Cognition, Intelligence, and Achievement || Reading Comprehension and PASS Theory

C H A P T E R

7

Reading Comprehensionand PASS Theory

Panayiota Kendeou1, Timothy C. Papadopoulos2,and George Spanoudis2

1Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 2Department of Psychology & Centre for AppliedNeuroscience, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

INTRODUCTION

J. P. Das has contributed numerous texts in the field of reading. Inthe context of his work, PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, andSuccessive processing) theory has informed and shaped our under-standing about the cognitive processes that are involved in readingdevelopment and reading disabilities. Traditionally, the components ofPASS theory have been explicitly linked to reading decoding and flu-ency, as well as to visual or orthographic processing, but less often toreading comprehension. The aim of this chapter is to address this issueby exploring the relation between reading comprehension and the fourPASS theory processes and to provide initial empirical evidence to sup-port this relation.

It has been demonstrated that the ability to read is largely deter-mined by the individual’s cognitive ability. Indeed, researchers haveexamined the relations between intelligence and reading achievementacross the lifespan, putting to the test various theories of reading andintelligence. This work has shown that it has been extremely challeng-ing to reach consensus as to what is an acceptable relation betweenreading and intelligence. In this chapter, our purpose is to examinethe relation between reading and intelligence in the context of currenttheories of reading comprehension and intelligence and provide initial

117Cognition, Intelligence, and Achievement.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410388-7.00007-5 © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410388-7.00007-5

empirical support of our position. It is our contention that both read-ing and intelligence are multidimensional constructs, and by defini-tion, any attempt to reduce their operationalization to a single score isimperfect.

First, we present theoretical evidence for, and discuss the implicationof the multidimensional nature of reading comprehension. In develop-ing our case, we consider current theories and models of reading com-prehension with an emphasis on either lower-level or higher-orderprocesses. Second, we present PASS theory, a multidimensional view ofintelligence, and attempt to identify the relations of its process compo-nents (i.e., planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive processing)and reading comprehension. In developing our case, we provide empir-ical evidence from an ongoing study exploring the relations betweenthe four PASS processes and reading comprehension. To bring this the-oretical contribution to a close, we then discuss several challenges thatwe believe hold promise for those who are committed to futureresearch in these areas.

READING COMPREHENSION

Reading comprehension depends on many processes (for reviews,see Kendeou & Trevors, 2012; McNamara & Magliano, 2009; van denBroek, Rapp, & Kendeou, 2005). To understand this sentence, forexample, one must identify the phonological, orthographic, andsemantic representations of individual words and connect these repre-sentations to form an understanding of the underlying meaning of thesentence. To be successful, many factors play a role, such as readercharacteristics, text properties, and the demands of the task (Kendeou,Rapp, & van den Broek, 2004; Kendeou, Smith, & O’Brien, 2013;Kendeou & van den Broek, 2007; Kintsch, 1998; Lorch & van denBroek, 1997; Snow, 2002; Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993; van denBroek & Kremer, 1999). These factors individually and jointly influ-ence the reading process.

The multidimensionality and complexity of reading comprehensiondemand a theoretical account of the cognitive and linguistic processesinvolved, as well as their development. These processes, lower- andhigher-order, dynamically interact and are necessary for a completeaccount of reading. Thus, a comprehensive theory of reading compre-hension should account for both. Currently, there are a number of mod-els depicting the development of various processes and skills relating toreading comprehension focusing primarily on lower-level processes.These models include the Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough &Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990), one second of reading (Gough,

118 7. READING COMPREHENSION AND PASS THEORY

II. TOPIC AREA 1: INTELLIGENCE AS A COGNITIVE PROCESS

1972), the theory of automaticity (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974), the stagesof reading development (Chall, 1983), verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti,1985), and the lexical quality hypothesis (Perfetti & Hart, 2001). Thereare also theories or models concerned with the mental representationthe reader constructs in the process of understanding words, sentences,and their respective relations (see McNamara & Magliano, 2009, for areview). These models focus primarily on higher-order processes andinclude the Construction-Integration model (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978),the Structure Building Model (Gernsbacher, 1990), the ResonanceModel (Albrecht & O’Brien, 1993; O’Brien, Rizella, Albrecht, &Halleran, 1998), the Event-Indexing Model (Zwaan, Magliano, &Graesser, 1995), the Causal Network Model (Trabasso, van den Broek,& Suh, 1989), the Constructionist Model (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso,1994), and the Landscape Model (Tzeng, van den Broek, Kendeou, &Lee, 2005; van den Broek, Young, Tzeng, & Linderholm, 1999).

These different models and theories emphasize the importance of dif-ferent skills and processes that are relevant to reading comprehension. Asmentioned previously, these processes roughly fall into two main catego-ries (Kendeou, van den Broek, Helder, & Karlsson, 2014): (a) lower-levelprocesses that involve translating the written code into meaningful lan-guage units, and (b) higher-order processes that involve combining theseunits into a meaningful and coherent mental representation. With respectto lower-level processes, comprehension of text depends on word identifi-cation (e.g., Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Perfetti, 1985), fluency (e.g., Fuchs,Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974), and vocabularyknowledge (e.g., Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown,1982; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985; Stanovich, 1986). With respect tohigher-order processes, comprehension of text depends on inference mak-ing (e.g., Cain & Oakhill, 1999; Graesser et al., 1994; van den Broek, 1997),comprehension monitoring (Baker, 1984), attention-allocation skills(Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001), and working memory (Cain,Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Swanson & O’Connor, 2009).

