4 TherelationshipbetweenreadingcomprehensiondecodingandfluencyinGreekacrosssectionalstudy

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/271929644
The Relationship Between Reading Comprehension, Decoding, and Fluency in

Greek: A Cross-Sectional Study
Article in Reading and Writing Quarterly · November 2013

DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2013.758932
CITATIONS READS
15 759
2 authors:
Susana Padeliadu Faye Antoniou

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
83 PUBLICATIONS 498 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 115 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Phd studies View project
Dyscalculia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Susana Padeliadu on 11 December 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

URWL #758932, VOL 29, ISS 2
The Relationship Between Reading

Comprehension, Decoding, and Fluency
in Greek: A Cross-Sectional Study
SUSANA PADELIADU and FAYE ANTONIOU
QUERY SHEET
This page lists questions we have about your paper. The numbers displayed at left can be
found in the text of the paper for reference. In addition, please review your paper as a whole
for correctness.
Q1: AU: Abstract has been reworded in active voice per APA style. Please confirm the
added sentence subjects “experts,” “scholars,” and “researchers” are accurate.
Q2: AU: Please provide street number or post box for your postal address.
Q3: AU: Please add Speece & Ritchey (2005) to the reference list.
Q4: AU: Spelling is “Hammlet” here and “Hamlett” in the reference list. Which is correct?
Q5: AU: Change from Hintze, Callahan, Matthews, and Williams (2002) to Hintze,
Callahan, Matthews, Williams, and Tobin (2002) correct here?
Q6: AU: Please add Fuchs & Deno (1992) to the reference list.
Q7: AU: Text is missing in the phrase “even though appears to be.” A noun or pronoun is
needed after “though.”
Q8: AU: Spellings are “Aarnaoutse & van Leuwe” here and “Aarnoutse & van Leeuwe” in
the reference list. Which spellings are correct?
Q9: AU: Please add Singer et al. (1997) to the reference list.
Q10: AU: By “The number of errors (inaccurate reading or stress, addition or omission of
words) was distracted by the total amount of words read” do you mean “The
number of errors (inaccurate reading or stress, addition or omission of words)
was subtracted from the total number of words read”?
Q11: AU: By “solution” do you mean “resolution”?
Q12: AU: By “literal high level” do you mean “literal difficult” twice in this paragraph?
Q13: AU: By “low level” do you mean “literal easy” twice in this paragraph?
Q14: AU: Change from 699 to 0.699 correct for vocabulary dependent and low level?
Q15: AU: Table 6 was not cited in the original text. Have we added the callout for Table 6
in the correct place here?
Q16: AU: By “literal high level” do you mean “literal difficult”?
Q17: AU: Change from bword decoding = 259 and bfluency = 130 to bword decoding = .259
and bfluency = .130 correct here?
Q18: AU: Change from bfluency = 078 to bfluency = .078 correct here?
Q19: AU: Change from bword decoding = 405 to bword decoding = .405 correct here?
Q20: AU: Spelling is “van den Broeck” here and “van den Broek” in the reference list.
Which is correct?
Q21: AU: Please add Stanovich et al. (1989) to the reference list.
Q22: AU: Spelling is “Leeouve” here and “van Leeuwe” in the reference list. Which is
correct?
Q23: AU: Either cite Allbritton (2004) in the text or delete from the reference list.
Q24: AU: Either cite Goldman & Rakestraw (2000) in the text or delete from the reference
list.
Q25: AU: Please provide complete reference for Jenkins et al. (2000). Is it a manuscript in
preparation, submitted for publication, in press, or published?
Q26: AU: For Kariotis (1997), is “(in Greek)” part of the article title? If not, please delete
this, provide the original Greek title of the article, and put the English translation
of the title in brackets.
Q27: AU: Either cite Nation (1999) in the text or delete from the reference list.
Q28: AU: Either cite Nation & Snowling (1997) in the text or delete from the reference list.
Q29: AU: For Porpodas (1992), is “(in Greek)” part of the article title? If not, please delete
this, provide the original Greek title of the article, and put the English translation
of the title in brackets.
Q30: AU: Either cite Stanovich & West (1989) in the text or delete from the reference list.
Q31: AU: Please confirm article page range for Willson & Rupley (1997): pp. 45–63 or
pp. 45–64?
TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTING

