Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 341

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting word reading and comprehension with executive function and speed measures across development: A latent variable analysis.

Open access
Christopher, Micaela E., Miyake, Akira, Keenan, Janice M., Pennington, Bruce, DeFries, John C., Wadsworth, Sally J., Willcutt, Erik, Olson, Richard K.·2012·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

The present study explored whether different executive control and speed measures (working memory, inhibition, processing speed, and naming speed) independently predict individual differences in word reading and reading comprehension. Although previous studies suggest these cognitive constructs are important for reading, the authors analyze the constructs simultaneously to test whether each is a unique predictor. Latent variables from 483 participants (ages 8-16 years) were used to portion each cognitive and reading construct into its unique and shared variance. In these models 2 specific issues are addressed: (a) Given that the wide age range may span the theoretical transition from "learning to read" to "reading to learn," the authors first test whether the relation between word reading and reading comprehension is stable across 2 age groups (ages 8-10 and 11-16); and (b) the main theoretical question of interest: whether what is shared and what is separable for word reading and reading comprehension are associated with individual differences in working memory, inhibition, and measures of processing and naming speed. The results indicated that (a) the relation between word reading and reading comprehension is largely invariant across the age groups, and (b) working memory and general processing speed, but not inhibition or the speeded naming of non-alphanumeric stimuli, are unique predictors of both word reading and comprehension, with working memory equally important for both reading abilities and processing speed more important for word reading. These results have implications for understanding why reading comprehension and word reading are highly correlated yet separable

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0027375

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 341

Metadata

Authors
Christopher, M. E., Miyake, A., Keenan, J. M., Pennington, B., DeFries, J. C., Wadsworth, S. J., Willcutt, E., & Olson, R. K.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2012-08
Volume
141
Issue
3
Pages
470-488
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2058182569
Cited by
341
References
11
FWCI
34.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Predicting word reading and comprehension with executive function and speed measures across development: A latent variable analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0027375
The paper
Christopher, M. E., Miyake, A., Keenan, J. M., Pennington, B., DeFries, J. C., Wadsworth, S. J., Willcutt, E., & Olson, R. K. (2012). Predicting word reading and comprehension with executive function and speed measures across development: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027375

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.