In turn, the assessment of reading comprehension has been chal-lenging for several reasons. Typically, the assessment focuses on theproduct of reading and provides no information with respect to theactual cognitive processes that lead to such product (Magliano, Millis,Ozuru, & McNamara, 2007; McNamara & Kendeou, 2011; Rapp, vanden Broek, McMaster, Kendeou & Espin, 2007). Also, it is the complexinteraction of lower-level and higher-level processes that can influenceperformance across different texts, and response formats (Paris &Paris, 2007). Importantly, current assessments do not draw on thesame cognitive and linguistic processes (Bowyer-Crane & Snowling,2005; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Francis, Fletcher, Catts, &Tomblin, 2005; Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008; Keenan, 2012;

119READING COMPREHENSION


Kendeou, Papadopoulos, & Spanoudis, 2012). As a result, choosing ameasure of reading comprehension has far reaching implications forwhat skills are really assessed.

This brief review of the literature suggests that reading comprehen-sion is a multidimensional construct that can be subdivided into a num-ber of subcomponents and processes. van den Broek and colleagues(2005) called this the “onion peel” nature of comprehension: a core ofprocesses common to different types of reading comprehension withlayers of additional specific processes for each specific type of subcom-ponent skills. This multidimensionality also has implications for theassessment of reading skills and, in turn, for the reported relations ofreading with other constructs of interest, such as intelligence.

It has been challenging, to say the least, to reach consensus as towhat is the relation between reading and intelligence. The correlationbetween intelligence and reading has been variously estimated betweenr5 0.05 to 0.80 (Naglieri, 2001; Stanovich, Cunningham, & Freeman,1984). It is likely that the diversity in correlations may be due to the dif-ferent measures of intelligence and reading ability used by individualresearchers. Like reading comprehension, intelligence is also a multidi-mensional construct. In fact, it has been reported that when intelli-gence is perceived as unidimensional and assessed with traditional IQtests, it does not sufficiently account for individual differences inreading ability; its relation to reading is weak (Naglieri & Reardon,1993). However, when intelligence is perceived and measured as amultidimensional construct, then its relation to reading ability isstronger (Georgiou & Das, 2012). Furthermore, a multidimensionalapproach contributes to a deeper understanding of the nature of therelation between reading and intelligence, and presents the possibilityof diagnostic assessment and remediation based on that diagnosis(Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994).

The PASS theory of intelligence is a modern approach to intelligencethat aligns with this multidimensional view. Specifically, PASS theoryconceptualizes intelligence as a set of four cognitive processes thatrelate strongly to achievement: Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, andSuccessive processing. We describe the theory next.

PASS THEORY

The PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive) theoryof cognitive processes (Naglieri & Das, 1997) is based largely on theneuropsychological work of Luria. The maintenance of attention, theprocessing and storing of information, and the management and



direction of mental activity comprise the activities of the operationalunits that work together to produce cognitive functioning (Das et al.,1994).

The PASS theory proposes that cognition is organized in four pro-cesses and that these processes are functions of four areas of the brain.The first process is Planning, which involves executive functionsresponsible for controlling, organizing, and monitoring behavior. Forexample, shifting attention during reading to different parts of the textand selectively allocating resources and effort to different informationinvolve this kind of processing. The second process is Attention, whichensures sufficient arousal levels and focus on specific stimuli. For exam-ple, performance in selective attention and reading comprehensiontasks is likely to be related when there is a need to inhibit stimuli thatare not the primary focus of attention (e.g., when a word or a sentenceis degraded or masked by nontargets in the surround).

The other two processes, Simultaneous and Successive proces-sing, enable encoding, transformation, and retention of information.Simultaneous processing is relevant when the task or behavior requiresintegration into whole units of information, or a “gestalt.” For example,recognition of whole words by sight involves this kind of processing, asdoes comprehension of the meaning of an entire sentence in a para-graph. Successive processing is relevant when the task or behaviorrequires organization of individual units in a serial order. For example,word decoding and spelling involve this kind of processing.

RELEVANCE OF PASS THEORY TO READINGCOMPREHENSION

Even though intelligence when assessed with traditional IQ testsonly weakly relates to reading achievement, intelligence when assessedin terms of cognitive processes relates strongly to reading achievement(Georgiou & Das, 2012; Naglieri & Reardon, 1993). For example, therelation between PASS processing scores and reading achievement issubstantial and increases with age (Naglieri & Rojahn, 2004).Specifically, we hypothesize that as the demands of the reading taskincrease, so does the involvement of the four PASS processes. Further,we hypothesize that low-level or bottom-up reading processes dependmore on Successive and Simultaneous processing (e.g., dual-route theo-ries of word recognition suggest that a word is recognized eitherthrough direct visual access or through phonological coding of itssounds; see Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989, for a description), whereashigher-order or top-down reading processes depend more on Planningand Attention.