The table of contents for the journal will list your paper exactly as it appears below:
The Relationship Between Reading Comprehension, Decoding, and Fluency in Greek:

A Cross-Sectional Study
Susana Padeliadu and Faye Antoniou
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29:1–31, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1057-3569 print/1521-0963 online
DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2013.758932
The Relationship Between Reading

Comprehension, Decoding, and Fluency
in Greek: A Cross-Sectional Study
SUSANA PADELIADU and FAYE ANTONIOU

University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece 5
Experts widely consider decoding and fluency as the basis of read-

ing comprehension, while at the same time consistently document-
ing problems in these areas as major characteristics of students
Q1 with learning disabilities. However, scholars have developed most
of the relevant research within phonologically deep languages, 10
wherein decoding problems appear to be especially prominent.
Furthermore, most of the available data refer to elementary-age
students. The goal of this study was to investigate reading compre-
hension in Greek, a language that is less transparent than English.
Specifically, the aims of this cross-sectional study were (a) to pro- 15
vide a qualitative analysis of reading comprehension errors in
narrative and expository texts made by students across 9 grades
and (b) to predict specific reading comprehension problems from
decoding and fluency skills. Participants were 1,070 elementary
and secondary students from the 1st through the 9th grades whom 20
researchers assessed using a newly developed detection test of read-
ing difficulties. We discuss the results of frequency and regression
analyses in the framework of understanding the role that decoding
and fluency play in reading comprehension.
Students comprehend a written text successfully when they attain a number 25

of prerequisites, which are related to the reader’s abilities (e.g., fluency,
decoding, prior knowledge, vocabulary knowledge, metacognition) as well
as to the text’s genre and content (Adams, 1990; Archer, Gleason, & Vachon,
2003; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2002;
Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Speece & Ritchey, 2005). In other words, reading 30
Q2 Address correspondence to Susana Padeliadu, Department of Special Education,

University of Thessaly, Volos, 38221, Greece. E-mail: spadel@uth.gr
1
2 S. Padeliadu and F. Antoniou
Q3 comprehension refers to the combination of knowledge-based and text-ori-

ented structures (Kintsch, 1998) and is the result of a systematic reading
process that implements basic (e.g., fluency) and higher order (e.g., meta-
cognitive strategy usage) reading skills (Swanson, 1999).
THE INFLUENCE OF BASIC READING SKILLS 35

