Cited by 96Reading and Literacy DevelopmentLiteracy and Educational PracticesSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

How Are Practice and Performance Related? Development of Reading From Age 5 to 15

Open access
van Bergen, Elsje, Vasalampi, Kati, Torppa, Minna·2021·Reading Research Quarterly

Abstract

Does reading a lot lead to better reading skills, or does reading a lot follow from high initial reading skills? The authors present a longitudinal study of how much children choose to read and how well they decode and comprehend texts. This is the first study to examine the codevelopment of print exposure with both fluency and comprehension throughout childhood using autocorrelations. Print exposure was operationalized as children’s amount of independent reading for pleasure. Two hundred children were followed from age 5 to age 15. Print exposure was assessed at ages 5, 7, 8, 9, and 13. Prereading skills were tested at age 5 and reading skills at ages 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15 (the latter with the Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA]). Before children learned to read (i.e., age 5), prereading skills and print exposure were not linked. Path analyses showed that children’s print exposure and reading skills reciprocally influence each other. During the early school years, the effects run from reading fluency to comprehension and print exposure, so from skills to amount. The effect of accumulated practice only emerged in adolescence. Reading fluency, comprehension, and print exposure were all important predictors of age 15 PISA reading comprehension. These findings were largely confirmed by post hoc models with random intercepts. Because foundational reading skills predicted changes in later reading comprehension and print exposure, the authors speculate that intervening decoding difficulties may positively impact exposure to and comprehension of texts. How much children read seems to matter most after the shift from learning to read to reading to learn.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/rrq.309

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Bergen, E., Vasalampi, K., & Torppa, M.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam The Netherlands, University of Oxford UK
  • University of Jyväskylä (FI)
Corresponding author
  • Vasalampi, Kati
  • Torppa, Minna
Venue
Reading Research Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-03-30
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
415-434
ISSN
  • 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2722
OpenAlex
W3014717668
Cited by
96
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3
FWCI
13.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Reading Research Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (024.001.003, 446‐12‐005, 451‐15‐017)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
print exposure, independent reading, reading fluency, reading comprehension, decoding, reading to learn, reciprocal effects, reading practices, children's reading development, pre-reading skills, decoding difficulties

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review