Sarah Herrera

Reconsidering the Simple View of Reading in an Intriguing Case of Equivalent Models Commentary on Tunmer and Chapman (2012)

Recently, Tunmer and Chapman provided an alternative model of how decoding and listening comprehension affect reading comprehension that challenges the simple view of reading. They questioned the simple view’s fundamental assumption that oral language comprehension and decoding make independent contributions to reading comprehension by arguing that one component of oral language comprehension (vocabulary) affects decoding. They reported results from hierarchical regression analyses, exploratory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling to justify their conclusion. Their structural equation modeling results provided the strongest and most direct test of their alternative view. However, they incorrectly specified their simple view model. When correctly specified, the simple view of reading model and an alternative model in which listening comprehension affects decoding provide identically good fits to the data. This results from the fact that they are equivalent models. Although Tunmer and Chapman’s results do not support their assertion that a model in which oral language comprehension affects decoding provides a better fit to their data, the presence of equivalent models provides an ironic twist: The mountain of evidence that supports the simple view of reading provides equivalent support to their alternative interpretation. Additional studies are needed to differentiate these two theoretical accounts.

Reconsidering the Simple View of Reading in an Intriguing Case of Equivalent Models

Recently, Tunmer and Chapman provided an alternative model of how decoding and listening comprehension affect reading comprehension that challenges the simple view of reading. They questioned the simple view’s fundamental assumption that oral language comprehension and decoding make independent contributions to reading comprehension by arguing that one component of oral language comprehension (vocabulary) affects decoding. They reported results from hierarchical regression analyses, exploratory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling to justify their conclusion. Their structural equation modeling results provided the strongest and most direct test of their alternative view. However, they incorrectly specified their simple view model. When correctly specified, the simple view of reading model and an alternative model in which listening comprehension affects decoding provide identically good fits to the data. This results from the fact that they are equivalent models. Although Tunmer and Chapman’s results do not support their assertion that a model in which oral language comprehension affects decoding provides a better fit to their data, the presence of equivalent models provides an ironic twist: The mountain of evidence that supports the simple view of reading provides equivalent support to their alternative interpretation. Additional studies are needed to differentiate these two theoretical accounts.

The Relative Impact of Aligning Tier 2 Intervention Materials with Classroom Core Reading Materials in Grades K–2

This randomized controlled trial in 55 low-performing schools across Florida compared 2 early literacy interventions—1 using stand-alone materials and 1 using materials embedded in the existing core reading/language arts program. A total of 3,447 students who were below the 30th percentile in vocabulary and reading-related skills participated in the study. Both interventions were implemented with fidelity for 45 minutes daily for 27 weeks in small groups of 4 students (or 5 in grade 2). The stand-alone intervention significantly improved grade 2 spelling outcomes relative to the embedded intervention; there were some differential impacts due to cohort and baseline and, in kindergarten, to English-learner status. On average, students in schools in both interventions showed similar improvement in reading and language outcomes and similar percentile gains to those in recent systematic reviews. Results are discussed with respect to alignment of Tier 2 instruction with Tier 1 instruction.

Using Latent Change Score Analysis to Model Co-Development in Fluency Skills

Numerous methodologies exist to analyze longitudinal fluency data, including individual growth curve analysis in both observed and latent frameworks, cross-lagged regression to assess interrelations between variables, and multilevel frameworks that consider time as nested within individual. This chapter discusses latent change score (LCS) analysis of oral reading fluency (ORF) and reading comprehension data from a longitudinal sample of 16,000 students from first to fourth grade and compares to linear and nonlinear growth curve analysis. Results highlight the benefits of LCS models compared to traditional linear and nonlinear latent growth models, as well as implications for modeling change with correlated skills.

Reconsidering the Simple View of Reading in an Intriguing Case ofEquivalent Models: Commentary on

Recently, Tunmer and Chapman provided an alternative model of how decoding and listening comprehension affect reading comprehension that challenges the simple view of reading. They questioned the simple view’s fundamental assumption that oral language comprehension and decoding make independent contributions to reading comprehension by arguing that one component of oral language comprehension (vocabulary) affects decoding. They reported results from hierarchical regression analyses, exploratory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling to justify their conclusion. Their structural equation modeling results provided the strongest and most direct test of their alternative view. However, they incorrectly specified their simple view model. When correctly specified, the simple view of reading model and an alternative model in which listening comprehension affects decoding provide identically good fits to the data. This results from the fact that they are equivalent models. Although Tunmer and Chapman’s results do not support their assertion that a model in which oral language comprehension affects decoding provides a better fit to their data, the presence of equivalent models provides an ironic twist: The mountain of evidence that supports the simple view of reading provides equivalent support to their alternative interpretation. Additional studies are needed to differentiate these two theoretical accounts.