ON READING COMPREHENSION
Regarding basic skills, a large body of research has addressed decoding and
fluency in reading as major components of reading comprehension across a
number of grades (Ghelani, Sidhu, Jain, & Tannock, 2004) and languages. In
Greek, which is a highly transparent language, basic reading skills play a sig- 40
nificant role, as there is a consistent correspondence between graphemes and
phonemes (e.g., πατάτα/patata/potato). Research findings have provided
information on the significant relationship that exists between phonemic
awareness and reading performance for beginning readers (Kariotis, 1997;
Porpodas, 1992). Similar results were replicated in the study of Kotoulas and 45
Padeliadu (1999), indicating that older elementary students’ phonemic aware-
ness, reading, and spelling performance are significantly related. As
Protopapas, Sideridis, Mouzaki, and Simos (2007) reported, in Greek decod-
ing was found to be modestly related to reading comprehension in first to
fourth graders, whereas for mature English readers, it has been well demon- 50
strated that decoding accounts for unique variance in reading comprehension
(Bell & Perfetti, 1994; Cunningham, Stanovich, & Wilson, 1990; Shankweiler
et al., 1995). However, Willson and Rupley (1997) highlighted the fact that
second and third graders comprehend a text based on their background
knowledge. Especially in fourth grade, students rely more on their back- 55
ground knowledge in order to comprehend a narrative text (Willson & Rupley,
1997). By fifth grade a large number of novel words are introduced to stu-
dents, and therefore decoding becomes a demanding task, especially for stu-
dents with learning disabilities (Archer et al., 2003). As Perfetti and Hart (2002)
have acknowledged, reading experience is highly significant for the develop- 60
ment of high-quality lexical representations. It has been shown that in the late
elementary grades, students’ reading comprehension is moderated by their
vocabulary skills (Protopapas et al., 2007). This finding is in accordance with
the conclusion that lexical knowledge correlates mostly with late elementary
students’ reading comprehension (Willson & Rupley, 1997). However, how do 65
basic reading skills affect reading comprehension across elementary and sec-
ondary education? The present study attempts to expand upon the study of
Protopapas and his colleagues on the development of lexical mediation in the
relation between word reading skills and reading comprehension in Greek
though focusing on decoding and fluency. 70
Fluency, or “automatic single-word reading and fast efficient, smooth,
and coordinated text reading” (Berninger, Abbott, Vermeulen, & Fulton, 2006,
Reading Comprehension, Decoding, and Fluency 3
p. 348), has been proven to be a crucial predictor of reading comprehension.

Reading words fluently can be a significant predictor of reading performance
(Fuchs et al., 2001), especially in the first three school grades (de Jong & van 75
der Leij, 2002). Although oral reading fluency develops progressively over the
elementary school years (Fuchs & Deno, 1991), research has demonstrated
that the typical developmental curve of oral reading fluency involves
Q4 furthermost growth in the early elementary grades (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hammlet,
Walz, & Germann, 1993). In their study, Hintze, Callahan, Matthews, Williams, 80
Q5 and Tobin (2002) examined the differential predictability of curriculum-based
measurement oral reading fluency on the reading comprehension skills of
elementary-age students. They found that oral reading fluency was a strong
predictor (42%) of reading comprehension. They concluded that the
combination of grade and curriculum-based measurement oral reading 85
fluency accounted for 70% of the variance in reading performance. This
highlights the conclusion that fluency is highly developmental and increases
Q6 as a function of age (Fuchs & Deno, 1992; Hintze, Daly, & Shapiro, 1998;
Hintze & Shapiro, 1997). However, the developmental curve of oral reading
fluency accelerates negatively through the late elementary and junior high 90
grades (Fuchs et al., 2001). Furthermore, fluency alone is not enough for the
accomplishment of reading comprehension (Berninger et al., 2006). Vocabulary
knowledge and higher order reading skills, such as the ability to make
inferences from different text genres, may also be essential.
THE INFLUENCE OF TEXT-ORIENTED STRUCTURES 95

ON READING COMPREHENSION
Reading comprehension may be influenced not only by abilities that are

