The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward an Interactive-Compensatory Model of Individual Differences in the Development of Reading Fluency
Abstract
INTERACTIVE MODELS OF READING appear to provide a more accurate conceptualization of reading performance than do strictly top-down or bottom-up models. When combined with an assumption of compensatory processing (that a deficit in any particular process will result in a greater reliance on other knowledge sources, regardless of their level in the processing hierarchy), interactive models provide a better account of the existing data on the use of orthographic structure and sentence context by good and poor readers. A review of the research literature seems to indicate that, beyond the initial stages of reading acquisition, superior reading ability is not associated with a greater tendency to use the redundancy inherent in natural language to speed word recognition. Instead, general comprehension strategies and rapid context-free word recognition appear to be the processes that most clearly distinguish good from poor readers.
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
The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method
Sternberg, S. (1969) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9 · Cited by 3,137
Cited by
Stanovich, K. E. (1986) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1598/rrq.21.4.1 · Cited by 5,222
Self-citationHoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/bf00401799 · Cited by 2,956
Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x · Cited by 2,555
Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition
Share, D. L. (1995) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 · Cited by 2,352
Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3 · Cited by 1,124
Metadata
- Authors
- Stanovich, K. E.
- Venue
- Reading Research Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1980
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 32
- ISSN
- 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1989306084
- Cited by
- 1,675
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 44.07
- 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: Toward an Interactive-Compensatory Model of Individual Differences in the Development of Reading Fluency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/747348
- The paper
- Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an Interactive-Compensatory Model of Individual Differences in the Development of Reading Fluency. Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/747348
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.