Read Writ (2012) 25:163187 DOI 10.

1007/s11145-010-9252-0

Toward modeling reading comprehension and reading uency in English language learners
Zohreh Yaghoub Zadeh Fataneh Farnia Esther Geva

Published online: 21 August 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract This study investigated the adequacy of an expanded simple view of reading (SVR) framework for English language learners (ELLs), using mediation modeling approach. The proposed expanded SVR included reading uency as an outcome and phonological awareness and naming speed as predictors. To test the t of the proposed mediation model, longitudinal data from 308 ELLs from different linguistic backgrounds were analyzed using structural equation modeling. We examined the mediating role of Grade 2 word-level reading skills in the association between Grade 1 phonological awareness, naming speed, and listening comprehension and Grade 3 reading comprehension and reading uency. The results indicated that word-level reading skills fully mediated the association between phonological awareness, reading comprehension and reading uency. Word-level reading skills partially mediated the association between naming speed and reading uency. Listening comprehension contributed directly to reading comprehension and reading uency. It appears that reading development in ELLs is better understood when reading uency is added to the SVR framework as an outcome and naming speed as a building block of SVR. Theoretical aspects of the mediation model in relation to ELL reading development are also addressed.
Z. Yaghoub Zadeh (&) Directions Evidence and Policy Research Group, 1055 Dunsmuir, Suite 1254, Four Bentall Centre, P.O. Box 48448, Vancouver, BC V7X 1A2, Canada e-mail: zzadeh@Directions-EPRG.ca F. Farnia Adolescent Biliteracy Development, Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Hincks-Dellcrest Centre/Institute, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St, West Toronto, ON M5S 1V6, Canada E. Geva Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St, West Toronto, ON M5S 1V6, Canada

123

164

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

Keywords English language learners Reading comprehension Reading uency Simple view of reading Mediation modeling Primary level

Introduction According to the Simple View of Reading (SVR), reading comprehension is a product of the joint effect of word-level reading skills (decoding) and linguistic comprehension (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Gough & Tunmer, 1986). The SVR framework has been the focus of numerous studies that examined its adequacy in addressing the complexities of reading comprehension. For example Kirby and Savage (2008) maintained that in spite of the broad appeal for SVR framework, it is not sufciently specied. This framework does not address the relationship between reading comprehension and reading uency, nor does it explicitly address the role of underlying cognitive processes in reading comprehension. The adequacy of SVR framework is not well understood in the context of English Language Learners (ELLs), that is, students whose home language is different from English, the societal and school language. The present study targeted ELLs, and examined longitudinally the adequacy of an expanded mediation SVR framework that includes reading uency as an outcome, word-level reading as a mediator, and cognitive processes as predictors of reading uency and reading comprehension. Considering a longitudinal expanded mediation SVR framework Very few published studies (e.g., Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005) have examined the reading comprehension of ELLs within the SVR framework, though parts of the model have been examined in various second language (L2) contexts. In particular, there is evidence that word-level reading and reading comprehension skills are highly correlated in L2 learners, just as they are in monolinguals (Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2002; Lesaux, Lipka, & Siegel, 2006; van Gelderen et al., 2004; Verhoeven, 2000), and that word reading uency (conceptualized in terms of accuracy and speed) correlates with reading comprehension (e.g., van Gelderen et al., 2004). It is also well-documented in the L2 literature that oral language is strongly related to literacy outcomes such as reading comprehension and reading uency (e.g., Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Geva & Yaghoub Zadeh, 2006; Lesaux, Rupp, & Siegel, 2007; Miller et al., 2006; Nakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2008; Proctor et al., 2005), but weaker in relation to accurate word-level reading skills (for a systematic review, see Geva, 2006). Unlike children learning to read in their rst language (L1), ELLs have, by denition, less developed oral language skills to draw on when they read for uency and comprehension in their L2. Because reading for uency or comprehension may be a more challenging task for ELLs than for their monolingual counterparts, they may need to rely more heavily on basic cognitive skills such as phonological awareness and naming speed that are less dependent on language prociency to support the decoding of the written text. For example, in a study of Grade 2 ELLs and monolingual English speaking (EL1) students, Geva and

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

165

Yaghoub Zadeh (2006) found that phonological awareness, rapid naming, accurate word recognition, and oral language prociency, concurrently predicted reading uency in ELLs, but for EL1s only rapid naming and word recognition predicted reading uency, and the contribution of language prociency was negligible in this group. This study, however, did not examine whether phonological awareness and naming speed would make additional longitudinal contributions to reading uency, over and above their role in word-level reading skills. In another longitudinal study, Lesaux et al. (2007) showed that there were associations between phonological awareness, word recognition, and oral language assessed in kindergarten and Grade 4 reading comprehension. Additional nuances concerning the direct or mediated nature of the relations between underlying cognitive skills, word reading and reading comprehension, and the validity of the SVR framework for L2 learners were reported in a recent study of Spanish-speaking ELLs (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009). In this two-year, longitudinal study, the relations between phonological awareness and language prociency assessed in Grade 1 in childrens L1 (Spanish) and their L2 (English) were used to predict word reading accuracy and reading comprehension in Grade 2. The researchers tested the SVR using structural equation modeling (SEM) and concluded that the SVR framework is indeed a valid framework for understanding the English reading comprehension skills of these children. In particular, the results showed that oral language skills assessed in Grade 1 and word reading skills assessed in Grade 2 contributed to Grade 2 reading comprehension. However, unlike Lesaux et al.s (2007) ndings, phonological awareness measured in Grade 1 did not contribute to reading comprehension directly but rather through accurate word recognition in Grade 2. Proctor et al. (2005) examined the reading comprehension of Grade 4 Spanishspeaking ELLs within the SVR framework. Using path analysis, these researchers examined concurrently the contribution of two language prociency measures (vocabulary and listening comprehension), word reading uency, and reading comprehension. They reported that Grade 4 vocabulary contributed to reading comprehension directly and indirectly through listening comprehension, but that Grade 4 word reading uency had a lesser effect on Grade 4 reading comprehension. Evidence from studies involving monolinguals suggests that text reading uency has a stronger relationship with reading comprehension than does word reading uency. It has been argued that text reading uency plays a more prominent role in reading comprehension than word reading uency because it is a more complex task that draws not only on word-level accuracy and speed, but also on the understanding of connected discourse (cf. Cutting, Materek, Cole, Levine, & Mahone, 2009; Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003). In light of this evidence coming from the L1 literature, it may not be surprising that Proctor et al. (2005) did not nd a correlation between word reading uency and oral language skills of ELLs. The inconsistent ndings concerning the role of reading uency in L2 reading comprehension may be due to different analytical and modelling approaches, diversity in sample characteristics, the nature of the reading uency tasks used, different time frames (concurrent or longitudinal), and different research objectives. Given that the nature of reading changes with schooling and development,

