Effects of verbal working memory and cumulative linguistic knowledge on reading comprehension¹

Abstract

In the present study, the effects of verbal working memory (VWM) and cumulative linguistic knowledge (CLK) on reading comprehension were investigated using an individual difference approach. We examined whether VWM and CLK are distinct verbal factors and whether each has independent influences on reading comprehension. VWM was tested using the Japanese Reading Span Test (RST). CLK was assessed using information, vocabulary, and similarity subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R), as well as with the Hyakurakan kanji reading test. The differences between VWM and CLK were examined using correlation analyses between reading comprehension scores, and digit forward and backward span scores. The results showed that VWM and CLK were independent of each other, and that VWM and CLK independently contributed to reading comprehension. The obtained correlations also showed that CLK was independent of any type of short-term memory, and that the VWM measured using the RST had little correlation with digit span.

Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests

“…Nation, Adams, Bowyer-Crane & Snowling, 1999). Whereas this concern highlights the need to include both verbal and nonverbal working memory tasks in future studies, there is also some evidence that verbal working memory is linked to reading comprehension independent of verbal skills (Dixon, LeFevre & Twilley, 1988;Engle, Nations & Cantor, 1990;Jincho, Namiki & Mazuka, 2008). This is also consistent with Sáez (2006, 2007), arguing that working memory relates to reading comprehension independent of verbal ability because it is the central executive component of working memory (Baddeley, 1990) that underlies this relationship.…”

Determinants of Success in Native and Non‐Native Listening Comprehension: An Individual Differences Approach

“…Studies of the componential nature of a proficiency construct have been undertaken quite often for reading, writing, and speaking (e.g., De Jong, Steinel, Florijn, Schoonen, & Hulstijn, 2012; Jincho, Namiki, & Mazuka, 2008; Schoonen, Hulstijn, & Bossers, 1998; Schoonen et al, 2003; Schoonen, Van Gelderen, Stoel, Hulstijn, & De Glopper, 2011; Van Gelderen et al, 2004). These studies tend to find that linguistic knowledge components as well as speed or fluency factors are associated with success in both first language (L1) and L2 reading (Van Gelderen et al, 2004), L1 and L2 writing (Schoonen et al, 2003), and L2 speaking (De Jong et al, 2012).…”

“…Metacognitive knowledge or strategies were also found to explain success in reading (Van Gelderen et al, 2004) and writing (Schoonen et al, 2003). Jincho et al (2008) included a reading span task in their study of reading comprehension, and found that this measure predicted variance in reading beyond what was explained by vocabulary knowledge and orthographic knowledge.…”

Predicting lexical accent perception in native Japanese speakers: An investigation of acoustic pitch sensitivity and working memory

“…Verbal WM and its correlate the phonological loop have been shown to be implicated in a range of language tasks including vocabulary acquisition (Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, & Baddeley, 1992), reading (Jincho, Namiki, & Mazuka, 2008), and spoken language comprehension (Adams, Bourke, & Willis, 1999). The phonological loop is the subcomponent of WM that is responsible for the short term storage and maintenance of phonological information derived from both spoken and visual (i.e., text or namable images) input (Baddeley et al, 1998).…”