The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Progress in understanding reading: scientific foundations and new frontiers
Abstract
Foreword, Isabel L. Beck. Preface. I. The Role of Context Effects in Models of Reading. Early Applications of Information Processing Concepts to the Study of Reading: The Role of Sentence Context. Automatic Contextual Facilitation in Readers of Three Ages, West, Stanovich. Toward an Interactive Compensatory Model of Individual Differences in the Development of Reading Fluency. The Interactive Compensatory Model of Reading: A Confluence of Developmental, Experimental, and Educational Psycholgoy. II. Phonological Sensitivity and the Phonological Core Deficit Model. Early Reading Acquisition and the Causes of Reading Difficulty: Contributions to Research on Phonological Processing. Assessing Phonological Awareness in Kindergarten Children: Issues of Task Comparability, Stanovich, Cunningham, Cramer. Explaining the Differences between the Dyslexic and the Garden-Variety Poor Reader: The Phonological-Core Variable-Difference Model. The Phenotypic Performance Profile of Reading-Disabled Children: A Regression Based Test of the Phonological-Core Variable- Difference Model, Stanovich, Seigal. III. Matthew Effects in Reading. Tying It all Togehter: A Model of Reading Acquisition and Reading Difficulty. Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Difference in the Acquisition of Literacy. IV. The Importance of Word Recognition in Models of Reading. The Word Recognition Module. Concepts in Developmental Theories of Reading Skill: Cognitive Resources, Automacity, and Modularity. V. The Cognitive Consequences of Literacy. Measuring Print Exposure: Attempts to Empirically Track 'Rich Get Richer' Effects. Exposure to Print and Orthographic Processing, Stanovich, West. Does Reading Make You Smarter?: Literacy and the Development of Verbal Intelligence. Literacy Experiences and the Shaping of Cognition, Stanovich, Cunningham, West. Reading Disability Classification: Are Reforms Based on Evidence Possible? Discrepancy Definitions of Reading Disability: Has Intelligence Led Us Astray? VII. The Reading Instruction: Comments on the 'Reading Wars'. Putting Children First by Putting Science First: The Politics of Early Reading Instruction. Romance and Reality. 25 Years of Reserach on the Reading Process: The Grand Synthesis and What It Means for Our Field.
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
To read or not to read: a meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood
Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0021890 · Cited by 1,299
Share, D. L. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584 · Cited by 1,022
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0503_4 · Cited by 545
Crowding and eccentricity determine reading rate
Pelli, D. G., Tillman, K. A., Freeman, J., Su, M., Berger, T. D., & Majaj, N. J. (2007) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/7.2.20 · Cited by 380
Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. (2006) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.159 · Cited by 365
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2000-12-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 38-2284-38-2284
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1600868926
- Cited by
- 1,002
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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: Progress in understanding reading: scientific foundations and new frontiers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.38-2284
- The paper
- Progress in understanding reading: scientific foundations and new frontiers. (2000). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.38-2284
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.