related to students but also by characteristics that are related to the written
text involved. It seems that as long as basic reading preconditions, such as
decoding and fluency, are attained by students, factors related to the mate- 100
rial, such as text genre (Diakidou, Stylianou, Karefillidou, & Papageorgiou,
2005), or the ability to make inferences (Bowyer-Crane & Snowling, 2005)
become important. These prominent factors are explained in detail in the
following paragraphs.
Text reading requires comprehension at the word, sentence, and text 105
levels (Kintsch, 1998; Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). Despite vocabulary knowl-
edge, which refers to word-level comprehension, the understanding of a text
is mainly based on knowledge of the text’s genre. A passage’s structure, such
as a narrative or expository text, influences the reading processes that read-
Q7 ers adopt (Horiba, 2000). Even though appears to be the most eminent pre- 110
dictor of reading comprehension for Grades 3–6 (Aarnaoutse & van Leuwe,
Q8 1998), familiarization with a text structure contributes greatly to reading
comprehension (Horiba, 2000). Narrative texts “have a fairly consistent and
predictable semantic causal structure based on intentional, goal-directed
actions” (Horiba, 2000, p. 228). These characteristics guide and assist younger 115
and older students to comprehend a text. In contrast, expository texts have
diverse structures; consist of relations, information, and vocabulary that are
unknown to students; are characterized by conceptual density; and require
the activation of prior knowledge (Englert & Hiebert, 1984; Horiba, 2000;
Kintsch & Kozminsky, 1977; Saenz & Fuchs, 2002; Singer, Harkness, & 120
Q9 Stewart, 1997). Therefore, these two text genres require different processing
mechanisms, with the former being explanation focused and the latter being
metacognitively driven (Diakidou et al., 2005; Horiba, 2000).
Specifically, in narrative texts, students search for the characters’ actions,
goals, or emotions, whereas in expository texts students need to activate 125
their prior knowledge, make connections with the new information, and
monitor their comprehension (Horiba, 2000). The abstract and logical struc-
ture of expository texts is also often accompanied by unfamiliar information
for the reader of the first grades who has not yet enhanced his or her meta-
cognitive skills. Therefore, expository text structures may be easier for late 130
elementary grades because students are more familiar with the diverse
scheme of expository texts, which do not rely on the common pattern of
narrative texts, such as that of story grammar. However, it is not only the
familiar structure that makes a narrative story easier for students in the first
grades. The fact that there is a high frequency of exposure to narrative sto- 135
ries provides students with the opportunity to encounter and interact with
this text genre from the early grades to the increasing grade levels (Diakidou
et al., 2005; Duke, 2000). Only by the fourth grade are students introduced
to expository texts, which are more demanding in content because they
require the extraction, summarization, and synthesis of the presented infor- 140
mation (Willson & Rupley, 1997). Diakidou and her colleagues (2005), in
their study of the Greek language, found that narrative texts are more com-
prehensible than expository texts in elementary school grades.
Regardless of text genre, the prominent reason why students with or
without reading disabilities confront difficulties in their attempt to compre- 145
hend a text has to do with their deficits in making inferences (Bowyer-Crane
& Snowling, 2005). In other words, students who face difficulties in reading
comprehension often understand the text literally and do not make mental
representations (Nation & Snowling, 1998, 1999). Poor comprehenders dem-
onstrate problems in making inferences in all text constructs, even in words. 150
They are less able to use or understand lexical hints and cues, such as reso-
lution or substitution and reduction, that are crucial in textual coherence
maintenance (Bowyer-Crane & Snowling, 2005).
At the text level, students who face comprehension difficulties often
show limitations in obtaining information that can be inferred from the story 155
(semantically congruent inference—textually explicit) or in comprehending
information that is not literally mentioned in the text (semantically incongruent
inference—textually implicit; Bowyer-Crane & Snowling, 2005; Oakhill, 1982).
Apart from the ability to understand literal text information and vocabulary-
dependent information, different and more than one type of inferences at the 160
word, sentence, and text levels are necessary to maintain textual coherence:
elaborative, cohesive, knowledge-based, and evaluative inferences (Bowyer-
Crane & Snowling, 2005; Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998).
These types of inference refer respectively to the information that is derived
from a text in terms of the reader’s experience, linguistic cues (e.g., anaphora), 165
prior knowledge, or emotional outcome (Bowyer-Crane & Snowling, 2005).
“Inferences are generated when a reader uses his or her background
knowledge as well as elements that are contained in the text, in order to
comprehend the text” (DuBravac & Dalle, 2002, p. 221). Inferences, however,
are not unrelated to the text genre. Research studies attribute differences in 170
comprehension based on a text’s genre to the different types of inference
that expository or narrative texts require. Narrative discourse is related to
knowledge-based inferences because it is more related to everyday experi-
ences and to world knowledge, whereas expository discourse is linked to
linguistic, cohesive, and evaluating inferences as well as to background 175
knowledge (DuBravac & Dalle, 2002). These types of inferences are reflected
in the four question types that were initiated by Pearson and Johnson (1978)
and further modified by DuBravac and Dalle (2002): scriptually implicit, tex-
tually implicit, textually explicit, and linguistic.
Bowyer-Crane and Snowling (2005), in an attempt to investigate the 180
performance of students with poor comprehension in making inferences
from texts, found out that students faced difficulties in answering questions
that require the generation of elaborative and knowledge-based inferences
while they showed the ability to obtain the literal information that was pre-
sented in the text. However, not much research has been conducted on what 185
kind of inferences students with different reading skills (decoding and flu-
ency) make in diverse text genres and across all grade levels (Bowyer-Crane
& Snowling, 2005). As Fuchs and his colleagues (2001) have stated, further
research should explore the role of reading fluency and decoding (basic
reading competence) in “an individual’s capacity to analyze literature or to 190
learn new information from complicated expository text” (p. 241).
The goals of the present study were twofold: (a) to provide an analysis
of the specific reading comprehension errors made by students across nine
grades and (b) to predict specific reading comprehension problems from
specific decoding and fluency errors. 195
Regarding the first goal our research questions were as follows:
1. How do decoding, fluency, and reading comprehension (in general and

