Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42384143›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2026

Higher- and lower-level processing in strategic reading: Reconceptualising the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS).

Marcus Warnby

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Marcus WarnbyDepartment of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. marcus.warnby@gu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9317-0233

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) is widely used to assess English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students' metacognitive regulation of reading across three strategy dimensions (Global, Problem-Solving, Support), yet this three-factor structure has rarely undergone confirmatory validation. This study introduces HiLoLev, a theory-driven two-factor measurement reconceptualisation that distinguishes higher-level integrative/monitoring strategies from lower-level decoding/support strategies. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on data from 554 Swedish upper-secondary ESL students, legacy three-factor specifications (oblique, higher-order) were contrasted with the proposed theory-driven HiLoLev model based on SORS items. The original structures showed poor fit with high interfactor correlations and substantial cross-loadings; by contrast, an 11-item HiLoLev model fit well (RMSEA = 0.051, SRMR = 0.045) and offered clearer interpretability. While the full SORS remains pedagogically useful, its subscales should not be assumed to represent stable latent constructs for inferential analyses. For research applications (e.g., regression models, mediation analyses, or group comparisons), confirm the structure in-sample via CFA or consider using the 11-item HiLoLev model as a compact, cognitively grounded latent specification of SORS items.

Indexed as

Academic readingConfirmatory factor analysisHigher- and lower-level processingL2 learnersMetacognitionPsychometric validationReading strategies

Identifiers

PMID42384143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.