121RELEVANCE OF PASS THEORY TO READING COMPREHENSION


In what follows, first we review the evidence in the literature sup-porting these hypotheses and then we present recent findings from anempirical research exploring the relations between the four PASSprocesses and reading comprehension as measured by an informalreading inventory, the CBM-Maze test (Deno, Maruyama, Espin, &Cohen, 1989). Having stated that it is important to consider the multi-dimensionality of constructs such as intelligence and reading compre-hension, we must acknowledge that the preliminary findings reportedhere must be interpreted with caution because they relate to a singlereading comprehension test and its demands rather than reading com-prehension in general. The CBM-Maze test requires students to choosethe missing word from several alternatives during reading of ageappropriate texts in a limited time. Time limits vary from 1�3 minutesper text (Wiley & Deno, 2005) in the present study we used 1 minute.The alternative words are chosen so that they do not make contextualsense and require the student to read more than 1.5 lines ahead in thetext to eliminate (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992). Students’ performance on thistest has been shown to be a valid and reliable indicator of readingcomprehension (Fuchs et al., 2001; Hosp & Fuchs, 2005; Pierce,McMaster, & Deno, 2010).

The Role of Planning

Planning skills represent one source of individual differences in read-ing comprehension. Indeed, successful reading comprehension dependson higher-level executive skills such as planning and working memory(Baddeley, 2003; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000). Skilled readers aremore likely to plan and monitor successfully their own reading(Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pressley, 2000;Tierney & Cunningham, 1984). In contrast, less skilled readers are likelyto perform worse than skilled readers on measures that require planningan organized response (Sesma, Mahone, Levine, Eason, & Cutting, 2009).For example, they need longer time to complete items on a visualproblem-solving task (Reiter, Tucha, & Lange, 2005) and are less efficientin applying reading strategies when those are needed for comprehension(Derry & Murphy, 1986). The ability to plan and organize informationcontributes to comprehension of more complex text and, therefore, is animportant component of reading in later elementary and middle schoolstudents (Eason, Goldberg, Young, Geist, & Cutting, 2012).

Furthermore, there is evidence that planning skills significantlycontribute to reading comprehension over and above individual dif-ferences in attention, decoding, reading fluency, and vocabulary(Sesma et al., 2009). Specifically, higher performance on mental



manipulation tasks and more efficient planning is related to higherreading comprehension scores. These findings highlight the impor-tance of planning skills in reading comprehension and are consistentwith the view that children with reading difficulties may also exhibitplanning difficulties (Locascio, Mahone, Eason, & Cutting, 2010;Reiter et al., 2005). Available evidence about the relation between theCAS planning tasks and reading achievement shows that correlationsare generally stronger at ages 10�11 (r5 .31�.49) and they decreasethrough adolescence (r5 .21�.43) (Best, Miller, & Naglieri, 2011).

The Role of Attention

The relation between attention and reading ability has been well docu-mented (Horn & Packard, 1985; Paloyelis, Rijsdijk, Wood, Asherson, &Kuntsi, 2010). Attention plays a critical role in information processing,and its adequate functioning is required for the actual development ofreading skills. As a result, individuals with attention deficits often havedifficulties in reading comprehension (Commodari & Guarnera, 2005;Locascio et al., 2010). Findings show that these difficulties increase as thedemands of the reading task increase (Brock & Knapp, 1996; Ghelani,Sidhu, Jain, & Tannock, 2004). Also, there is evidence that attention defi-cits may impede individuals’ monitoring of what they read (McInnes,Humphries, Hogg-Johnson, & Tannock, 2003), as they are more likely tobe distracted by detail when reading longer texts and thus failing tofocus on main ideas (Kendeou et al., 2014). Attention deficits may alsomanifest themselves as executive function deficits during reading com-prehension (Sesma et al., 2009).

The link between attention and reading can be traced back to the workon sensory visual deficit (Casco, Tressoldi, & Dellantonio, 1998; Lovegrove,Bowling, Badckock, & Blackwood, 1980; Lovegrove, Martin & Slaghuis,1986; Slaghuis, Lovegrove, & Davidson, 1993; Slaghuis, Twell, & Kingston,1996). Even though it has been argued that visual deficits cannot be a causeof reading disability (Hulme, 1988; Vellutino, 1979) there is evidence thatindividuals with ADHD process visual information more slowly, particu-larly in the context of increased cognitive load (Franceschini, Gori, Ruffino,Pedrolli, & Facoetti, 2012; Ghelani et al., 2004). Interestingly, within thecontext of PASS theory, the empirical evidence about the role of attentionin reading comprehension has been limited.

The Role of Simultaneous Processing

According to PASS theory, one way simultaneous processing exertsits effects on reading comprehension indirectly is via orthographic



processing (Kirby & Williams, 1991; Naglieri, Welch, & Braden, 1994).Orthographic processing supports spelling (Vellutino, Tunmer,Jaccard, & Chen, 2007), as well as reading fluency. Orthographicprocessing depends heavily on children’s knowledge of the alphabeticsystem (Ehri, 2005), and it relates to the visual aspect of reading.It has been defined as the “memory for specific visual/spelling pat-terns” (Barker, Torgesen, & Wagner 1992, p. 47), and “the rapid recog-nition of sight words” (Newby, Recht, & Caldwell, 1993, p. 73).Furthermore, orthographic processing skills predict word reading(Burt, 2006) and reading comprehension (Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte,Burgess, & Hecht, 1997).

The relation between simultaneous processing and various aspects ofreading has been confirmed in a number of studies in English (Das,Georgiou, & Janzen, 2008; Das, Mishra, & Kirby, 1994; Kirby & Das,1977; Kirby & Robinson, 1987), Greek (Papadopoulos, 2001), andChinese (Wang, Georgiou, & Das, 2012). Furthermore, it has beenreported that children with reading difficulties also exhibit difficultiesin simultaneous processing (Das, Janzen, & Georgiou, 2007; Das, Mok,& Mishra, 1994).