in narrative and expository texts) develop across nine school grades?
2. Is there a grade in which reading comprehension, of both narrative and
expository texts, becomes qualitatively different in terms of students’ 200
errors?
3. What type of reading comprehension errors do students make in each of

nine grades?
4. Are students’ comprehension errors different for narrative and expository
texts? 205
Regarding our second goal, the prediction of reading comprehension perfor-

mance and errors from decoding and fluency skills, the research questions
were as follows:
1. What is the relationship between general reading comprehension, reading

comprehension of narrative texts, and reading comprehension of exposi- 210
tory texts and decoding and fluency for each of the nine grades?
2. How much of reading comprehension is predicted by decoding and flu-
ency in each of the nine grades?
METHOD
Participants 215
Participants were 1,070 elementary and secondary students from first to

ninth grades (n1st grade = 114, n2nd grade = 113, n3rd grade = 129, n4th grade = 126,
n5th grade = 126, n6th grade = 134, n7th grade = 108, n8th grade = 112, n9th grade = 108).
The sample consisted of 535 boys and 535 girls from 57 elementary and 22
secondary schools in four regions of Greece (Attica, Crete, Thessaloniki, and 220
Thessaly). Six students (n3rd grade = 1, n4th grade = 1, n5th grade = 3, n8th grade = 1)
had a diagnosis of learning disability from state multidisciplinary teams, and
the rest were typical students. Table 1 provides an overview of the sample’s
characteristics.
Participating schools were selected using stratified sampling techniques 225
in order to represent the demographic distributions in the areas of Greece.
There were 38 urban, 18 semi-urban, and 13 rural schools. One boy and one
girl were selected randomly from each class by excluding those students
who had a language other than Greek as their native language and who had
not attended the Greek school since the first grade, as well as students with 230
mental retardation. All participating students received traditional national
(curriculum-based) instruction in the regular classrooms that they attended.
In Greece, there is only one national curriculum, and all students are taught
with the same books and methods.
Procedure 235
A total of 23 trained examiners were enrolled in the study and tested stu-
dents within 2 months. Each participating student was tested individually on
TABLE 1 Participants
Age M Non-native Greek

