↓ Skip to main content

Vocabulary does not complicate the simple view of reading

Overview of attention for article published in Reading and Writing, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Vocabulary does not complicate the simple view of reading
Published in
Reading and Writing, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11145-015-9608-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Braze, Leonard Katz, James S. Magnuson, W. Einar Mencl, Whitney Tabor, Julie A. Van Dyke, Tao Gong, Clinton L. Johns, Donald P. Shankweiler

Abstract

Gough and Tunmer's (1986) simple view of reading (SVR) proposed that reading comprehension (RC) is a function of language comprehension (LC) and word recognition/decoding. Braze et al. (2007) presented data suggesting an extension of the SVR in which knowledge of vocabulary (V) affected RC over and above the effects of LC. Tunmer and Chapman (2012) found a similar independent contribution of V to RC when the data were analyzed by hierarchical regression. However, additional analysis by factor analysis and structural equation modeling indicated that the effect of V on RC was, in fact, completely captured by LC itself and there was no need to posit a separate direct effect of V on RC. In the present study, we present new data from young adults with sub-optimal reading skill (N = 286). Latent variable and regression analyses support Gough and Tunmer's original proposal and the conclusions of Tunmer and Chapman that V can be considered a component of LC and not an independent contributor to RC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 165 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 16%
Student > Master 19 11%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 11%
Lecturer 11 7%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 40 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 26%
Social Sciences 30 18%
Linguistics 19 11%
Arts and Humanities 10 6%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 56 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2019.
All research outputs
#4,435,614
of 25,002,811 outputs
Outputs from Reading and Writing
#128
of 822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,071
of 373,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reading and Writing
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,002,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.