The Role of Successive Processing

According to PASS theory, one way successive processing exerts itseffects on reading comprehension indirectly is via phonological proces-sing (Naglieri et al., 1994). Phonological processing encompasses a widerange of skills involved in manipulating the sounds of speech.Phonological abilities play a critical role in reading developmentacross languages with transparent (de Jong & van der Leij, 1999;Papadopoulos, Kendeou, & Spanoudis, 2012; Vloedgraven & Verhoeven,2007) and nontransparent orthographies (Anthony & Lonigan, 2004;Goswami & Bryant, 1990; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Taylor, 1997;Parrila, Kirby, & McQuarrie, 2004; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). In fact,phonological processing is among the best predictors of how wellchildren acquire reading during the initial stages of formal readinginstruction (Savage, Carless, & Ferraro, 2007).

The relation between successive processing and reading via phono-logical processing is particularly important in the early stages of readingdevelopment because word recognition is achieved primarily throughphonological recoding; namely, identification of individual letters,corresponding sounds, and synthesis in serial order (Das, Parrila, &Papadopoulos, 2000). Furthermore, children with reading difficultiesalso exhibit difficulties in successive processing (Das et al., 1994;



Das et al., 2007; Kirby & Robinson, 1987; Papadopoulos, Charalambous,Kanari, & Loizou, 2004).

Empirical Evidence: PASS Processes and CBM-Maze

The empirical evidence reviewed supports our initial hypothesis,namely that low-level reading processes are dependent more onSuccessive and Simultaneous processing, whereas higher-order readingprocesses are dependent more on Planning and Attention. Havingstated that, it is important to note that we do not argue that low-levelreading processes are dependent solely on Successive and Simultaneousprocessing or that higher-order reading processes are dependent solelyon Planning and Attention. Rather, we propose that among these fourprocesses that contribute to reading, some play a more important rolethan others depending on the aspect of reading we focus on or on theage of the readers.

In order to directly examine the contribution of PASS processesto reading comprehension, we present some preliminary findings froman ongoing study examining the prediction of cognitive and linguistic pre-dictors of fluency and reading comprehension in adolescent readers (agerange 12.1�18.7; n5 462) (Papadopoulos & Kendeou, 2012). Specifically,we examine the extent to which the four PASS components, namely,Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive processing predictperformance on the Curriculum-Based Measurement-Maze test (CBM-Maze; Deno, 1985). With regard to the linguistic predictors that are knownto predict performance on the CBM-Maze test, there is evidence that per-formance is related to fluency and to skills that support the construction ofa mental representation of the text during reading, such as vocabulary(Deno et al., 1989; Fuchs et al., 2001; Kendeou & Papadopoulos, 2012;Kendeou et al., 2012; Stahl & Hiebert, 2006). To assess the four PASSprocesses, we used the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) assessmenttool; CAS allows for the calculation of the Planning, Attention,Simultaneous, and Successive cognitive processing scales, which provideinformation for specific strengths and weaknesses the individual possessesin each of these areas (see CAS Interpretive Handbook;Naglieri & Das, 1997).

The analysis was performed in two steps. First, we evaluated thefit of the factor structure of the set of skills and their correlationsacross age. To do so, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysisexamining the indicators of each latent factor and the correlationsbetween the latent factors. The model included six latent factors:planning, attention, simultaneous processing, successive processing,orthographic processing, and phonological processing. Indicators for



planning skills were Matching Numbers and Planned Codes. Indicatorsfor attention skills were Expressive Attention and Receptive Attentionmeasures. Indicators for simultaneous processing skills were Matricesand Verbal-Spatial Relations measures. Indicators for successive pro-cessing skills were Word Series and Sentence Repetition measures.Indicators for orthographic processing were Orthographic Choice (con-structed for the purpose of this study) and Two-Minute Spelling (fromthe DST-J; Fawcett & Nicolson, 2004; Greek standardization byPapadopoulos, Georgiou, & Spanoudis, 2008), and indicators of phono-logical processing were Spoonerism (constructed for the purpose of thisstudy) and Pseudoword Repetition tasks (Spanoudis, Papadopoulos, &Spyrou, 2013). In evaluating the goodness of fit of this model to thedata, we report the model chi-square statistic associated with thep-value, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Root Mean SquareError of Approximation (RMSEA). Specifically, we adhered to the fol-lowing criteria for evaluating good model fit: Comparative Fit Indices(CFI) greater than .95 and Root Mean Square Errors of Approximation(RMSEA) below .06 (Byrne, 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Given the size ofthe present sample (n. 200), the ratio between chi-square and degreesof freedom (normed χ2, 5) was also used to judge model fit(Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Measurement model results indicated agood fit, χ2 (37, N5 286)5 87.82, p, .001; CFI5 .98; RMSEA5 .05(CI.905 .04�.07), suggesting that the observed variables fitted the latentfactor structure.

