The DOI matches its Crossref record.
"Reading as Reasoning"
Abstract
THREE LINES OF EVIDENCE are developed relating to the proposition that performance in reading, at least after the basic decoding skills are mastered, is primarily an indicator of the general level of the individual's thinking and reasoning processes rather than a set of distinct and specialized skills. Evidence is cited from 1) factorial analyses of specific reading tasks, 2) the correlations between reading tasks and both measures of general intelligence and measuring of later academic progress, and 3) the stability of difficulty in reading test items under translation from one language to another. If reading is to be thought of primarily as a reasoning process, this may have implications for the teaching of reading and for education in general.
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
Cited by
Intelligence, cognitive skills and early reading progress
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.2307/747822 · Cited by 408
Metadata
- Authors
- Thorndike, R. L.
- Venue
- Reading Research Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1973
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 135
- ISSN
- 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2015217090
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.15
- 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: "Reading as Reasoning". https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/747131
- The paper
- Thorndike, R. L. (1973). "Reading as Reasoning". Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/747131
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.