123

166

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

it is necessary to carry out research that delineates the longitudinal relations between reading-related skills that develop early, reading competence that builds on these early skills, and subsequent reading comprehension in ELLs. To the best of our knowledge, to date, no longitudinal study of ELL reading has attempted to expand the SVR framework by examining the role of word-level reading as mediating between prerequisite skills that develop early, and the subsequent emergence of higher order text processing outcomes, such as reading comprehension and reading uency. Mediation modeling (Maxwell & Cole, 2007) is a useful methodological tool for unpacking the complexity of longitudinal associations between these reading components. Reading uency as an outcome in an expanded SVR framework Reading uency is often conceptualized as involving accuracy and speed of reading words in isolation and in text (Crosson & Lesaux, 2010; Meyer & Felton, 1999; Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander, 2001). This denition stems from automaticity theories which posit that effortless reading results in less involvement of cognitive resources in lexical retrieval, and leads to allocation of cognitive resources to higher level reading comprehension (Perfetti, 2007). Slocum, Street, and Gilberts (1995) reviewed correlational and experimental research on the association between reading comprehension and reading uency in monolingual students. They concluded that although correlational studies point to an association between reading uency and reading comprehension, experimental studies failed to show that enhancing students reading uency (speed) improved their reading comprehension. They also concluded that the extent of this association may vary as a function of the type of reading comprehension measures used in different studies. Relatedly, in a recent review of the research, Collins and Levy (2008) discussed the nature of the relationship between reading comprehension and reading uency. They concluded that reading comprehension and reading uency develop side by side and share similar underlying factors such as text representation. Studies that examined reading uency as a predictor of reading comprehension provide further evidence on the lack of association between reading uency and reading comprehension. For example, Adlof, Catts, and Little (2006) examined the association between reading uency and reading comprehension in monolingual students in Grades 2, 4, and 8. Their ndings indicate that reading uency did not add any unique variance to the SVR framework. Research focusing on monolingual students has shown that, similar to reading comprehension, text reading uency is associated with oral language (e.g., CohenMimran, 2009; Cutting et al., 2009; Puranik, Petscher, Al Otaiba, Catts, & Lonigan, 2008) and with word-level reading skills (Biemiller, 1999; Carver & David, 2001; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). Such ndings suggest that reading comprehension and reading uency draw on similar prerequisite processing skills such as phonological awareness and naming speed that are related to word-level reading skills. In other words, reading uency and reading comprehension of ELLs may be considered as two separate, complex aspects of reading that draw, to some extent, on similar

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

167

underlying predictors. Over time, however, these two components may become mutually facilitating as is the case in EL1s (e.g., Jenkins et al., 2003). Riedel (2007) examined the association between oral reading uency and reading comprehension in a large sample of children in rst and second grade, the majority of whom were EL1 students. Riedel found that students with adequate levels of oral reading uency but poor reading comprehension had lower vocabulary scores than those with adequate levels of oral reading uency and reading comprehension. Similar results were reported for ELLs by Buly and Valencia (2002). They conducted a cluster analysis to determine whether word identication, reading uency and reading comprehension were similar across the majority of students or represented various patterns for different groups of students. Buly and Valencia reported that in two clusters students had relatively stronger word recognition and uency skills than they did in reading comprehension, and that more than 60% (n = 12) of the students in these two clusters were ELLs. These ndings suggest that the association between reading uency and reading comprehension in ELLs is not as strong as it is in EL1s. Buly and Valencia (2002) attributed the weak association between reading uency and reading comprehension in ELLs to the lack of English language prociency. In a similar vein, Wiley and Deno (2005) studied the association between oral reading uency and reading comprehension in Grade 3 and Grade 5 ELLs and EL1s. They found a stronger association between oral reading uency and reading comprehension in EL1s than in ELLs. They also reported that the association between oral reading uency and reading comprehension was stronger in the older ELLs than in younger ELLs. A recent study by Crosson and Lesaux (2010) involving fth grade Spanishspeaking ELLs provides additional support for the notion that the relationship between reading uency and reading comprehension may not be identical in ELLs and EL1s. They focused on the role of English language prociency in the concurrent association between reading uency and reading comprehension. Crosson and Lesaux reported that text reading uency was associated with reading comprehension in the case of ELLs with high levels of oral language prociency, but not for ELLs with low levels of oral language prociency. Taken together, these studies suggest that the relationship between reading comprehension and reading uency is not identical in EL1s and ELLs, and it probably varies as a function of the age of the learners and their language prociency. In the early stages of learning to read, when oral language skills are not well developed, the association between oral reading uency and reading comprehension may be low in ELLs. This body of research suggests that it may be of theoretical value to consider an expanded SVR framework, in which reading uency and reading comprehension are treated as distinct, yet related, parallel outcome behaviors. Cognitive processing skills as predictors in an expanded SVR framework Ample research involving the SVR framework supports the view that oral language and word-level reading skills play an important role in understanding reading comprehension. However, the SVR framework ignores cognitive processes that have

123

168

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

been shown to play a signicant role in predicting reading comprehension in monolingual (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004) and bilingual learners (e.g., van Gelderen, Schoonen, de Glopper, & Hulstijn, 2007). Previous research has shown that both phonological awareness and naming speed are predictors of word-level reading (e.g., Bowers, 1995; McBride-Chang, Wagner, & Chang, 1997; Wagner et al., 1997; see also Vukovic & Siegel, 2006 for a review). Phonological awareness has been shown to contribute to reading comprehension in monolingual (e.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2000) and in second language learners (Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim, 1999; Manis, Seidenberg, & Doi, 1999; Proctor et al., 2005; Verhoeven, 2000). Furthermore, research on monolingual students has shown that processing skills such as naming speed are related to reading comprehension concurrently and longitudinally (Johnston & Kirby, 2006; Joshi & Aaron, 2000; Parrila, Kirby, & McQuarrie, 2004). These studies provide support for the unique role that phonological awareness and naming speed may play in reading comprehension in monolingual children, over and above the known SVR components. What is not yet clear is the extent to which these ndings are applicable to models of ELL reading comprehension, and whether phonological awareness and naming speed exert their role on reading comprehension directly, or their inuence is mediated through wordlevel reading skills. Mediation modeling: rationale and procedures Mediation modeling is one of the best available statistical procedures to model simultaneously the nature of the interrelationship between hypothesized precursors, mediator(s), and outcomes (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Mediation can be best modelled when using longitudinal databases, because the sequence of data points allows the direction of effect to be modeled. Importantly, modeling mediation follows a specic procedure that does not require the inclusion of autoregressors in the model (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986). It is notable that although mediation procedures allow one to model the direction of the effects among various constructs, it is important to be mindful of the fact that causal conclusions can only be made with caution in the absence of an experimental design (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). When testing integrative models using procedures such as SEM, intercorrelations among the predictor variables are taken into account. Therefore, unlike regression and path analysis approaches, SEM is considered to be an appropriate analytical technique for multivariate data analyses that enables testing mediation models that highlight longitudinal, developmental relationships among the components. In the context of reading development in ELLs, a mediation approach facilitates unpacking associations between precursors of reading (e.g., phonological awareness, naming speed, language comprehension), the hypothesized mediator, namely, word-level reading, and outcome variables, namely, reading comprehension and reading uency. Furthermore, the mediation approach allows for the possibility to be examined that some early predictors exert their inuence on reading outcomes, whether directly and/or indirectly, through the mediator. This elaboration is necessary in order to examine the adequacy of an expanded SVR framework for understanding reading comprehension and reading uency in ELLs.

