Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,086

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading

Barnett, Marva A., Singer, Harry, Ruddell, Robert B.·1987·The Modern Language Journal

Abstract

This volume is segmented into four sections: historical changes in reading, processes of reading and literacy, models of reading and literacy processes, and new paradigms. The process section should assist students in understanding and visualizing the exploration of important research questions.

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 · 10.2307/326762

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Barnett, M. A., Singer, H., & Ruddell, R. B.
Venue
The Modern Language Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1987
Volume
71
Issue
1
Pages
77
ISSN
0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051413136
Cited by
3,086
References
0
FWCI
60.20
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

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.