Study findings support multiplicative over additive versions of the Simple View for children with SCD¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Because reading comprehension difficulty was much greater in magnitude than vocabulary weakness (d differences of 0.93 and 1.40), the additive simple view was not supported. → Spencer 2019

Evidence¶

Spencer 2019¶

Spencer, M., Wagner, R. K., & Petscher, Y. (2019). The Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Knowledge of Children with Poor Reading Comprehension despite Adequate Decoding: Evidence from a Regression-Based Matching Approach. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000274

q3 · i? · associational · r3

Discussion-section synthesis of the effect size comparisons across both SCD subgroups. The authors interpret the larger comprehension weakness as favoring a multiplicative over an additive simple view model for these children.

"children with SCD had significant reading comprehension difficulties (d = −2.49 and −3.43) and vocabulary (d = −1.56 and −2.03); however, the observed reading comprehension difficulties were much more pronounced than children’s vocabulary weakness (d difference = 0.93 and 1.40)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Children with specific reading comprehension difficulties show substantially poorer reading comprehension than vocabulary relative to typical readers — related
• The vocabulary weakness of children with SCD is best characterized as a developmental delay rather than a developmental deficit — related