Phonological processing and RAN constitute two separate factors that both account for significant unique variance in literacy attainment in all five orthographies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Principal component analysis of the four predictor measures yielded a two-component solution separating phonological measures (phoneme deletion, digit span) from the two RAN measures. → Moll 2014

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 · r2

Principal component analysis (Varimax rotation) of the four predictor measures in the pooled European sample yielded two components: "phoneme deletion and digit span loading on the first component" (phonology factor) and "the two RAN measures loading on the second component" (RAN factor).

"The results showed again a two component solution with phoneme deletion and digit span loading on the first component (phonology factor: eigenvalue = 1.1 3 ; factor loadings = .8 1 and .77, respectively), and the two RAN measures loading on the second component (RAN factor: eigenvalue = 1.6 4 ; factor loadings =.8 7 and .83, respectively)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Phonological Awareness — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Processing Speed — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• 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 — 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
• Phonological awareness accounted for more unique variance in reading accuracy than RAN in the orthographies studied, while English was the only orthography where RAN added substantial unique variance (14.2%) and total explained variance was highest (39%) — related
• Cognitive predictors explained more spelling variance in English (34.7%) than in the other orthographies (8.9 to 16.2%), and English was the only orthography where RAN made a significant and highest contribution to spelling — related
• Wagner and Torgesen's (1987) tripartite phonological processing model transfers to German and its transparent orthography — related