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

169

To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have used mediation modelling as an analytical approach for understanding reading development in young ELLs. From a theoretical perspective, a mediation model is juxtaposed with a direct model. It is possible to think of the direct model as a benchmark in which all precursors have a direct effect on all reading constructs, namely, word-level reading, reading comprehension, and reading uency. According to the direct model, the contributions of all hypothesized prerequisite cognitive and language skills to reading measures are independent and direct. When the mediation model provides the best t, it may support partial or full mediation. In the present context, partial mediation might show, for example, that phonological awareness or naming speed not only contribute to the reading outcomes through the mediator (in this case, word-level reading), but also that contribute directly to the outcome measures. Alternatively, full mediation would indicate that the only contribution of the prerequisites to the outcome measures is through the mediator. Note that, regardless of what model is supported, it is presumed that listening comprehension, an aspect of language prociency, will be directly related to the outcome measures (i.e., reading comprehension and reading uency). The extent to which the results of the mediation model support the SVR framework depends on whether full or partial mediation is supported. Full mediation of word-level reading between earlier phonological awareness and naming speed and subsequent reading outcomes would conrm the adequacy of the SVR framework. Support for partial mediation might suggest that the SVR is not sufcient to understand the attainment of reading comprehension and reading uency in primary level ELLs. In this study we tted two models to compare the direct-effect and the mediation models. No direction of effect was proposed for the concurrent hypothesized prerequisite constructs assessed in Grade 1 or for the outcomes measured in Grade 3, though correlations between precursor measures and outcome measures were assumed. To examine the direct-effect model (see Fig. 1), we modeled all possible longitudinal direct paths from Grade 1 predictors (i.e., phonological awareness, naming speed, and listening comprehension) to the mediator (i.e., word-level reading in Grade 2), and to the outcome variables (reading uency and reading comprehension in Grade 3). We expected that listening comprehension would contribute directly to reading comprehension and reading uency. However, given previous research ndings (August & Shanahan, 2006), a signicant path was not expected between listening comprehension and word-level reading. Similarly, based on previous ndings (Manis et al., 1999; Pennington, Cardoso-Martins, Green, & Ley, 2001; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Burgess, & Hecht, 1997; van Gelderen et al., 2004), no signicant path was expected from naming speed to Grade 3 reading comprehension. In the mediation model (Fig. 1), we added two paths: one from the word-level construct to reading uency (path A), and one from the word-level construct to reading comprehension (path B). We hypothesized that these two paths would be signicant. For a full mediation model to be supported, it was expected that the direct paths from phonological awareness to reading comprehension and reading uency, and the path from naming speed to reading uency, would not be

123

170

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

Listening Comprehension Grade 1

Reading Comprehension Grade 3 B

Phonological Awareness Grade 1

Word-level Reading Grade 2

A

Naming Speed Grade 1

Reading Fluency Grade 3

Fig. 1 Direct-effect model (benchmark) and mediation model (dotted lines are added for mediation model)

signicant. For a partial mediation model to be supported, the magnitude of the relationships between phonological awareness, naming speed, and the outcome measures were expected to decrease signicantly (in comparison to the direct model). In sum, we hypothesized that the mediation model would t the data better than the direct-effect model. More specically, we expected that as ELLs gradually develop their reading skills, (a) Grade 1 rapid naming would contribute both directly and indirectly (through Grade 2 word-level reading skills) to reading uency; (b) Grade 1 phonological awareness would contribute to Grade 3 reading comprehension and reading uency either indirectly through Grade 2 word-level reading (full mediation), or both directly and indirectly through word-level reading (partial mediation); and (c) Grade 1 listening comprehension would contribute directly to Grade 3 reading comprehension and reading uency.

Method Participants Longitudinal data from 308 ELLs from diverse linguistic backgrounds were collected in three sequential cohorts. The students came from 12 schools spread across four boards of education in a large metropolitan area in Canada. Thirty-ve classes were involved. Fifty-two percent of the participants were male. The participants came from a variety of home language backgrounds comprising 33% Punjabi, 23% Portuguese, 14% Tamil, 14% Cantonese, 11% from three language groups (Urdu, Hindi, and Gujarati), and 5% from other language backgrounds. All three cohorts were rst assessed in Grade 1; they were drawn from the same schools and there were no changes in schools curricula or policy during the study. The data from the three cohorts were combined and all analyses were done on the

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

171

total sample. In order to determine ELL status, the information gathered from a number of sources was triangulated. The identication began with school nominations as ELLs. This information was gathered in order to distribute the appropriate translated consent form to parents. We then checked ofcial school les for all the nominated students to conrm the information. We also asked teachers to identify students in their classrooms who spoke a language other than English at home. This information was veried through parental consent forms and child questionnaires. In order to make sure that ELL students had sufcient knowledge of the English language to understand the English instructions, the testers were instructed to chat with students before administering the tasks while accompanying them from their class to the testing room. Before administering any of the tasks, the testers also monitored whether the participants followed the instructions and did as they were asked in order to develop an index of the adequacy of the students English oral language. Typically, in Canada, recent immigrants from non-English speaking countries or with limited English prociency are placed in regular English classrooms. In the province where the study took place, ELL students with minimal command of English are withdrawn from their classrooms daily for 3040 min of English language instruction, provided by teachers with English as a second language (ESL) specialist training. The ESL classes comprise students of various ages and home language backgrounds, and they are grouped by level of English language prociency. ELLs receive instruction in ESL classes for up to 2 years. For the remainder of the day, the students are integrated into the regular classroom. Regular classroom teachers are expected to make appropriate adaptations to the programming and curriculum for their ELLs. Demographic background We were not able to obtain demographic information directly from parents. However, we were able to access Canadian census data to obtain demographic information in the neighborhoods where the schools were situated, by using relevant postal codes. This information provided useful information that helped to contextualize the study. According to the 2001 Canadian Census, about 58% of the families living in the neighborhoods where the participating schools were located reported a language other than English or French (the two Canadian ofcial languages) as the home language. About 91% of the families were rst-generation immigrants, and 68% of the adults immigrated when they were 20 years of age or older. The average poverty rate in these neighborhoods was 23%, ranging from 0 to 50%. The median income of these families was considerably lower than the median income for the metropolis in which they lived. There was also substantial variation in the level of education of the adults living in these neighborhoods: 36% of the individuals living in the relevant postal code blocks had not obtained a high school diploma or had not nished high school, 13% had a high school diploma, 27% had either a trade certicate or college education, and 20% had obtained at least a bachelors degree.