Grade n Male Female (SD) students
1 114 54 60 6.75 (0.26) 7

2 113 56 57 7.70 (0.33) 5
3 129 63 66 8.73 (0.37) 6
4 126 64 62 9.68 (0.29) 7
5 126 65 61 10.69 (0.32) 6
6 134 71 63 11.77 (0.57) 12
7 108 54 54 12.81 (0.39) 4
8 112 56 56 13.73 (0.40) 4
9 108 52 56 14.72 (0.31) 2
Total 1,070 535 535 10.71 (2.56) 53
the reading test in the second half of the school year during regular school
hours. Examiners were (undergraduate and graduate) psychologists and
teachers and had to follow strict directions for each item of every scale of the 240
test. Examiners went through 3 hr of training prior to testing. The reading
test included four submeasures of word and pseudoword decoding, reading
fluency, and reading comprehension. The time of assessment ranged from 45
to 90 min depending on the student’s grade (less time for the highest grades).
In case students were unable to continue, test administration could be broken 245
up into two sessions.
Reading Test
The instrument consisted of three constructs: decoding (word and pseu-
doword), fluency, and text comprehension. All included items were
decided according to the relevant literature, and the development of the 250
exercises was partly based on the concepts of the existing Test of Reading
Performance (Padeliadu & Sideridis, 2000; Sideridis & Padeliadu, 2000).
The item correspondence was based on the lexical, grammatical, and
syntactical level of each grade and the content knowledge following the
elementary and secondary schoolbooks. The item selection was finalized 255
based on pilot data (n = 230), and a total of four exercises made up the
reading test used in this study: one word decoding exercise, one pseu-
doword decoding exercise, one reading fluency exercise that included
two texts, and a reading comprehension exercise that consisted of nine
texts. In order to calculate the test–retest reliability for each construct of 260
the test, examiners assessed 58 students twice on the same exercises
within a period of 2 weeks. These data showed that the correlations
ranged from .744 to .872 (rtest–retest = .744, p < .001; rtest–retest = .872, p < .001;
and rtest–retest = .809, p < .001, for decoding, fluency, and text comprehen-
sion, respectively). 265
WORD DECODING
The word decoding construct evaluated the students’ competence at decod-
ing words with a meaning. Word decoding was assessed using a list of 110
words of ascending difficulty as indicated by the pilot data. Words had a
range of one to eight syllables, and students were instructed to read without 270
time pressure and to stress the words accurately. Read items were scored as
0 when the reading was inaccurate (wrong stress, missing or added letters,
word replacement) and as 1 when the word was read phonologically cor-
rectly. Students were asked to stop reading when they committed five con-
secutive decoding errors, and all following items were scored as 0. The 275
internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale was .98.
PSEUDOWORD DECODING
Pseudoword decoding was assessed using a list of 64 words without mean-
ing of ascending difficulty as indicated by the pilot data. Pseudoword sylla-
bles varied from one to six syllables, and students were instructed to read 280
without time pressure and to stress the words accurately. Inaccurately read
items (wrong stress, missing or added letters, and word replacement) were
scored as 0, and items were scored as 1 when the word was read phonologi-
cally accurately. The starting point was not the same across the nine grades
because, as indicated by the analysis of the pilot data, all items below the 285
starting point for each grade were credited as correct. The cutoff point was
established after five consecutive decoding errors, when students were asked
to stop reading and all following items were scored as 0. The internal con-
sistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scale was .96.
READING FLUENCY 290
Students were presented with a narrative text of 274 words and an exposi-
tory text of 279 words and were instructed to read as accurately and as
quickly as they could for 1 min. Both texts were unfamiliar to the students
because they had been written by us. Fluency in context is more related to
reading comprehension—and therefore fluent reading—than fluency on 295
reading lists of words ( Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003).
The number of errors (inaccurate reading or stress, addition or omission of
Q10 words) was distracted by the total amount of words read. For this construct
the alpha coefficient was .99.
TEXT COMPREHENSION 300
The passages for the reading comprehension construct were adapted from
the Test of Reading Performance (Padeliadu & Sideridis, 2000; Sideridis &
Padeliadu, 2000) for the first two grades (narrative passages), while for the
seven following grades they were constructed by us and corresponded to

