Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 955

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Language Deficits in Poor Comprehenders: A Case for the Simple View of Reading

Catts, Hugh W., Adlof, Suzanne M., Weismer, Susan Ellis·2006·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023

Abstract

Purpose: To examine concurrently and retrospectively the language abilities of children with specific reading comprehension deficits (“poor comprehenders”) and compare them to typical readers and children with specific decoding deficits (“poor decoders”). Method: In Study 1, the authors identified 57 poor comprehenders, 27 poor decoders, and 98 typical readers on the basis of 8th-grade reading achievement. These subgroups' performances on 8th-grade measures of language comprehension and phonological processing were investigated. In Study 2, the authors examined retrospectively subgroups' performances on measures of language comprehension and phonological processing in kindergarten, 2nd, and 4th grades. Word recognition and reading comprehension in 2nd and 4th grades were also considered. Results: Study 1 showed that poor comprehenders had concurrent deficits in language comprehension but normal abilities in phonological processing. Poor decoders were characterized by the opposite pattern of language abilities. Study 2 results showed that subgroups had language (and word recognition) profiles in the earlier grades that were consistent with those observed in 8th grade. Subgroup differences in reading comprehension were inconsistent across grades but reflective of the changes in the components of reading comprehension over time. Conclusions: The results support the simple view of reading and the phonological deficit hypothesis. Furthermore, the findings indicate that a classification system that is based on the simple view has advantages over standard systems that focus only on word recognition and/or reading comprehension.

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 · 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)

Cites

54 of 54 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 54 references

Cited by

See all 955

Metadata

Authors
Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E.
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Published
2006-04
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
278-293
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
DOI
10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023
OpenAlex
W2137789141
Cited by
955
References
54
FWCI
33.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Language Deficits in Poor Comprehenders: A Case for the Simple View of Reading. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023
The paper
Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language Deficits in Poor Comprehenders: A Case for the Simple View of Reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023

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.