123

172

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

Grade 1 measures Phonological awareness Two measures of phonological awareness skills were used: the Auditory Analysis Task and the Oddity Task. Auditory analysis task An adapted version of the Auditory Analysis Task (AAT) developed by Rosner and Simon (1971) was used to measure students phonological awareness. To minimize the effect of lexical knowledge, only high frequency words were used for the initial stimuli and target responses (e.g., sunshine, picnic, leg). The 20-item task consists of 3 subtests of progressive difculty. In the rst subtest, students were asked to delete one syllable morpheme in either initial or nal position (e.g., Say sunshine; Say it again but dont say shine). The second subtest aimed at the isolation and deletion of initial or nal single phonemes in onesyllable words (e.g., Say hand; Say it again but dont say the/h/). The third subtest involved deletion of single phonemes in initial or nal consonant blends (e.g., Say left; Say it again without the/f/). The test was discontinued after ve consecutive errors. Each correct answer scored one point. The Cronbach a coefcient was 0.92 for the sample used in this study.1 Oddity task This is an experimental task in which children listened to a series of three, single-syllable CVC pseudowords played on a tape-recorder (e.g., wom, wob, vog) and were asked Which one starts with a different sound? wom, wob, vog?. The same vowel was used within all items in a set. As each item was presented, the experimenter pointed to a corresponding wooden counter (e.g., a square, a star, or a triangle). A tone separated each set of items and alerted children to the next set. To ensure that children remembered the set of items, the entire sequence was presented twice in a row. Three practice items and 19 test items were presented in a xed sequence. The raw score was used in the analyses. The Cronbach a coefcient was 0.70 for the sample used in this study. Naming speed Two subtests of rapid automatized naming (RAN) developed by Denckla and Rudel (1976) were used to measure naming speed: letters and objects. Such tasks tap basic lower level cognitive processes by estimating the speed with which participants access the names of highly automatized printed symbols (Bowers, Golden, Kennedy, & Young, 1994; Wolf, Pfeil, Lotz, & Biddle, 1994). Letter naming This task consists of the presentation of a series of ve highly frequent letters of the English alphabet (O, A, S, D, P). Each letter appears 10 times in random order. Participants are instructed to name the items as quickly and
1

Note that when data collection commenced, commercial, standardized measures of phonological processing, such as the CTOPP, were not yet available.

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

173

accurately as possible. Accuracy and time (in seconds) in naming all 50 items were recorded. Object naming This task consists of the presentation of a series of ve highly frequent objects (i.e., table, door, box, ball, hat). Each of the items appears 10 times in random order. Participants are instructed to name the objects as quickly and accurately as possible. Accuracy and time (in seconds) in naming all 50 items were recorded. The standardized scores of the two naming speed measures were calculated by converting the speed in seconds and the number of errors to respective Z scores. Listening comprehension Listening comprehension (LC), as an indicator of linguistic comprehension, is an experimental measure adapted from the Durrell Analysis of Reading Difculty (Durrell, 1970). This measure comprises two short stories (about a paragraph in length) that represent different difculty levels (Merbaum & Geva, 1998). Each story is read to the child, and the child is instructed to pay attention because he/she will be asked to retell the story and answer some questions about it. LC was evaluated in two complementary manners. There were eight idea units in each story. After listening to each story, the child was asked to retell it, and answer one inferential and four factual questions which were presented orally to the child. Both Story 1 and Story 2 had a maximum score of 13. Childrens story retelling and answers were tape-recorded. The recordings were later transcribed and scored by two native English-speaking raters. For the free recall component, children were given one point for each idea unit recalled. One point was also given for each correctly answered oral comprehension question. Children were not penalized for making grammatical errors in the free recall or the questionanswer components of this task. There was an 85% agreement rate between the two raters. However, following discussion of answers that were not initially agreed upon, the raters were able to reach a full consensus on all protocols, and the resulting scores were used in the analyses. The Cronbach a coefcient was 0.76 for the sample used in this study. Grade 2 measures Word-level reading skills Two measures were used to assess childrens word-level reading skills: a word identication test, and a pseudoword decoding test. Word identication The word identication subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R; Wilkinson, 1993) was used to assess childrens ability to read isolated words in English. WRAT is a standardized test with an internal consistence of 0.88 at Grade 2. This test consists of 42 monosyllabic and polysyllabic words. The word items involve nouns, verbs, adjectives, and

123

174

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

prepositions. The test was discontinued after 10 consecutive errors. The total number of correctly read words was considered as each childs score on the test. Pseudoword decoding The Word Attack subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (Woodcock, 1987) was administered to assess childrens ability to employ grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules in decoding pseudowords. The test consists of 45 items that conform to the rules of English orthography, but are not real words in English (e.g., bufty, mancingful). The total of correctly read items was considered each childs total score. The split half reliability reported for Grades 13 ranged from 0.91 to 0.94. Grade 3 measures Reading comprehension An experimental measure of reading comprehension was adapted from the Durrell Analysis of Reading Difculty (Durrell, 1970). Children were asked to read aloud three short stories. They were instructed to pay close attention to the stories. These were not the same stories used for the LC condition. Children were asked to retell each story and then answer ve open-ended questions, four of which were of a factual nature (e.g., What did the men look like?) and one which was inferential (e.g., Where was the money returned to?). The childrens story retelling and responses to the questions were tape-recorded. As in the LC condition, they were given one point for each idea unit recalled and one point for each correct answer. There was an 87% agreement rate between the raters. However, following discussion of answers that were not initially agreed upon, the raters were able to reach a full consensus on all protocols, and the resulting ratings were used in the analyses. The Cronbach a coefcient was 0.83 for the sample used in this study. Reading uency Two subtests of the Biemiller Test of Reading Processes (Biemiller, 1981) were used to measure reading uency, oral text reading uency, and oral word reading uency. Each subtest yields a measure of accuracy and a measure of speed of reading. Oral text reading uency Children were asked to read a short narrative text as quickly as possible. The text consists of 100 primary level words. Oral word reading uency The children were asked to read, as quickly as possible, a corresponding word list containing 50 randomly ordered words taken from the narrative text described above. The number of correctly read words within the word and text reading uency conditions yielded measures of word- and text-reading accuracy respectively, and the number of seconds it took children to read the text and the words provided corresponding measures of word and text reading speed. Errors and speed scores were standardized to Z scores. The word uency scores were based on the average

