in the Context of the Simple View of Reading (2013, background): “In a study of Grade 2 Norwegian children, Hagtvet (2003) evaluated comprehension ability for both oral and written language using both story retelling and a cloze task.”