CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Reading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and LearningNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Situation model building ability uniquely predicts first and second language reading comprehension

Open access
Raudszus, Henriette, Segers, Eliane, Verhoeven, Ludo·2019·Journal of Neurolinguistics
DOI 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.11.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We examined the unique role of textbase memory and situation model building ability in first (L1) and second (L2) language reading comprehension. Participants were 76 monolingual and 102 bilingual children in 4th grade. A pathfinder network approach was used to assess textbase memory and situation model building ability, on top of other well-known cognitive and linguistic predictors of reading comprehension (working memory, nonverbal reasoning, decoding, vocabulary, and grammar). Reading comprehension was assessed by a standardized task unrelated to the textbase and situation model building task. The results showed that there was no difference between L1 and L2 readers in nonverbal reasoning, working memory, textbase memory and situation model building. L2 readers were more efficient decoders than L1 readers, but lagged behind on vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension. Situation model building ability was found to predict reading comprehension over and above the other cognitive and linguistic predictors to the same extent in both groups.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.11.003

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The finding that lower contextual inferencing in L2 readers is due to lower linguistic ability confirms findings on other reading skills and is in line with findings on adult L2 learners.

    “This confirms findings on other reading skills (Lervåg & Aukrust, 2010;Raudszus et al., 2019;van den Bosch, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2018), and is in line with findings on adult L2 learners (Hamada, 2014;Mori & Nagy, 1999).”

    From Use of morphological and contextual cues in children’s lexical inferencing in L1 and L2 (2021) · cites this paper as Raudszus et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 38

