Individual differences in the vocabulary skills of children with poor reading comprehension

Colenbrander, Danielle; Kohnen, Saskia; Smith-Lock, Karen; Nickels, Lyndsey

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.021

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Correlations between all tasks were good, both for weighted scores and response times, and this was particularly true of the correlation between semantic categorization and reading comprehension. This result is consistent with the idea that semantic processes might act as an intermediate between phonological and orthographical word representation levels and reading comprehension, as described in the more recent Reading System Framework (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014) and also suggested by research on vocabulary (Braze et al, 2016;Colenbrander, Kohnen, Smith-Lock, & Nickels, 2016;Ouellette & Beers, 2009). Moreover, this result is consistent with the results of Richter et al (2013): using structural equation modelling on three word reading tasks and one reading comprehension task, they found that orthographic and phonological performances were indirectly related to reading comprehension through semantic performances that mediate their influence.…”

Section: What Are the Links Between Intra-and Inter-task Measures In supporting

confidence: 91%

High Potential of Computer-Based Reading Assessment

Auphan

Écalle

Magnan

2020

CJLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to propose advantages provided by computerized tools when assessing reading ability. A new computer-based reading assessment evaluating both word reading and reading comprehension processes was administered to 687 children in primary (N=400) and secondary (N=287) schools. Accuracy (weighted scores) and speed of access (response times) automatically recorded by the software were analyzed based on developmental issues (Anovas), correlation matrices, structural equation modeling and clinical interpretation. Results underlined the validity and reliability of the tool. The Discussion addresses the limitations of the present computer-based assessment and presents perspectives for taking fuller advantage of computerized technologies.

show abstract

Section: What Are the Links Between Intra-and Inter-task Measures In supporting

confidence: 91%

High Potential of Computer-Based Reading Assessment

Auphan

Écalle

Magnan

2020

CJLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research on monolingual children has demonstrated that poor comprehenders show deficits in oral language, such as vocabulary knowledge (e.g., (Cain & Oakhill, 2011); Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; (Colenbrander, Kohnen, Smith-Lock, & Nickels, 2016;Elwer, Keenan, Olson, Byrne, & Samuelsson, 2013); (Ricketts, Bishop, & Nation, 2008)) and listening comprehension (Colenbrander et al, 2016). In particular, several longitudinal studies suggest that poor comprehenders experience persistent difficulties in vocabulary over time (e.g., (Clarke et al, 2010;Elwer et al, 2013)).…”

Section: Oral Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring sources of poor reading comprehension in English language learners

Geva

D’Angelo

et al. 2021

Ann. of Dyslexia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the sources of reading comprehension difficulties in English language learners (ELLs). The characteristics of ELL poor comprehenders were compared to their English as a first language (EL1) peers. Participants included 124 ELLs who spoke Chinese as an L1 and 79 EL1 students. Using a regression technique based on age, non-verbal reasoning, word reading accuracy, and word reading fluency, three types of comprehenders (poor, average, and good) were identified within each language group. The groups were then compared on measures of oral language skills (vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth, and listening comprehension), metalinguistic skills (morphological awareness and syntactic awareness), working memory, and higher-level processing skills (inference, conjunction use, and comprehension monitoring). ELL poor comprehenders had significantly lower scores than ELL average and good comprehenders on vocabulary breadth, listening comprehension, and morphological awareness, whereas there were no significant differences between the average and good comprehender groups on these skills. Additionally, both ELL poor and average comprehenders had lower scores than ELL good comprehenders on all three higher-level skills. Finally, results showed that ELL poor comprehenders scored lower than EL1 poor comprehenders on vocabulary breadth, listening comprehension, and morphological awareness, but the two groups did not differ on higher-level skills. Theoretical and educational implications for the identification and instruction of ELL poor comprehenders are discussed.

show abstract

“…Despite estimates suggesting that 10% of children have S-RCD (Nation, 2005), these children are much less studied than children with phonological deficits (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). S-RCD is characterized by intact decoding skill with accompanying deficits in semantic processing and/or broader oral language skills (e.g., Colenbrander, Kohnen, Smith-Lock, & Nickels, 2016; Nation, Snowling, & Clarke, 2007).…”

Section: How Children Learn New Wordsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Lexical Information Depends Upon Task, Learning Approach, and Reader Subtype

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning to read relies upon the integration of phonological, orthographic, and semantic information. However, no studies have investigated how children with varying reading abilities learn phonological-orthographic (PO) and semantic aspects of novel words as a function of both learning approach (LA; e.g., learning new words in isolation or context) and outcome (fluency or comprehension). In this study, 45 children participated in three tasks that differentially tested PO and semantic attributes of novel pseudo-words learned through two learning approaches. Children were classified into groups as having dyslexia (DYS), having specific reading comprehension deficits (S-RCDs), or being typically developing readers (TD). Differences were found between groups, with S-RCD poorer than TD on semantic but not PO components of learning. Children with DYS displayed impaired results on both semantic and PO learning but showed an interaction on task by LA performance. Specifically, in the DYS group, isolation LA yielded better performance on PO learning, while context LA was better for semantic learning. These results indicate that (a) children with S-RCDs have a unique learning profile that is dissociable from DYS and TD and (b) reading impairments are not static but rather influence acquisition of reading skill in different ways, depending on reading profile.

show abstract

Individual differences in the vocabulary skills of children with poor reading comprehension

Cited by 25 publications

References 47 publications

High Potential of Computer-Based Reading Assessment

High Potential of Computer-Based Reading Assessment

Exploring sources of poor reading comprehension in English language learners

Learning Lexical Information Depends Upon Task, Learning Approach, and Reader Subtype

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About