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¶

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? In stepwise regressions per language, RAN explained clearly higher amounts of unique variance in reading speed than the two phonological predictors in English, French, German, and Hungarian (16.7 to 22.8%). → Moll 2014 q2 i? Grade-specific correlations showed reading speed associated more highly with RAN than with the phonological measures in all orthographies apart from Finnish. → 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

Stepwise regression analyses per language, controlling age and IQ in step 1 and entering phonological memory, phonological awareness and RAN simultaneously in step 2, showed RAN explained "clearly higher amounts of unique variance in reading speed" in English, French, German, and Hungarian (16.7 to 22.8%).

"RAN explained clearly higher amounts of unique variance in reading speed than the two phonological predictor measures in English, French, German, and Hungarian (16.7 to 22.8%)."

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

Simple correlations based on grade-specific scores, tabulated separately for each language, showed reading speed had "higher associations with RAN than with the two phonological measures in all orthographies apart from Finnish".

"Reading speed showed higher associations with RAN than with the two phonological measures in all orthographies apart from Finnish where the associations with the three predictor components were roughly equal."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Processing Speed — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it

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
• Multilevel analyses across the full sample showed largely similar predictive patterns across orthographies, with RAN's contribution to reading accuracy significantly heterogeneous (p = .008) because RAN was more important in English than in the other languages — related
• Phonological processing and RAN constitute two separate factors that both account for significant unique variance in literacy attainment in all five orthographies — 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