Second, we tested the fit of the theoretical model that has been dis-cussed so far (Das et al., 1994; Das et al., 2000), examining the contribu-tion of the six latent factors (those deriving from the first step ofanalysis) on the CBM-Maze test. Specifically, we examined whether suc-cessive processing exerts its effects on reading comprehension indirectlyvia phonological processing and whether simultaneous processingexerts its effects on reading comprehension indirectly via orthographicprocessing. It was also examined whether higher-level executive func-tion skills such as planning, and attentional resources, exerted directeffects on reading comprehension. The four PASS latent variables werehypothesized to be interrelated. In addition, all four latent PASS com-ponents and the latent components of orthographic and phonologicalprocessing were regressed on Age, to account for age effects on readingcomprehension (Figure 7.1). Model indices indicated that the model fitwas admissible χ2(8, N5 455)5 36.63, p, .001; CFI5 .98; RMSEA5 .08(CI.905 .06 to .11). A careful look at the factor loadings suggested thatorthographic and phonological processing, planning, and attentionaccounted for a significant portion of variance in the CBM-Maze test(52%), with the largest proportion of variance explained by ortho-graphic processing.



The findings from this initial attempt to directly link the four PASSprocesses and reading comprehension in adolescence confirm the mainhypothesis we put forward based on the review of the literature. Wehypothesized that as the demands of the reading task increase, so doesthe relevance of the four PASS processes. Because lower-level readingskills have been mastered in early years, the relevance of Successiveand Simultaneous processing that support those skills will be mostlyevident through phonological and orthographic processing, respec-tively. Also, because the mastery of phonological skills precedes themastery of orthographic skills, the proportion of variance explained byorthographic processing is larger. The relevance of Planning andAttention, in contrast, is strong and direct because these processes sup-port higher-order reading comprehension; the kinds of processes aredemanded by longer and more complex texts that are typical readingsin this age group.

Age

Maze

SIM

OP PP

SUCC ATTPLAN

.52

.44 .39

.13

.58

.51

.17.21

.33

.39

.27

.36

–.25

–.16

.59 .09

.27

.69

.11

FIGURE 7.1 Structural Equation Model for CBM-Maze test, PASS processes, and lin-guistic skills. The rectangles represent observed variables. The ellipses represent the latentcognitive variables of planning, attention, successive and simultaneous processing, andthe latent linguistic variables of orthographic and phonological processing. Abbreviationsfor factors and variables: PLAN5Planning; SIM5 Simultaneous; ATT5Attention;SUCC5 Successive; Maze5CMB-Maze test; OP5Orthographic Processing; andPP5Phonological Processing. All coefficients were significant at p, .05 level.



CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, we have attempted to provide a general overview ofresearch on the relation between the PASS theory and reading compre-hension, bringing together research from the intelligence and readingcomprehension fields. In this section of the chapter, we present threepotential future challenges for researchers working in these areas. Webelieve that addressing these challenges will further develop our under-standing of the role of intelligence in learning from our reading experi-ences across the lifespan.

A first challenge is the identification of those cognitive mechan-isms that are responsible for the development of reading comprehen-sion itself. Microgenetic studies of children’s reading developmentsuggest that performance significantly changes between less andmore variable periods (Siegler, 2007). Therefore, the developmentalchanges that are observed in any particular study depend on the spe-cific “snapshot” of development that the study captured. In this con-text, change is observed not only in the strengthening role of specificcomponent skills but also in the weakening of others. Thus, identify-ing the actual cognitive processes that regulate such changes in read-ing comprehension can significantly contribute to theories of readingcomprehension. We believe that the four PASS processes have thepotential to help us understand such developmental changes in read-ing comprehension and demonstrate specific change mechanisms, aswell as developmental continuity.

A second challenge we put forth is that future work must considernot only whether the PASS processes contribute to reading achievement,but also how they influence processes of reading comprehension. As wementioned earlier, reading comprehension involves the construction of acoherent mental representation of the text in readers’ memory. This men-tal representation is the product of reading comprehension. Its construc-tion, however, is the process of comprehension and occurs moment bymoment as the readers read. Distinguishing between the products andprocesses is important because reading processes lead to reading pro-ducts (McNamara & Kendeou, 2011; Trabasso & Suh, 1993). In turn, fail-ures in specific processes can lead to low performance in terms ofproducts. In order to examine how PASS processes influence readingcomprehension, we need to focus on both the processes and products ofreading. Focusing only on products limits our ability to identify underly-ing cognitive processes that influence reading performance (Maglianoet al., 2007). Focusing only on processes limits our ability to identifyinfluences of text, reader, and task factors on reading performance. Byconsidering both processes and products, researchers can gain a deeper



understanding of how to best facilitate reading comprehension viaexplicit and targeted training of the four PASS processes.

A final challenge is whether the relations between PASS processesand reading comprehension we have described are language-specific orwhether they generalize across languages. Languages differ in the com-plexity of their orthographies (see Ziegler & Goswami, 2005, for areview). On the one hand, children who are learning to read in lan-guages with consistent orthographies such as Greek, Finnish, orGerman, rely heavily on grapheme-phoneme recoding because the rela-tion between graphemes and phonemes is highly consistent(Protopapas & Vlahou, 2009). On the other hand, children learning toread in languages with less consistent orthographies, such as English orDanish (Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003), rely on rhymes because thereliability of phonemes is reduced (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). Thesecross-linguistic differences have developmental implications for the roleand relative contribution of cognitive and linguistic skills to readingcomprehension (de Jong & van der Leij, 2002; Kendeou, Papadopoulos,& Kotzapoulou, 2013; Megherbi, Seigneuric, & Ehrlich, 2006). For exam-ple, cross-linguistic comparisons of the Simple View of Reading estab-lished that the relative contribution of decoding and languagecomprehension skills to reading comprehension varied for readers oftransparent and nontransparent orthographies across development (fora review, see Florit and Cain, 2011). Specifically, for readers of English,decoding contributed more variance to reading comprehension thanlanguage comprehension in the early years. For readers of more trans-parent orthographies, though, the contribution of language comprehen-sion to reading comprehension was higher than that of decoding. Thus,addressing language-general and language-specific factors in readingcomprehension can contribute to our theoretical understanding of thefactors and processes that are “universal” in the development of read-ing comprehension skills, and inform both theories of reading and theo-ries of cognitive development.

