The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Different Patterns, but Equivalent Predictors, of Growth in Reading in Consistent and Inconsistent Orthographies
Open accessAbstract
All alphabetic orthographies use letters in printed words to represent the phonemes in spoken words, but they differ in the consistency of the relationship between letters and phonemes. English appears to be the least consistent alphabetic orthography phonologically, and, consequently, children learn to read more slowly in English than in languages with more consistent orthographies. In this article, we report the first longitudinal evidence that the growth of reading skills is slower and follows a different trajectory in English than in two much more consistent orthographies (Spanish and Czech). Nevertheless, phoneme awareness, letter-sound knowledge, and rapid automatized naming measured at the onset of literacy instruction did not differ in importance as predictors of variations in reading development among the three languages. These findings suggest that although children may learn to read more rapidly in more consistent than in less consistent orthographies, there may nevertheless be universal cognitive prerequisites for learning to read in all alphabetic orthographies.
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
Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., Erskine, J. M., & collaboration with COST Action A8 network (2003) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712603321661859 · Cited by 2,601
Share, D. L. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584 · Cited by 1,022
Empirical Benchmarks for Interpreting Effect Sizes in Research
Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x · Cited by 950
The double-deficit hypothesis and difficulties in learning to read a regular orthography.
Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Landerl, K. (2000) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.668 · Cited by 445
Cited by
Growth Curve Analysis and Visualization Using R
Mirman, D. (2017) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781315373218 · Cited by 573
Oral language deficits in familial dyslexia: A meta-analysis and review.
Snowling, M. J., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000037 · Cited by 490
Cognitive mechanisms underlying reading and spelling development in five European orthographies
Moll, K., Ramus, F., Bartling, J., Bruder, J., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., Streiftau, S., Lyytinen, H., Leppänen, P. H. T., Lohvansuu, K., et al. (2014) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.003 · Cited by 414
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0033890 · Cited by 363
Self-citationLervåg, A., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2018) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.12861 · Cited by 316
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Caravolas, M., Lervåg, A., Defior, S., Seidlová Málková, G., & Hulme, C.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-06-06
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1398-1407
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2122148443
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 47.53
- 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: Different Patterns, but Equivalent Predictors, of Growth in Reading in Consistent and Inconsistent Orthographies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0956797612473122
- The paper
- Caravolas, M., Lervåg, A., Defior, S., Seidlová Málková, G., & Hulme, C. (2013). Different Patterns, but Equivalent Predictors, of Growth in Reading in Consistent and Inconsistent Orthographies. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612473122
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.
