The Role of Phonological Awareness, Rapid Automatized Naming, and Orthographic Processing in Word Reading

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of three subskills associated with word decoding. The skills utilized for this study were phonological, rapid automatized naming (RAN), and orthographic processing. To do this, six separate models were utilized to define different ways that these three subskills (represented as factors) related to one another, with the goal of finding which model provided the best prediction of word decoding. A sample of 100 subjects from the PAIRW normative sample was used for this study. Results of structural equation modeling, utilizing the AMOS 4.0 program, revealed that using all three subskills concurrently provided the best-fitting model. Contrary to previous research, orthographic, rather than phonological, processing skills were found to be the best predictor of word decoding. RAN was found to be the second best predictor, but only indirectly through the Phonological and Orthographic factors. Moreover, when RAN was utilized as a predictor of orthographic and phonological processing, it provided a better-fitting model than when orthographic and phonological processing were used as predictors of RAN. Utilizing RAN as a predictor of both phonological and orthographic processing was found to provide a better-fitting model than when RAN was used to predict either the Phonological or Orthographic factor alone. The relevance of utilizing all three subskills in psychoeducational assessment is discussed, as well as implications for future research.

Does Training in Syllable Recognition Improve Reading Speed? A Computer-Based Trial With Poor Readers From Second and Third Grade

“…This view is supported by findings of a significant association between RAN and orthographic knowledge (e.g., Compton, 2000;Conrad & Levy, 2007;Georgiou, Parrila, Kirby, et al, 2008;Holland, McIntosh, & Huffman, 2004;Manis et al, 1999;Roman, Kirby, Parrila, Wade-Woolley, & Deacon, 2009) and that the shared variance between RAN and reading accuracy was accounted for by orthographic knowledge (Roman et al, 2009). In addition, speeded letter recognition in children with naming disabilities improved more when the intervention included the practicing of orthographic skills (Conrad & Levy, 2011).…”

Reading Skills in Down Syndrome: An Examination of Orthographic Knowledge

“…Further, these results have been seen in studies including participants ranging from first through sixth grades (Barker et al, 1992;Cunningham et al, 2001;Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990;Holland et al, 2004) and whether predicting untimed or timed word identification (Barker et al, 1992). Research has also indicated that cumulative orthographic knowledge is a significant predictor of oral reading rate, silent reading rate, phonological recoding and later orthographic learning (Barker et al, 1992;Cunningham, 2006).…”

“…Both major theories of word identification (dual-route and connectionist) identify two important aspects of word identification: phonological processing and orthographic processing, or in other words, verbal (phonological) and visual (orthographic) aspects utilized in word reading. Both of these subskills account for significant, independent variance in word identification (Holland, McIntosh & Huffman, 2004) and will be examined in the present study. Phonological recoding is the process of sounding out, or translating a printed word into a speech-based form.…”

“…One study by Holland et al (2004) using structural equation modeling found that orthographic processing, not phonological processing, was the best predictor of word identification. Other studies have found that orthographic processing accounts for significant variance in word identification even after statistically controlling for phonological recoding (Barker, Torgesen, & Wagner, 1992;Berninger, Cartwright, Yates, Swanson, & Abbott, 1994;Cunningham, Perry, & Stanovich, 2001).…”

“…Research on cumulative orthographic knowledge has found that it is a significant predictor of word identification (Holland et al, 2004), even after statistically controlling for age, IQ, and phonological abilities (Barker et al, 1992;Cunningham et al, 2001;Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990). Further, these results have been seen in studies including participants ranging from first through sixth grades (Barker et al, 1992;Cunningham et al, 2001;Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990;Holland et al, 2004) and whether predicting untimed or timed word identification (Barker et al, 1992).…”