Article/Report  |   April 2006
Language Deficits in Poor Comprehenders: A Case for the Simple View of Reading
Author Notes
  • Contact author: Hugh W. Catts, Department of Speech, Language, Hearing, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 66045. Email: catts@ku.edu
Development / School-Based Settings / Normal Language Processing / Language Disorders / Attention, Memory & Executive Functions / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Language
Article/Report   |   April 2006
Language Deficits in Poor Comprehenders: A Case for the Simple View of Reading
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2006, Vol.49, 278-293. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)
History: Accepted 12 Oct 2005 , Received 30 Jun 2005
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2006, Vol.49, 278-293. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)
History: Accepted 12 Oct 2005 , Received 30 Jun 2005

Purpose: To examine concurrently and retrospectively the language abilities of children with specific reading comprehension deficits (“poor comprehenders”) and compare them to typical readers and children with specific decoding deficits (“poor decoders”).

Method: In Study 1, the authors identified 57 poor comprehenders, 27 poor decoders, and 98 typical readers on the basis of 8th-grade reading achievement. These subgroups' performances on 8th-grade measures of language comprehension and phonological processing were investigated. In Study 2, the authors examined retrospectively subgroups' performances on measures of language comprehension and phonological processing in kindergarten, 2nd, and 4th grades. Word recognition and reading comprehension in 2nd and 4th grades were also considered.

Results: Study 1 showed that poor comprehenders had concurrent deficits in language comprehension but normal abilities in phonological processing. Poor decoders were characterized by the opposite pattern of language abilities. Study 2 results showed that subgroups had language (and word recognition) profiles in the earlier grades that were consistent with those observed in 8th grade. Subgroup differences in reading comprehension were inconsistent across grades but reflective of the changes in the components of reading comprehension over time.

Conclusions: The results support the simple view of reading and the phonological deficit hypothesis. Furthermore, the findings indicate that a classification system that is based on the simple view has advantages over standard systems that focus only on word recognition and/or reading comprehension.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access

Related Articles

Reading Achievement Growth in Children With Language Impairments
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research December 2008, Vol.51, 1569-1579. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0259)
What Is Orthographic Knowledge?
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools October 2011, Vol.42, 592-603. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0085)
The Relationship Among Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary, Listening Comprehension, Pre-Reading Skills, Word Identification Skills, and Reading Comprehension by Children With Reading Disabilities
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research August 2007, Vol.50, 1093-1109. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/076)
Identifying Language Comprehension Impairment in Preschool Children
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools January 2008, Vol.39, 54-65. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/006)
Is Expressive Language Disorder an Accurate Diagnostic Category?
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology May 2009, Vol.18, 115-123. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0064)