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

175

of the errors and speed Z scores (Stanovich & West, 1989). The same procedure was used to calculate standard scores for text uency. The lower the scores, the more uent the children are in reading words and texts. Procedure Consent forms in English and in the students home languages were distributed in each of the participating classrooms. Only children with parental consent participated. Students were tested on a large battery of tests, administered across four testing sessions; each session lasted approximately 30 minutes. Students were assessed in the winter/spring of each successive year. Testing was done on an individual basis by fully trained graduate students and research assistants. Results Missing data points are unavoidable in longitudinal research. The sample size in Grade 1 was 308. The rate of attrition for data gathered in Grade 2 was about 27% (n = 225) (i.e., word identication and word attack), and in Grade 3 about 42% (n = 179) (i.e., reading comprehension and reading efciency measures). To examine whether participants with partial data were different from participants with full data, we compared the two groups on Grade 1 data. The two groups did not differ on measures of listening comprehension, phonological awareness, naming speed or nonverbal ability (see Appendix). However, due to the bias that emerges from analyzing only the data from participants with complete data, multiple imputation procedures were used to estimate the missing data points. Multiple imputation is one of the best procedures to deal with missing data (Allison, 2003; Collins, Schafer, & Kam, 2001; reskog & Serbo m, 2001) program was Schafer & Graham, 2002). The LISREL 8.72 (Jo used to impute the missing points using an expected maximization (EM) algorithm. This procedure resulted in complete data for 308 ELLs. All measures had normal distributions and nonsignicant skewness and kurtosis. Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlation coefcients for all variables. On the whole, there were signicant correlations among all variables of interest. As can be seen in Table 1, there were signicant bivariate correlations among (a) early (Grade 1) cognitive and phonological processing predictors (i.e., phonological awareness, naming speed), and linguistic comprehension, and Grade 2 word-level reading (i.e., word identication and pseudoword decoding); (b) early cognitive and phonological processing predictors and outcome variables (i.e., reading comprehension, reading uency); and (c) measures of word-level reading (i.e., word identication and pseudoword decoding), and outcome variables. In addition, there were signicant, albeit moderate, correlations between the two outcome measures, reading comprehension and reading uency. Measurement model In this study, we considered six latent variables: phonological awareness, rapid naming, listening comprehension (assessed in Grade1), word-level reading skills

123

176

123
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -0.13 -0.12 0.47 0.45 0.25 0.31 0.37 -0.16 -0.09 10.66 3.65 0.50 0.59 0.002 0.011 0.26 0.15 -0.25 14.03 10.46 -0.18 0.13 -0.27 -0.08 -0.11 0.48 0.15 -0.07 0.47 0.50 0.53 -0.27 -0.22 24.69 5.11 -0.01 0.04 0.39 0.46 0.51 0.44 -0.27 -0.10 6.70 1.44 0.68 -0.31 -0.21 9.65 2.29 -0.35 -0.28 9.65 2.03 0.75 -0.03 0.33 -0.03 0.28 -0.25 -0.26 0.88 -0.19 -0.20 0.39

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefcients for all measures

Measures

Grade 1

1. LC-S1

2. LC-S2

0.64

3. AAT

0.33

0.35

4. Oddity

0.14

0.20

0.45

5. Letter naming

-0.05

-0.02

-0.10

6. Object naming

-0.08

-0.13

-0.15

Grade 2

7. Decoding

0.24

0.24

0.68

8. Word ID

0.27

0.27

0.67

Grade 3

9. RC-S1

0.34

0.22

0.42

10. RC-S2

0.43

0.40

0.43

11. RC-S3

0.46

0.37

0.45

12. Fluency-W

-0.24

-0.17

-0.23

13. Fluency-T

-0.28

-0.24

-0.11

Means

7.13

4.30

7.02

SDs

3.16

2.79

4.21

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

All correlation coefcients above 0.11 are signicant at p \ 0.001; LC-S1 listening comprehension-story 1, LC-S2 listening comprehension-story 2, AAT auditory analysis task, Oddity pseudoword rst phoneme identication, RC-S1 reading comprehension-story 1, RC-S2 reading comprehension-story 2, RC-S3 reading comprehension-story 3, Fluency-W word uency, Fluency-T text uency

Mediation model of ELL reading

177

(assessed in Grade 2), and reading comprehension and reading uency (assessed in Grade 3). Each latent variable comprised two measures, except for reading comprehension which consisted of three measures. We used conrmatory factor analysis to test the measurement model. All the measures loaded signicantly on the respective latent variables. As shown in Fig. 2, factor loadings for Grade 1 predictor measures ranged from 0.55 to 0.88; factor loadings for the two Grade 2 measures, comprising the mediator, were 0.930.95, and factor loadings for Grade 3 outcome measures ranged from 0.61 to 1.00. Since chi-square is sensitive to sample size, we used t indices that are less sensitive to sample size to assess goodness of t for the models. The ratio between chi-square and degrees of freedom is considered a good t when it is less than 3 (Cole, 1987; Kline, 1998). In this study, this ratio was 1.97 for the measurement model. The root-mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) is also one of the indices that is less dependent on sample size, and a value of 0.06 or less indicates a
.88
Listening Comprehension Grade 1

List. CompStory 1 List. CompStory 2 Auditory analysis task Oddity

.73 .83 Phonological Awareness Grade 1 .55 .69 Naming Speed Grade 1 .58 .95 Word-level reading Grade 2 .93 .76 Reading Fluency Grade 3 1.0 .61 Reading Comprehension Grade 3 .79

Letters naming Objects naming

Word ID Decoding Word Fluency

Text Fluency Reading CompStory 1 Reading CompStory 2 Reading CompStory 3

.85

Fig. 2 Measurement model: factor loadings on the six latent constructs. Note. v2 (46) = 90.03; RMSEA = 0.06; GFI = 0.96; AGFI = 0.92; CFI = 0.98; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.97

123

178

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

model with good t (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The RMSEA for the measurement model was 0.06, indicating a good t. Other indices of t, independent of sample size, are the model goodness of t (GFI), adjusted goodness of t (AGFI), comparative t index (CFI), normed t index (NFI), non-normed t index (NNFI); values of 0.90 or higher indicated a good t of the model. For the measurement model, all these indices were above 0.90, indicating a good t. Fit indices of the measurement model (v2 (46) = 90.03; RMSEA = 0.06) indicated that the model t the data well and it was feasible to test the full models. First, we tted a direct and a mediation model to the data. We then compared the two models in terms of their t indices, including chi-square values and degrees of freedom. This was done to determine which of the alternative theoretical models best t the data. The model with signicantly lower chi-square would be the one that best ts the data. Direct-effect model Figure 3 depicts the direct-effect model. For simplicity, only the structural models with the estimated standardized coefcients for the paths is presented. The loadings of the measures on the latent variables remained similar to the loadings presented in Fig. 2. As expected, listening comprehension did not contribute to word-level reading, but phonological awareness and rapid naming did. Of the three Grade 1 latent constructs, listening comprehension and phonological awareness were directly related to reading comprehension in Grade 3, but rapid naming was not. For reading uency, the direct model indicated that all Grade 1 constructs were related to reading uency in Grade 3. The t indices, and the ratio between chisquare and degrees of freedom (2.01) indicated that the direct model t the data well (v2 (48) = 96.53; RMSEA = 0.06). This model explained 62% of the variance in reading comprehension and 23% of the variance in reading uency.