FINALTHOUGHTS

J. P. Das and his colleagues have given us, among other contribu-tions, the PASS theory of intelligence: a modern theory of intelligence.PASS theory has informed our understanding of human cognition withan emphasis on individuals’ strengths and weaknesses. We hope thatour discussion of the relation between PASS theory and current theoriesof reading comprehension has demonstrated that a focus on humancognition as a multidimensional construct has the potential to continueto contribute in reading research in new and exciting directions.

129FINAL THOUGHTS


Acknowledgments

The empirical research reported in this chapter was supported in part by EuropeanUnion�University of Cyprus Grants for Applied Research Projects for Cyprus(No. 8037-16013) and in part by a Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation grant: NEAYΠOΔOMH/ΣTPATH/0308/37. The authors would like to thank S. Douklias,M. Costantinidou, C. Ktisti, and A. Fella for their assistance in this research.

References

Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a situation model: Maintaining both localand global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition, 19, 1061�1070.

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.),Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77�117). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Anthony, J. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2004). The nature of phonological awareness: Convergingevidence from four studies of preschool and early grade school children. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 96, 43�55.

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal ofCommunication Disorders, 36, 189�208.

Baker, L. (1984). Children’s effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their com-prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 588�597.

Barker, T. A., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). The role of orthographic processingskills on five different reading tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 335�345.

Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabularyinstruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 74, 506�552.

Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). Relations between executive function andacademic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative national sample.Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 327�336.

Bowyer-Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2005). Assessing children’s inference generation:What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 75, 189�201.

Brock, S., & Knapp, P. (1996). Reading comprehension abilities of children with attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Attention Disorders, 1, 173�186.

Burt, J. S. (2006). What is orthographic processing skill and how does it relate to wordidentification in reading? Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 400�417.

Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, andprogramming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making and its relation to comprehensionfailure. Reading and Writing, 11, 489�503.

Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. E. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability:Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills.Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31�42.

Casco, C., Tressoldi, P. E., & Dellantonio, A. (1998). Visual selective attention and readingefficiency are related in children. Cortex, 34, 531�546.

Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Commodari, E., & Guarnera, M. (2005). Attention and reading skills. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 100, 375�386.



http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-12-410388-7.00007-5/sbref1























































Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relativecontributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills candepend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277�299.

Das, J. P., Georgiou, G., & Janzen, T. (2008). Influence of distal and proximal cognitive pro-cesses on word reading. Reading Psychology, 29, 366�393.

Das, J. P., Janzen, T., & Georgiou, G. (2007). Correlates of Canadian native children’s read-ing performance: From cognitive profiles to cognitive processes. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 45, 589�602.

Das, J. P., Mishra, R. K., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Cognitive patterns of children with dyslexia:A comparison between groups with high and average nonverbal intelligence. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 27, 235�242.

Das, J. P., Mok, M., & Mishra, R. K. (1994). The role of speech processes and memory inreading disability. Journal of General Psychology, 121, 131�146.

Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Publishers.

Das, J. P., Parrila, R. K., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2000). Cognitive education and readingdisability. In A. Kozulin, & Y. Rand (Eds.), Experience of mediated learning: An impact ofFeuerstein’s theory in education and psychology (pp. 274�291). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (1999). Specific contributions of phonological abilities toearly reading acquisition: Results from a Dutch latent variable longitudinal study.Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 450�476.

de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguisticscomprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 51�77.

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. ExceptionalChildren, 52, 219�232.

Deno, S. L., Maruyama, G., Espin, C. A., & Cohen, C. (1989). The basic academic skills sam-ples (BASS). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Derry, S. J., & Murphy, D. A. (1986). Designing systems that train learning ability: Fromtheory to practice. Review of Educational Research, 56, 1�39.

Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012).Reader-text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cogni-tive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3,515�528.

Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies ofReading, 9, 167�188. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4.

Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (2004). The Dyslexia Screening Test—Junior. London:Harcourt Assessment.

Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types ofalphabetic orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 553�576.

Franceschini, S., Gori, S., Ruffino, M., Pedrolli, K., & Facoetti, A. (2012). A causal linkbetween visual spatial attention and reading acquisition. Current Biology, 22, 1�6.

Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Catts, H., & Tomblin, J. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting theassessment of reading comprehension. In S. G. Paris, & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’sreading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student readingprogress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45�59.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indica-tor of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. ScientificStudies of Reading, 5, 239�256.

Georgiou, G. K., & Das, J. P. (2012). Reading comprehension in university students:Relevance of PASS theory of intelligence. Journal of Research in Reading. Available fromhttp://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01542.x.

131REFERENCES














































http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
























http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01542.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01542.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01542.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01542.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01542.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01542.x

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, S. L., Williams, P. J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehen-sion strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review ofEducational Research, 71, 279�320.

Ghelani, K., Sidhu, R., Jain, U., & Tannock, R. (2004). Reading comprehension and readingrelated abilities in adolescents with reading disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder.Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 10, 364�384.

Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. E. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanagh, & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.),Language by ear and by eye (pp. 331�358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedialand Special Education, 7, 6�10.

