Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 469

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Vocabulary Is Important for Some, but Not All Reading Skills

Ricketts, Jessie, Nation, Kate, Bishop, Dorothy V. M.·2007·Scientific Studies of Reading
DOI 10.1080/10888430701344306
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although there is evidence for a close link between the development of oral vocabulary and reading comprehension, less clear is whether oral vocabulary skills relate to the development of word-level reading skills. This study investigated vocabulary and literacy in 81 children aged 8 to 10 years. In regression analyses, vocabulary accounted for unique variance in exception word reading and reading comprehension, but not text reading accuracy, decoding, or regular word reading. Consistent with these data, children with poor reading comprehension exhibited oral vocabulary weaknesses and read fewer exception words correctly. These findings demonstrate that oral vocabulary is associated with some, but not all, reading skills. Results are discussed in terms of current models of reading development.

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 · 10.1080/10888430701344306

Cites

48 of 48 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 48 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.506 · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.506 · Paper page
  2. Castles A., 2006, From inkmarks to ideas: Challenges and controversies about word recognition and reading, 151
  3. 10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.34 · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.34 · Paper page
  4. Keenan J. M., 2007, Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives
  5. Neale M., 1997, Neale Analysis of Reading Ability: Second Revised British Edition
  6. Olson R. K., 1994, Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities, 243
  7. 10.1037/0003-066X.38.8.878 · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.38.8.878 · Paper page
  8. Vellutino F. R., 1994, Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities, 279
  9. Wiig E. H., 1992, Test of Word Knowledge

Cited by

See all 469

Metadata

Authors
Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. M.
Venue
Scientific Studies of Reading
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2007-06-13
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
235-257
ISSN
  • 1088-8438 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-799X
DOI
10.1080/10888430701344306
OpenAlex
W1986008196
Cited by
469
References
48
FWCI
20.49
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: Vocabulary Is Important for Some, but Not All Reading Skills. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10888430701344306
The paper
Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2007). Vocabulary Is Important for Some, but Not All Reading Skills. Scientific Studies of Reading. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701344306

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.