Listening Comprehension Grade 1

.34 Reading Comprehension Grade 3 -.19 .58

.47

Phonological Awareness
Grade 1

.95

Word-level Reading Grade 2

-.23

-.20 -.19 Reading Fluency Grade 3

Naming Speed
Grade 1

.30

Fig. 3 Direct-effect model: structural equation model indicating coefcients for all the signicant paths. Dotted arrows indicate the non-signicant path coefcients. v2 (48) = 96.53; RMSEA = 0.06, GFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.91; CFI = 0.98; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.97

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

179

Mediation model To examine the t for the mediation model (see Fig. 4), we added the paths from the Grade 2 word-level reading construct to Grade 3 reading comprehension and reading uency. While the path from word-level reading to reading comprehension was signicant, the direct paths from Grade 1 phonological awareness and naming speed to reading comprehension were nonsignicant. Instead, the word-level reading construct fully mediated the association between phonological awareness, naming speed, and subsequent reading comprehension. In other words, the effect of phonological awareness and naming speed on reading comprehension was solely through their effect on word-level reading. As hypothesized, the relationship between listening comprehension and reading comprehension was direct, and not mediated through word-level reading. As for reading uency, while the path from word-level reading to reading uency was signicant, the direct path from Grade 1 phonological awareness to reading uency was nonsignicant. That is, the effect of phonological awareness on reading uency was solely through its effect on word-level reading. The standardized path coefcient from naming speed in Grade 1 to reading uency in Grade 3 decreased from 0.30 to 0.20, once the path from word-level reading to reading uency construct was included, indicating that word-level reading partially mediated the effect of naming speed on reading uency. In other words, unlike phonological awareness, naming speed made an additional contribution to reading uency aside from its contribution through word-level reading. As hypothesized, the relationship between listening comprehension and reading uency was direct, and not mediated through word-level reading. The nonsignicant path between the reading uency and reading comprehension constructs in the mediation and direct-effect models should be considered in conjunction with the

Listening Comprehension Grade 1

.42 Reading Comprehension Grade 3 .43 Word-level Reading Grade 2 .51

.46

-.28 Phonological Awareness

Grade 1

.87

-.23

-.20 Reading Fluency Grade 3 .20

Naming Speed Grade 1

Fig. 4 Mediation model: structural equation model indicating coefcients for all the signicant paths. Note. Dotted arrows indicate the non-signicant path coefcients; bolded arrows indicate mediation paths. v2 (46) = 90.03; RMSEA = 0.06, GFI = 0.96; AGFI = 0.92; CFI = 0.98; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.97

123

180

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

correlation tables. Table 1 indicates that there was a small but signicant association between measures of reading uency and reading comprehension, prior to tting the structural model. The correlations hovered between 0.21 and 0.35 with one exception (0.10). Therefore, the nonsignicant bidirectional path between the reading uency and reading comprehension constructs might be the result of modeling the role of early predictors of these reading skills. The t indices of the mediation model indicated that the model t the data well (v2 (46) = 90.03; RMSEA = 0.06). The model explained 61% of variance in reading comprehension and 25% of variance in reading uency. Comparisons between the t indices for the direct-effect and mediation models indicated that the mediation model had a signicantly better t than the direct-effect model (Dv2 = 6.50, df = 2, p \ 0.05). Finally, it is important to note that in both the direct model and the mediation model, the correlation between reading comprehension and reading uency was not signicant. As for the predictors, all correlations except the correlation between naming speed and listening comprehension were signicant.

Discussion Findings of this study add to an emerging body of L2-based literature by suggesting an expanded SVR framework. The study expands the SVR framework in three interrelated perspectives. First, it affords a long-range perspective that delineates the longitudinal relationships among component reading skills through a mediation model. Second, it suggests that the expanded SVR framework needs to include reading uency and reading comprehension as outcomes, at least in the case of young ELLs. Third, it draws attention to additional cognitive processes that underlie reading comprehension and reading uency in young ELLs. In what followswe discuss the ndings in turn, from each of these perspectives. Component reading skills and subsequent reading outcomes: a mediation model Research has shown that regardless of the L1s spoken by ELLs, cognitive-linguistic processes, such as phonological awareness and naming speed, are more consistent and potent predictors of subsequent word-level reading skills than are L2 oral language skills (Geva, 2006). At the same time, well-developed language skills (in conjunction with well developed word-level reading skills) are essential for deriving meaning from texts. In this study we delineated the longitudinal relationships among component reading skills that build on each other and develop gradually in ELLs. The mediation model enabled us to examine the inuence that early cognitive and linguistic prociency predictors (i.e., phonological awareness, naming speed, listening comprehension) exert on reading outcomes, reading comprehension and reading uency (whether directly or indirectly), through word-level reading. By design, and based on previous theoretical frameworks of reading development (e.g., Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999; Chall, 1983; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Francis et al., 2005), in this study, certain skills were assessed at developmentally

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

181

appropriate times. The longitudinal, developmental perspective is an asset to mediation modelling, but it raises interesting questions pertaining to causal longitudinal relations between constructs. That is how ndings might have differed if for example reading uency data were used at multiple time points and any potential causal relations that could be explored may be the subject of future research. The expanded SVR framework demonstrates within a longitudinal framework that the impact of oral language prociency on subsequent reading comprehension and reading uency is direct, and independent of word-level reading skills. These longitudinal relationships are present in ELLs whose language skills in English are far from being at an optimal level. Importantly, even as ELLs continue to develop their language skills, individual differences in their language prociency is directly related to subsequent reading comprehension and reading uency. At the same time, individual differences in language prociency of ELLs are not related to the more modularized word-level reading skills. Futhermore, the results point to the fact that early predictors, such as phonological awareness and naming speed, are related to subsequent reading outcomes in a more complex manner. Phonological awareness exerts its inuence solely through the mediator (word-level reading); naming speed exerts its inuence both directly and indirectly. That is, once ELLs have had sufcient opportunities to develop their word-level reading skills, individual differences in phonological awareness no longer contribute directly to the higher level reading components (i.e., reading uency and reading comprehension), though they continue to do so, as shown, through the mediator. At the same time, individual differences in naming speed continue to exert an inuence on reading uency beyond their contribution to effortless word reading. More generally, these ndings should be considered in light of language exposure and early literacy instruction. At the onset of systematic exposure of ELLs to language and literacy skills in Grade 1, individual differences in underlying processing skills, such as phonological awareness and naming speed, play a key role in developing word-level reading skills. Gradually, with schooling, literacy development, and systematic exposure to English, the word-level reading skills of ELLs become more automatized, and their command of the societal and school language improves. Improvement in word-level reading and language skills enables ELLs to read texts with more uency and ease, and with more comprehension. Along with word reading skills, individual differences in language comprehension continue to play a sustained role in reading uency and reading comprehension. An expanded SVR: reading uency and reading comprehension as outcomes As noted in the introduction, there is no agreement in the literature on the relationship between reading uency and reading comprehension. Some L1-based researchers argue that reading uency is a bridge from word identication to reading comprehension (e.g., Bashir & Hook, 2009). Others maintain that reading uency is not merely a component of reading comprehension, but that it is an aspect of higher level reading that is distinct from reading comprehension (Adlof et al., 2006; Collins & Levy, 2008). Our ELL-based ndings are in line with the latter position.

