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¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Proximal predictors accounted for clearly higher amounts of variance in spelling in English (34.7%) than in all other orthographies (8.9 to 16.2%). → Moll 2014 q2 i? Phonological awareness accounted for significant variance in all orthographies (4.1 to 8.9%) apart from French (2.2%); English was the only orthography where RAN made a significant and highest contribution. → 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 · r2

Per-language stepwise regressions for spelling (same covariate structure as the reading models) showed the proximal predictors "accounted for clearly higher amounts of variance in English (34.7 %) than in all other orthographies (8.9 to 16.2 %)".

"Table 5 shows that the proximal predictors (phonological awareness, memory and RAN) accounted for clearly higher amounts of variance in English (34.7 %) than in all other orthographies (8.9 to 16.2 %)."

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

Within the same spelling models, "Phonological awareness accounted for significant amounts of variance in all orthographies (4.1 to 8.9%) apart from French (2.2 %)", and "English was once again the only orthography where RAN could make a significant – and indeed the highest – contribution to variance in spelling".

"Phonological awareness accounted for significant amounts of variance in all orthographies (4.1 to 8.9%) apart from French (2.2 %). Interestingly, English was once again the only orthography where RAN could make a significant – and indeed the highest – contribution to variance in spelling."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

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

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
• 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
• 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