Automaticity does not predict decoding or reading comprehension in middle-school students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Masked task versions captured negligible, non-significant variance in decoding (WRMT) and none in comprehension (GMRT). → Roembke Tanja C. 2019

Evidence¶

Roembke Tanja C. 2019¶

Roembke Tanja C., Hazeltine Eliot, Reed Deborah K., McMurray Bob. (2019). Automaticity of Word Recognition is a Unique Predictor of Reading Fluency in Middle-School Students. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000279

q3 · i0 · associational · r2

Hierarchical regressions on decoding (WRMT) and comprehension (GMRT) in the same sample. The article reports masked versions "captured extremely small amounts of variance" (ΔR2 = 0.001 to 0.002), "none of which were significant", and comprehension was predicted only by vocabulary (ΔR2 = 0.242).

"All of the masked versions captured extremely small amounts of variance (masked Find the Picture: ΔR2= 0.001; masked Find the Rhyme: ΔR2 < 0.001; masked Verify: ΔR2 = 0.002), none of which were significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Masked and unmasked task performance tap different components of skilled reading — reports the opposite
• Masked (automatic) word recognition uniquely predicts oral reading fluency over and above unmasked accuracy and vocabulary in middle-school students — reports the opposite
• Masked word recognition uniquely predicts silent reading fluency via the Find the Picture task — reports the opposite
• Automatic word recognition frees resources for comprehension — related
• Automaticity is detectable in the orthography-to-phonology pathway using nonword trials — related