123

182

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

The univariate associations between reading comprehension and word and text reading uency in Grade 3 is signicant but rather low. Once entered into the mediation or direct-effect models, there is no signicant association between these two outcome constructs. In other words, once the prerequisite reading skills (phonological awareness, naming speed, word reading, and language prociency) that underlie these two higher level reading components are modeled, the association between them becomes nonsignicant. These ndings suggest that, to a large extent, the positive association between reading uency and reading comprehension depends on the factors that drive this association. That is, at least in the case of young ELL students, the oft-cited correlations between reading uency and reading comprehension can be understood in terms of common underlying factors. The ndings support an argument for an expanded SVR framework that takes a developmental stance, that includes reading uency and reading comprehension as outcomes, and that allows for direct and indirect contribution of cognitive processes and language prociency related skills to the outcomes. Such a developmental framework provides a more complex, yet parsimonious, model of the factors that contribute to subsequent reading achievement in ELLs. While reading comprehension and reading uency draw on similar processes, they are distinct constructs in the primary grades. As suggested elsewhere, a closer alignment or amalgamation between reading comprehension and reading uency in ELLs is likely to emerge in later years (Wiley & Deno, 2005). This distinction has important theoretical implications and implications for instruction. While compelling, it is important to acknowledge that these conclusions might be an artifact of the methodology used. For example, in this study, reading comprehension was an untimed measure and the reading uency measure focused on accuracy and speed and not on meaning. The degree of association between these two reading measures might have been stronger had we used a timed measure for reading comprehension or a measure of reading uency that included meaning. In this regard it is also important to note that when testing for reading uency, the nature of the instructions might affect the results. Instructions of the kind given in this study to read as fast as you can have been shown to affect participants n & performance as they are less likely to focus on accuracy or meaning (Colo Kranzler, 2006). In addition, reading development in ELL populations can be the result of a complex interaction of linguistic and cultural factors which may impede second language development. Lack of information on cultural factors is one of the limitations of this study. Cognitive processes that underlie reading comprehension and reading uency Notwithstanding contextual factors, such as instructional approaches, background knowledge, and home literacy, that affect reading achievement and reading uency (beyond the scope of this paper), individual differences in language competence underlie these longitudinal relationships. Even under optimal instructional and contextual conditions, individual differences in L2 language competence exist. Even under similar instructional conditions, some children will have the competence to develop their English language skills faster and with more ease than others.

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

183

Naturally, these children are likely to attain subsequently better developed comprehension of written language and more uent reading skills. Before being exposed systematically to the L2 in the school context, some ELLs are better language learners than others. Good language learners acquire vocabulary faster, are more sensitive to phonemic contrasts, are better at parsing morphemes and at processing complex sentences, and have better developed metalinguistic skills. In turn, in a cascading fashion, these early differences in language skills also underlie the potential for acquiring the L2, and in the long run, enhance better reading comprehension, more uent reading, and further language development (for a similar argument, see Sparks & Ganschow, 2001). In conjunction with language skills, good word-level reading skills are essential for reading uency and reading comprehension. However, a model that includes only these building blocks is not sufcient, in the case of reading uency. Instead, reading uency is better understood when naming speed, an important underlying cognitive skill is added to the SVR building blocks. It is noteworthy that the expanded mediation SVR framework explains more than twice as much variance in reading comprehension compared with reading uency. Other factors, not included in this study, such as short-term memory (CohenMimran, 2009), morphology (Cohen-Mimran, 2009), orthographic speed (Wood, 2009), orthographic representation (Berninger et al., 2010), and orthographic pattern recognition (Katzir et al., 2006) may explain additional variance in reading uency and contribute further to this model. The results pertaining to reading uency in ELLs are in line with L1-based research pointing to a complex view of reading uency (Katzir et al., 2006, p. 77). Clearly, more research is needed to understand what cognitive processes contribute to the reading comprehension and reading uency of ELLs, in addition to those associated with language comprehension and word-level reading skills (Cain et al., 2004; Kirby and Savage, 2008; van Gelderen et al., 2007). This study expands the SVR framework for young ELLs coming from different language backgrounds. However, because the sample size for students from different language backgrounds was not large enough, it was not possible to examine the mediation model for different language groups in this study. The extent to which the predictability of this expanded mediation model might be upheld, regardless of typological language differences and across different ages, is open for further investigation. These ndings have practical implications for assessment of at-risk ELLs. Our ndings suggest that phonological awareness, naming speed, and oral language measured in Grade 1 ELLs have predictive power for how well their reading comprehension and reading uency will develop subsequently. While mindful of their ELL status, poor performance of young ELLs on phonological awareness, naming speed and oral language can be a warning sign of potential difculties in their subsequent word reading, reading uency, and reading comprehension. The model suggests that early identication can take place even before ELLs demonstrate reading problems. When failing to complete preliteracy tasks, such as phonological awareness and speed of processing, ELLs should be supported to develop these skills to avoid word reading problems. If this support is accompanied

123

184

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

with activities to enhance their linguistic comprehension, ELLs may be less likely to develop difculties in reading comprehension and reading uency. By Grade 2, additional information about risk status can be determined if students have difculties with word-level reading skills. These ndings could be used as a starting point for identication and validation of screening tools for ELLs with reading difculties.

