The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The simple view of second language reading throughout the primary grades
Open accessAbstract
In the Simple View of Reading proposed by Hoover and Gough (1990), reading comprehension is conceived as the product of word decoding and listening comprehension. It is claimed that listening comprehension or the linguistic processes involved in the comprehension of oral language strongly constrain the process of reading comprehension. In several studies, evidence for this theoretical framework has been provided for first language learners. In the present study, an attempt was made to find empirical evidence for the same view underlying second language reading. Therefore, the word decoding and listening comprehension skills of samples of 1,293 first language (L1) learners and 394 second language (L2) learners of Dutch were related to their reading comprehension abilities throughout the primary grades. It was found that the levels of word decoding were more or less equal in the two groups of learners, whereas the L2 learners stayed behind their first L1 peers in both listening, and reading comprehension. The relationships between word decoding, listening comprehension and reading comprehension turned out to be highly comparable. A longitudinal analysis of data showed the Simple View of Reading to be equally valid for L1 and L2 learners. With progression of grade, the impact of word decoding on reading comprehension decreased, whereas the impact of listening comprehension showed an increase to the same extent in the two groups of learners. However, the reciprocity of the relationship between listening comprehension and reading comprehension tended to be less prominent in the group of L2 learners.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/bf00401799 · Cited by 2,956
Share, D. L. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584 · Cited by 1,022
Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, B., & Christian, D. (2006) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511499913 · Cited by 743
Deacon, S. H., Wade‐Woolley, L., & Kirby, J. R. (2009) · Journal of Research in Reading · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01392.x · Cited by 100
Cited by
Lervåg, A., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2018) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.12861 · Cited by 316
Gottardo, A., Chen, X., & Huo, M. R. Y. (2021) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1002/rrq.410 · Cited by 50
Goodrich, J. M., & Namkung, J. M. (2019) · Early Childhood Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.04.006 · Cited by 33
van den Bosch, L. J., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888438.2018.1509864 · Cited by 22
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J.
- Venue
- Reading and Writing
- Published
- 2011-11-18
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1805-1818
- ISSN
- 0922-4777 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0905
- OpenAlex
- W1966767942
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The simple view of second language reading throughout the primary grades. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11145-011-9346-3
- The paper
- Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2012). The simple view of second language reading throughout the primary grades. Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9346-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.