The component analysis of the five literacy measures yielded a speed factor (word and nonword reading speed) and an accuracy factor (word and nonword reading accuracy), with spelling analysed separately due to less clear-cut loadings¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2–r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The first principal component analysis of the five literacy measures indicated a two-component solution with reading speed measures on the first and reading accuracy measures on the second component. → Moll 2014 q2 i? Spelling loaded higher on the accuracy component (.64) than the speed component (.40) but not clearly, so spelling was analysed as a separate outcome. → Moll 2014 (2)

Evidence¶

Moll 2014¶

Moll, K., Ramus, F., Bartling, J., Bruder, J., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., Streiftau, S., Lyytinen, H., Leppänen, P. H. T., Lohvansuu, K., Tóth, D., Honbolygó, F., Csépe, V., Bogliotti, C., Iannuzzi, S., Démonet, J.-F., Longeras, E., Valdois, S., George, F., Soares-Boucaud, I., Le Heuzey, M.-F., Billard, C., O'Donovan, M., Hill, G., Williams, J., Brandeis, D., Maurer, U., Schulz, E., van der Mark, S., Müller-Myhsok, B., Schulte-Körne, G., & Landerl, K. (2014). Cognitive mechanisms underlying reading and spelling development in five European orthographies. Learning and Instruction, 29, 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.003

q2 · i? · associational · r3

A principal component analysis (Varimax rotation) of the five literacy attainment measures in the pooled sample showed "a two component solution with clear loadings of word and nonword reading speed on the first component" and accuracy on the second.

"The results indicated a two component solution with clear loadings of word and nonword reading speed on the first component (speed factor: eigenvalue = 2. 38 ; both factor loadings = .90), and word and nonword reading accuracy on the second component (accuracy factor: eigenvalue = 1.1 0 ; factor loadings = .76 and .80, respectively)."

Moll 2014 (2)¶

Moll, K., Ramus, F., Bartling, J., Bruder, J., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., Streiftau, S., Lyytinen, H., Leppänen, P. H. T., Lohvansuu, K., Tóth, D., Honbolygó, F., Csépe, V., Bogliotti, C., Iannuzzi, S., Démonet, J.-F., Longeras, E., Valdois, S., George, F., Soares-Boucaud, I., Le Heuzey, M.-F., Billard, C., O'Donovan, M., Hill, G., Williams, J., Brandeis, D., Maurer, U., Schulz, E., van der Mark, S., Müller-Myhsok, B., Schulte-Körne, G., & Landerl, K. (2014). Cognitive mechanisms underlying reading and spelling development in five European orthographies. Learning and Instruction, 29, 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.003

q2 · i? · associational · r2

In the same component analysis, "The spelling measure loaded higher on the accuracy component than on the speed component (.64 versus . 40 )", but loadings were not clear-cut, so the authors analysed spelling as a separate outcome measure.

"The spelling measure loaded higher on the accuracy component than on the speed component (.64 versus . 40 ), but the loadings were not as clear-cut as for the reading measures. Therefore, we decided to analyse spelling separately,"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Phonological processing and RAN constitute two separate factors that both account for significant unique variance in literacy attainment in all five orthographies — related
• RAN explained more unique variance in reading speed than phonological measures in English, French, German and Hungarian (16.7 to 22.8%), with Finnish the exception where all proximal factors contributed low, roughly equal amounts — related