SynthesisAnnals of dyslexia2021
A model-based meta-analytic examination of specific reading comprehension deficit: how prevalent is it and does the simple view of reading account for it?
Synthesis in Annals of dyslexia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structural Brain Correlates of Poor Reading Comprehension.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Prosodic features in production reflect reading comprehension skill in high school students.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2024Article
- Heterogeneity in children's reading comprehension difficulties: A latent class approach.JCPP advances · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Simple View of Reading for Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.Journal of educational psychology · 2023Article
- A Bayesian Probabilistic Framework for Identification of Individuals with Dyslexia.Scientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading · 2023Article
- Poor School-Related Well-Being among Adolescents with Disabilities or ADHD.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many individuals with poor reading comprehension have levels of reading comprehension that are consistent with deficits in their ability to decode the words on the page. However, there are individuals who are poor at reading comprehension despite being adequate at decoding. This phenomenon is referred to as specific reading comprehension deficit (SRCD). The two purposes of this study were to use a new approach to estimate the prevalence of SRCD and to examine the extent to which SRCD can be explained by the simple view of reading. We used model-based meta-analysis of correlation matrices from standardized tests to create composite correlation matrices for the constructs of reading comprehension, decoding, and listening comprehension. Using simulated datasets generated from the composite correlation matrices, we used residuals from regressing reading comprehension on decoding to create a continuous index of SRCD. The prevalence of SRCD is best represented not as a single number but as a continuous distribution in which prevalence varies as a function of the magnitude of the severity of the deficit in reading comprehension relative to the level of decoding. Examining the joint distribution of the residuals with reading comprehension makes clear that the phenomenon of reading comprehension that is poor relative to decoding occurs throughout the distribution of reading comprehension skill. Although the simple view of reading predictors of listening comprehension and decoding makes significant contributions to predicting reading comprehension, nearly half of the variance is unaccounted for.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.