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Babayiğit, S. (2015). The relations between word reading, oral language, and reading comprehension in children who speak English as a first (L1) and second language (L2): a multigroup structural analysis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 527-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9536-x. · DOI
  2. Britton, B. K., & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.329. · DOI
  3. Burgoyne, K., Whiteley, H. E., & Hutchinson, J. M. (2013). The role of background knowledge in text comprehension for children learning English as an additional language. Journal of Research in Reading, 36, 132-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01493.x. · DOI
  4. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2014). Reading comprehension and vocabulary: Is vocabulary more important for some aspects of comprehension? L'Année Psychologique, 114, 647-662. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503314004035. · DOI
  5. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29, 850-859. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196414. · DOI
  6. Clariana, R. B. (2010). Deriving individual and group knowledge structure from network diagrams and from essays. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.). Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 117-130). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5662-0_7. · DOI
  7. Clariana, R. B., & Wallace, P. E. (2009). A comparison of pair-wise, list-wise, and clustering approaches for eliciting structural knowledge. International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(3), 287-302.
  8. Cremer, M., & Schoonen, R. (2013). The role of accessibility of semantic word knowledge in monolingual and bilingual fifth-grade reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 1195-1217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000203. · DOI
  9. Currie, N. K., & Cain, K. (2015). Children's inference generation: The role of vocabulary and working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 137, 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.03.005. · DOI
  10. Davis, M. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2015). Measuring reading comprehension of content area texts using an assessment of knowledge organization. The Journal of Educational Research, 108, 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.863749. · DOI
  11. de Leeuw, L., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). Context, task, and reader effects in children's incidental word learning from text. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 61, 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.934010. · DOI
  12. Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first-and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78-103. https:// doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4. · DOI
  13. Fesel, S. S., Segers, E., Clariana, R. B., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). Quality of children's knowledge representations in digital text comprehension: Evidence from pathfinder networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.014. · DOI
  14. Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1819-1845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9333-8. · DOI
  15. Grant, A. M., Fang, S. Y., & Li, P. (2015). Second language lexical development and cognitive control: A longitudinal fMRI study. Brain and Language, 144, 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.010. · DOI
  16. Hacquebord, H. (1999). A Dutch comprehension test for identifying reading problems in L1 and L2 students (Research Note). Journal of Research in Reading, 22, 299-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00093. · DOI
  17. Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 416-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.004. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hirsch, E. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge-Of words and of the world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and the nation's stagnant comprehension scores. American Educator, 27(1), 10-29. JPathfinder v1.0, available from: interlinkinc.net.
  19. Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., White, M. J., & van den Broek, P. (2008). Children's inference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259-272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.00370.x. · DOI
  20. Kendeou, P., McMaster, K. L., & Christ, T. (2016). Reading comprehension: core components and processes. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624707. · DOI
  21. Kendeou, P., Van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765-778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015956. · DOI
  22. Kieffer, M. J. (2012). Early oral language and later reading development in Spanish-speaking English language learners: Evidence from a nine-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 146-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2012.02.003. · DOI
  23. Kim, K., & Clariana, R. B. (2015). Knowledge structure measures of reader's situation models across languages: Translation engenders richer structure. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20, 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9246-8. · DOI
  24. Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects in comprehension: The CI perspective. Discourse Processes, 39, 125-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0163853X.2005.9651676. · DOI
  25. Lervåg, A., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2017). Unpicking the developmental relationship between oral language skills and reading comprehension: It's simple, but complex. Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12861. · DOI
  26. Li, P., & Clariana, R. B. (2018). Reading comprehension in L1 and L2: An integrative approach. Journal of Neurolinguistics. Advance online publication https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.03.005. · DOI
  27. Lesaux, N. K., Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). Investigating cognitive and linguistic abilities that influence the reading comprehension skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 99-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-4713-6. · DOI
  28. Lex, A., & Gehlenborg, N. (2014). Points of view: Sets and intersections. Nature Methods, 11. 779-779 https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3033. · DOI
  29. Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2014). Reading comprehension and its underlying components in second-language learners: A meta-analysis of studies comparing first-and second-language learners. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 409. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033890. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Morishima, Y. (2013). Allocation of limited cognitive resources during text comprehension in a second language. Discourse Processes, 50, 577-597. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0163853X.2013.846964. · DOI
  31. Nimon, K., & Reio, T. G. (2011). Regression commonality analysis: a technique for quantitative theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 329-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311411077. · DOI
  32. Peña, E. A., & Slate, E. H. (2006). Global validation of linear model assumptions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 341-354. https://doi.org/10.1198/ 016214505000000637. · DOI
  33. Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438. 2013.827687. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Prat, C. S., & Just, M. A. (2010). Exploring the neural dynamics underpinning individual differences in sentence comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 21(8), 1747-1760. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq241. · DOI
  35. Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., Harring, J. R., & Montecillo, C. (2012). The role of vocabulary depth in predicting reading comprehension among English monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children in elementary school. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1635-1664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145- 011-9336-5. · DOI
  36. Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530417. · DOI
  37. Raudszus, H., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). Lexical quality and executive control predict children's first and second language reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31, 405-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9791-8. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Romero-Rivas, C., Corey, J. D., Garcia, X., Thierry, G., Martin, C. D., & Costa, A. (2017). World knowledge and novel information integration during L2 speech comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 576-587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000905. · DOI
  39. Schvaneveldt, R. W., Durso, F. T., & Dearholt, D. W. (1989). Network structures in proximity data. In G. Bower (Vol. Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research & theory: Vol. 24, (pp. 249-284). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60539-3. · DOI
  40. Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). How logical reasoning mediates the relation between lexical quality and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 577-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9613-9. · DOI
  41. Sorenson Duncan, T. (2017). How does maternal education influence language acquisition? Interdependencies between environment and input in the bilingual development of immigrant and refugee childrenDoctoral dissertation. University of Alberta.
  42. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934. · DOI
  43. Tang, H., & Clariana, R. (2017b). Leveraging a sorting task as a measure of knowledge structure in bilingual settings. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9290-z. · DOI
  44. Taricani, E. M., & Clariana, R. B. (2006). A technique for automatically scoring open-ended concept maps. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54, 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-6497-z. · DOI
  45. Unsworth, S. (2016). Quantity and quality of language input in bilingual language development. In E. Nicoladis, & S. Montanari (Eds.). In Lifespan perspectives on bilingualism (pp. 136-196). Berlin, Germany: Mouton and De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110341249-008. · DOI
  46. van den Broek, P., & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental re- presentations. Discourse Processes, 54, 360-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1306677. · DOI
  47. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading. In H. van Oostendorp, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.). The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  48. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  49. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (1984). Assessment procedures of oral second language proficiency: spontaneous speech vs. elicitation data. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 50-68.
  50. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (1996). Taalvaardigheid in de bovenbouw [Language ability in the upper grades of primary school]. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
  51. van Viersen, S., de Bree, E. H., Zee, M., Maassen, B., van der Leij, A., & de Jong, P. F. (2018). Pathways into literacy: The role of early oral language abilities and family risk for dyslexia. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617736886. · DOI
  52. Welie, C., Schoonen, R., & Kuiken, F. (2017). The role text structure inference skill plays for eighth graders' expository text comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9801-x. · DOI
  53. Zwaan, R. A. (2015). Situation models, mental simulations, and abstract concepts in discourse comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1028-1034. https:// doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0864-x. · DOI

Authors
Raudszus, H., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Raudszus, Henriette
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Neurolinguistics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
50
Pages
106-119
ISSN
0911-6044 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.11.003
OpenAlex
W2909310758
Cited by
38
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6
FWCI
10.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Neurolinguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
reading comprehension, second language reading, bilingual children, first language reading, vocabulary, decoding, working memory, nonverbal reasoning, Pathfinder networks

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