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrativetext comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371�395.

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127�160.

Horn, W. F., & Packard, T. (1985). Early identification of learning problems—A meta-analysis. Journal of Education & Psychology, 77, 597�607.

Hosp, M. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, andcomprehension: Do the relations change with grade? School Psychology Review, 34, 9�26.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structureanalysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: AMultidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1�55.

Hulme, C. (1988). The implausibility of low-level visual deficits as a cause of children’sreading difficulty. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 369�374.

Keenan, J. M. (2012). Measure for measure: Challenges in assessing reading comprehen-sion. In J. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how toassess reading ability (pp. 77�88). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests varyin the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension.Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281�300.

Kendeou, P., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2012). The use of CBM-Maze in Greek: A closer lookat what it measures. In C. Espin, K. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Wayman (Eds.), Ameasure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education(pp. 329�339). MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Kendeou, P., Papadopoulos, T. C., & Kotzapoulou, M. (2013). Evidence for the early emer-gence of the Simple View of Reading in a transparent orthography. Reading andWriting: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 189�204.

Kendeou, P., Papadopoulos, T. C., & Spanoudis, G. (2012). Processing demands of readingcomprehension tests in young readers. Learning and Instruction, 22, 354�367.

Kendeou, P., Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2004). The influence of reader’s priorknowledge on text comprehension and learning from text. In R. Nata (Ed.), Progress inEducation (Vol. 13, pp. 189�209). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehen-sion: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, &Cognition, 39, 854�865.

Kendeou, P., & Trevors, G. (2012). Learning from texts we read: What does it take?In M. J. Lawson, & J. R. Kirby (Eds.), The quality of learning (pp. 251�275). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.








































































Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Interactions between prior knowledge and textstructure during comprehension of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567�1577.

Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, A. K. (2014). A cognitive view ofreading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning DisabilitiesResearch & Practice, 29, 10�16.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and produc-tion. Psychological Review, 85, 363�394.

Kirby, J. R., & Das, J. P. (1977). Reading achievement, IQ, and simultaneous-successiveprocessing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 564�570.

Kirby, J. R., & Robinson, G. L. W. (1987). Simultaneous and successive processing in read-ing disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 243�252.

Kirby, J. R., & Williams, N. H. (1991). Learning problems: A cognitive approach. Toronto,Ontario: Kagan and Woo. [2011, Japanese translation; Tokyo, Japan: The EnglishAgency (Japan) Ltd].

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processingin reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293�323.

Locascio, G., Mahone, E. M., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2010). Executive dysfunction amongchildren with reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 441�454.

Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Van den Broek, P. W. (1997). Understanding reading comprehension:Current and future contributions of cognitive science. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 22, 213�246.

Lovegrove, W., Martin, F., & Slaghuis, W. A. (1986). Theoretical and experimental case forresidual deficit in specific reading disability. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3, 225�267.

Lovegrove, W. J., Bowling, A., Badcock, D., & Blackwood, M. (1980). Specific reading dis-ability: Differences in contrast sensitivity as a function of spatial frequency. Science,210, 430�440.

Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A multidimensionalframework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Readingcomprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107�136). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

McInnes, A., Humphries, T., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Tannock, R. (2003). Listening compre-hension and working memory are impaired in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorderirrespective of language impairment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 427�443.

McNamara, D. S., & Kendeou, P. (2011). Translating advances in reading comprehensionresearch to educational practice. International Electronic Journal in Elementary Education, 4,33�46.

McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of compre-hension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York, NY:Elsevier Science.

Megherbi, H., Seigneuric, A., & Ehrlich, M. F. (2006). Reading comprehension in French1st and 2nd grade children: Contribution of decoding and language comprehension.European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXI, 2, 135�147.

Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Taylor, S. (1997). Segmentation, not rhyming, predictsearly progress in learning to read. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 370�396.

Naglieri, J. A. (2001). Do ability and reading achievement correlate? Journal of LearningDisabilities, 34, 304�305.

Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Intelligence revised: The Planning, Attention,Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) cognitive processing theory. In R. F. Dillon (Ed.),Handbook on Testing (pp. 136�163). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

133REFERENCES






































































Naglieri, J. A., & Reardon, S. (1993). Traditional IQ is irrelevant to learning disabilities—Intelligence is not. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 127�133.

Naglieri, J. A., & Rojahn, J. R. (2004). Validity of the PASS theory and CAS: Correlationswith achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 174�181.

Naglieri, J. A., Welch, J. A., & Braden, J. (1994). Factor structure of Planning, Attention,Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) Cognitive processing tasks and the Wechsler PIQ fora hearing impaired sample. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 371�384.

Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context.Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233�253.

Newby, R. F., Recht, D. R., & Caldwell, J. (1993). Validation of a clinical method for the diag-nosis of two subtypes of dyslexia. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 11, 72�83.

O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situationmodel: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(5), 1200�1210.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering andcomprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117�175.

Paloyelis, Y., Rijsdijk, F., Wood, A. C., Asherson, P., & Kuntsi, J. (2010). The genetic associ-ation between ADHD symptoms and reading difficulties: The role of inattentivenessand IQ. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1083�1095.

Papadopoulos, T. C. (2001). Phonological and cognitive correlates of word-reading acquisi-tion under two different instructional approaches. European Journal of Psychology ofEducation, 16, 549�567.

