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%)¶

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 proximal predictors accounted for higher amounts of variance in reading accuracy in English (39%) than in all other orthographies (11.3 to 14.7%). → Moll 2014 q2 i? Phonological awareness accounted for more variance in reading accuracy (5.2 to 17.6%); only in English could RAN account for substantial variance beyond phonological processing (14.2%). → 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

Per-language stepwise regressions (age and IQ controlled in step 1; phonological memory, awareness and RAN in step 2) showed total proximal variance in reading accuracy was higher "in English (39 %) than in all other orthographies (11.3 to 14.7%)".

"Table 4 shows that overall the proximal predictors phonological processing and RAN could account for higher amounts of variance in reading accuracy in English (39 %) than in all other orthographies (11.3 to 14.7%)."

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 regression models "phonological awareness accounted for more variance in reading accuracy (5.2 to 17.6 %)", and "The only orthography in which RAN could account for a substantial amount of variance above and beyond phonological processing was English (14.2 %)".

"While RAN was found the best unique predictor of reading speed, phonological awareness accounted for more variance in reading accuracy (5.2 to 17.6 %). The only orthography in which RAN could account for a substantial amount of variance above and beyond phonological processing was English (14.2 %)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

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

Related Claims¶

• 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
• 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
• 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
• Intervention effects on comprehension and regulation accuracy do not differ by home language (English vs other) — related