↓ Skip to main content

How prior knowledge affects word identification and comprehension

Overview of attention for article published in Reading and Writing, September 2010
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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How prior knowledge affects word identification and comprehension
Published in
Reading and Writing, September 2010
DOI 10.1007/s11145-010-9260-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah J. Priebe, Janice M. Keenan, Amanda C. Miller

Abstract

While prior knowledge of a passage topic is known to facilitate comprehension, little is known about how it affects word identification. We examined oral reading errors in good and poor readers when reading a passage where they either had prior knowledge of the passage topic or did not. Children who had prior knowledge of the topic were matched on decoding skill to children who did not know the topic so that the groups differed only on knowledge of the passage topic. Prior knowledge of the passage topic was found to significantly increase fluency and reduce reading errors, especially errors based on graphic information, in poor readers. Two possible mechanisms of how prior knowledge might operate to facilitate word identification were evaluated using the pattern of error types, as was the relationship of errors to comprehension. Implications of knowledge effects for assessment and educational policy are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 82 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 23%
Student > Master 12 14%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 20 23%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 25 29%
Psychology 21 24%
Linguistics 9 10%
Engineering 4 5%
Unspecified 3 3%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 14 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 13 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,414,739
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Reading and Writing
#98
of 797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,342
of 97,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reading and Writing
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 97,292 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.