Papadopoulos, T. C., Charalambous, A., Kanari, A., & Loizou, M. (2004). Kindergartenintervention for dyslexia: The PREP remediation in Greek. European Journal ofPsychology of Education, 19, 79�105.

Papadopoulos, T. C., & Kendeou, P. (2012). Cognitive and linguistic predictors of fluency andreading comprehension in adolescence. Symposium paper presented at the 19th AnnualMeeting of the Society for the Scientific Studies of Reading (SSSR), Montreal, Canada.

Papadopoulos, T. C., Kendeou, P., & Spanoudis, G. (2012). Investigating the factor struc-ture and measurement invariance of phonological abilities in a sufficiently transparentlanguage. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 321�336.

Papadopoulos, T. C., Georgiou, G. K., & Spanoudis, G. (2008). Dyslexia Screening Test-Junior (DST-J): Standardization in Greek. Department of Psychology & Centre forApplied Neuroscience, University of Cyprus (original version by Fawcett, A. &Nicolson, R. I., 2004, published by the Psychological Corporation).

Paris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2007). Teaching narrative comprehension strategies to first gra-ders. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 1�44.

Parrila, R., Kirby, J. R., & McQuarrie, L. (2004). Articulation rate, naming speed, verbalshort-term memory, and phonological awareness: Longitudinal predictors of earlyreading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 3�26.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil,P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II,pp. 815�860). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro,

& P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189�214). Amsterdam, TheNetherlands: John Benjamins.

Pierce, R. L., McMaster, K. L., & Deno, S. L. (2010). The effects of using different proce-dures to score maze measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 151�160.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L.Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research(Vol. III, pp. 545�561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.





































































Protopapas, A., & Vlahou, E. L. (2009). A comparative quantitative analysis of Greekorthographic transparency. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 991�1008.

Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007).Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective forresearch and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289�312.

Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Reiter, A., Tucha, O., & Lange, K. W. (2005). Executive functions in children with dyslexia.Dyslexia, 11, 116�131.

Savage, R., Carless, S., & Ferraro, V. (2007). Predicting curriculum and test performance atage 11 years from pupil background, baseline skills and phonological awareness at age5 years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 732�739.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2009). The contribu-tion of executive skills to reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychology, 15232�246.

Seymour, P. H., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition inEuropean orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143�174.

Siegler, R. S. (2007). Cognitive variability. Developmental Science, 10, 104�109.Slaghuis, W. L., Lovegrove, W. J., & Davidson, J. A. (1993). Visual and language proces-

sing deficits are concurrent in dyslexia. Cortex, 29, 601�615.Slaghuis, W. L., Twell, A. J., & Kingston, K. R. (1996). Visual and language processing dis-

orders are concurrent in dyslexia and continue into adulthood. Cortex, 32, 413�438.Snow, C. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading

Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Spanoudis, G., Papadopoulos, T. C., & Spyrou, S. (2013). Specific language impairment and

dyslexia: categorical distinction or continuum? Manuscript submitted for publication.Stahl, S. A., & Hiebert, E. H. (2006). The “word factors.” In K. A. Stahl, & M. McKenna

(Eds.), Reading research at work (pp. 403�424). New York: Guilford.Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual dif-

ferences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360�407.Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from?

Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 85, 211�229.

Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills,and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 278�303.

Swanson, H. L., & O’Connor, R. E. (2009). The role of working memory and fluency train-ing on reading comprehension in children who are dysfluent readers. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 42, 548�575.

Tierney, R. J., & Cunningham, J. W. (1984). Research on teaching comprehension. In P. D.Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 609�655). White Plains, NY:Longman.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S. (1997).Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to thegrowth of word-reading skills in second to fifth grade children. Scientific Studies ofReading, 1, 161�185.

Trabasso, T., & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherencethrough online inferences and mental operations in working memory. DiscourseProcesses, 16(1�2), 3�34.

Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P. W., & Suh, S. Y. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivityof causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1�25.

135REFERENCES







































































Tzeng, Y., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Lee, C. (2005). The computational implemen-tation of the Landscape Model: Modeling inferential processes and memory represen-tations of text comprehension. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 37,277�286.

van den Broek, P. W. (1997). Discovering the cement of the universe: The development ofevent comprehension from childhood to adulthood. In P. W. van den Broek, P. Bauer,& T. Bourg (Eds.), Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation: Bridgingfictional and actual events (pp. 321�342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. (1999). The mind in action: What it means to comprehendduring reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading formeaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1�31). Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and con-structionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39,299�316.

van den Broek, P. W., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscapemodel of reading: Inferences and the on-line construction of a memory representation.In H. van Oostendorp, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representationsduring reading (pp. 71�98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vellutino, F. R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge: MIT Press.Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-

remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities,33, 223�238.

Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of readingability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model. Scientific Studies of Reading,11, 3�32.

Vloedgraven, J. M. T., & Verhoeven, L. (2007). Screening of phonological awareness in theearly elementary grades: An IRT approach. Annals of Dyslexia, 57, 33�50.

Wang, X., Georgiou, G., & Das, J. P. (2012). Examining the effects of PASS cognitive pro-cesses on Chinese reading accuracy and fluency. Learning and Individual Differences, 22,139�143.

Wiley, H. I., & Deno, S. L. (2005). Read aloud and maze measures as predictors of successfor English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26,207�214.

Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, andskilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. PsychologicalBulletin, 131, 3�29.

Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model con-struction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386�397.
























































Documents

Cognition, Intelligence, and Achievement || Reading Comprehension and PASS Theory