Appendix See Table 2.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, F-value, and p-value for missing group and the group with complete data Variables Mean (SD) for missing group 7.26 (3.43) 4.25 (2.92) 7.36 (4.28) 10.81 (3.85) 0.03 (0.49) 0.04 (0.61) 98.82 (15.26) 100.77 (15.21) 97.34 (11.92) Mean (SD) for complete group 7.36 (3.31) 4.66 (3.04) 7.37 (4.59) 10.91 (4.01) -0.09 (0.68) -0.11 (0.71) 95.56 (17.12) 98.66 (16.95) 98.07 (11.73) F p

LC-S1 LC-S2 AAT Oddity Letter naming Object naming Decoding WID MAT (ss)

0.06 1.27 0.001 0.05 2.94 3.09 2.46 1.05 0.14

0.80 0.26 0.98 0.82 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.31 0.71

LC-S1 listening comprehension-story 1, LC-S2 listening comprehension-story 2, AAT auditory analysis task, Oddity pseudoword rst phoneme identication, WID word identication, MAT (ss) standardized non-verbal IQ. The sample size for missing group was 83 for the Grade 1 measures and 129 for the Grade 2 measures. For complete group, the sample size was 225 for Grade 1 measures and 179 for Grade 2 measures

References
Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a uency component? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 933958. Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 545557. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Introduction and methodology. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182. Bashir, A. S., & Hook, P. E. (2009). Fluency: A key link between word identication and comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 196200. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Trivedi, P., Olson, E., Gould, L., Hiramatsu, S., et al. (2010). Applying the multiple dimensions of reading uency to assessment and instruction. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 318.

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

185

Biemiller, A. J. (1981). Biemiller test of reading processes. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Biemiller, A. (1999). Language and reading success. Cambridge, MA: Brookline. Bowers, P. G. (1995). Tracing symbol naming speeds unique contribution to reading disability over time. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 189216. Bowers, P. G., Golden, J., Kennedy, A., & Young, A. (1994). Limits upon orthographic knowledge due to processes index by naming speed. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge: Vol. 1. Theoretical and developmental issues (pp. 173218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Proles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 219239. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. (2000). Phonological skills and comprehension failure: A test of the phonological processing decit hypothesis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 3156. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. (2004). Childrens reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 3142. Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M., Davis, H. L., & Spharim, G. (1999). Relationship of metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 459478. Carver, R. P., & David, A. H. (2001). Investigating reading achievement using a causal model. Scientic Studies of Reading, 5, 107140. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientic Studies of Reading, 3, 331361. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientic Studies of Reading, 6, 369400. Cohen-Mimran, R. (2009). The contribution of language skills to reading uency: A comparison of two orthographies for Hebrew. Journal of Child Language, 36, 657672. Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of conrmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 584594. Collins, W. M., & Levy, B. A. (2008). Developing uent text procession with practice: Memorial inuences on uency and comprehension. Canadian Psychology, 49, 133139. Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C. M. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330351. n, E. P., & Kranzler, J. H. (2006). Effect of instructions on curriculum-based measurement of Colo reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 318328. Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of uent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers text-reading uency in English. Reading and Writing, An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 475494. Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A. S., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects of uency, oral language and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of Dyslexia, 59, 3454. Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language prociency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientic Studies of Reading, 10, 277299. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976). Rapid automatized naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471479. Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language prociency and reading ability in rst- and secondlanguage learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78103. Durrell, D. D. (1970). Durrell analysis of reading difculty. New York: Psychological Corporation. Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identication of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufcient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98108. Geva, E. (2006). Second-language oral prociency and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 123139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

123

186

Z. Yaghoub Zadeh et al.

Geva, E., & Yaghoub Zadeh, Z. (2006). Reading efciency in native English-speaking and English-as-asecond-language children: The role of oral prociency and underlying cognitive-linguistic processes. Scientic Studies of Reading, 10, 3157. Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2009). Are rst and second language factors related in predicting school language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from rst to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 330344. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. RASE: Remedial and Special Education, 7, 610. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127160. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading uency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719729. Johnston, T. C., & Kirby, J. R. (2006). The contribution of naming speed to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 339361. reskog, K. G., & Serbo m, D. (2001). LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago: Scientic Software. Jo Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 8597. Katzir, T., Kim, Y., Wolf, M., OBrien, B., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., et al. (2006). Reading uency: The whole is more than the parts. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 5182. Kirby, J. R., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42, 7582. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Lesaux, N. K., Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). Investigating cognitive and linguistic abilities that inuence the reading comprehension skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 99131. Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a ve-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 821834. Manis, F. R., Seidenberg, M. S., & Doi, L. M. (1999). See Dick RAN: Rapid naming and the longitudinal prediction of reading subskills in rst and second graders. Scientic Studies of Reading, 3, 129157. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 2344. McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., & Chang, L. (1997). Growth modeling of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 621630. Merbaum, C., & Geva, E. (1998, December). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension in L1 and L2 Grade one children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference (The role of oral language prociency in the development of English as a second language reading skills of young children), Austin, TX. Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance uency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283306. Miller, J. F., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Oral language and reading in bilingual children. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21, 3043. Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2008). A cross-linguistic investigation of English language learners reading comprehension in English and Spanish. Scientic Studies of Reading, 12, 351371. Parrila, R. K., Kirby, J. R., & McQuarrie, L. (2004). Articulation rate, naming speed, verbal short-term memory, and phonological awareness: Longitudinal predictors of early reading development. Scientic Studies of Reading, 8, 326. Pennington, B. F., Cardoso-Martins, C., Green, P. A., & Ley, D. L. (2001). Comparing the phonological and double decit hypotheses for developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 707755. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. What should the scientic study of reading be now and in the near future? [special issue]. Scientic Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357383. Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 247256.

123

Mediation model of ELL reading

187

Puranik, C. S., Petscher, Y., Al Otaiba, S., Catts, H. W., & Lonigan, C. J. (2008). Development of oral reading uency in children with speech or language impairments. A growth curve analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 545560. Riedel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary in urban rst-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 546567. Rosner, J., & Simon, D. P. (1971). The auditory analysis test: An initial report. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 383392. Schafer, J., & Graham, J. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147177. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445. Slocum, T. A., Street, E. M., & Gilberts, G. (1995). A review of research and theory on the relation between oral reading rate and reading comprehension. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 377398. Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90111. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402433. Torgesen, J., Rashotte, C., & Alexander, A. (2001). The prevention and remediation of reading uency problems. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, uency, and the brain (pp. 333355). Cambridge, MA: York Press. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S. (1997). Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the growth of word-reading skills in second- to fth-grade children. Scientic Studies of Reading, 1, 161185. van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 477491. van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed and metacognitive knowledge in rst and second language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 1930. Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientic Studies of Reading, 4, 313330. Vukovic, R. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). The double decit hypothesis: A comprehensive review of the evidence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 2547. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., et al. (1997). Changing relations between phonological abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A ve-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 468479. Wiley, H. I., & Deno, S. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207214. Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide range achievement testRevised (WRAT 3-R) (3rd ed.). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range. Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading uency and its intervention. Scientic Studies of Reading, 5, 211239. Wolf, M., Pfeil, C., Lotz, R., & Biddle, K. (1994). Toward a more universal understanding of the developmental dyslexias: The contribution of orthographic factors. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge: Vol. 1. Theoretical and developmental issues (pp. 137171). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Wood, D. E. (2009). Modeling the relationships between cognitive and reading measures in third and fourth grade children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 96112. Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

123