three narrative and four expository texts of ascending difficulty. Both types 305
of texts were chosen for their diverse structure and characteristics as well as
for their different level of difficulty. Narrative texts facilitate students’ com-
prehension and are easier to understand because they have a structured
schema and contain sequences that are easier to follow. In contrast, exposi-
tory texts contain information that may be unknown to the students or may 310
require the activation of their prior knowledge, and they have a more abstract
structure (Diakidou et al., 2005). Both narrative and expository tests were
constructed according to the background knowledge, the grammatical and
syntactical familiarity, as well as the lexical knowledge of the students of
each grade in order to correspond to their curriculum level. 315
Students’ ability to comprehend a text was assessed using nine pas-
sages, five narrative texts and four expository texts, ranging from 30 to 128
words. The scores that students could achieve for all texts were 0 to 60 (0–35
for the narrative texts and 0–25 for the expository texts). Narrative texts con-
sisted of the main parts of the story grammar (main character, environment, 320
Q11 time, action, and solution of the story; Thorndyke, 1977), whereas expository
texts were merely informative. Each passage was given an informative title.
The texts were of ascending difficulty regarding the subject matter, the
vocabulary level, and the grammatical and syntactic complexity. For exam-
ple, the first two texts were narrative (story grammar) and were written in 325
present tense, whereas the following texts were presented alternately start-
ing with an expository text with an easy topic (i.e., ice cream). Each text had
seven multiple-choice questions, with three choices for the first two texts
and four for the following seven texts. The students was instructed to read
each passage aloud or silently, and, when he or she was finished, the exam- 330
iner asked the student each question orally. Students were also presented
with the questions in written form and were allowed to go back to the pas-
sage in order to search for the right answer when needed. Seven questions
corresponded to the three types of the reading comprehension question
taxonomy of Pearson and Johnson (1978): textually explicit, textually implicit, 335
and scriptually implicit. Textually explicit questions require no inference,
and the answer is literally mentioned in the passage. Literal statements rep-
resent particular information extracted precisely from the text (Pearson &
Johnson, 1978). Textually implicit questions require inference and the activa-
tion of background knowledge because students have to make use of their 340
knowledge in order to comprehend the information given in the text.
Scriptually implicit questions are based on the background knowledge of the
reader, who is asked to infer the general meaning of the text and rely on his
or her background knowledge in order to grasp the meaning. In other words,
scriptually implicit questions require an inferential answer, a response that is 345
not literally or explicitly mentioned in the text (DuBravac & Dalle, 2002).
“Inferential statements represented implicit referential, causal, superordinate
goal, generalization, and comparison/contrast relationships between idea

units” (Diakidou et al., 2005, p. 61).
We constructed, however, more than three questions that corresponded 350
to the three types of reading comprehension questions. Three were textually
explicit questions: (a) literal easy (i.e., Who took part in the race?), (b) literal
difficult (i.e., What does the dog look like?), and (c) deductive (i.e., How do
you assume that the three friends were happy?). Two were textually implicit
question: (d) title (choose another relevant title) and (e) inconsistency (i.e., 355
What does not fit with the meaning of the text?). And two were scriptually
implicit: (f) vocabulary dependent (i.e., What does bloodhound mean?) and
(g) evaluative (i.e., How do you characterize Thymis?). Regardless of the
text’s genre (narrative or expository) the comprehension questions for each
text were presented in the same sequence and were of the same content. 360
First and second graders had as their starting point the first text, third to fifth
graders had the third, and sixth graders and onward had the fourth. All
responses up to the starting point were scored as 1, whereas all responses
after the cutoff point of the exercise administration were scored as 0. The
administration was stopped when students answered incorrectly five out of 365
seven questions corresponding to a text. The internal consistency of this
subtest (alpha coefficient) was .98.
RESULTS
The present study examined the narrative and expository reading compre-
hension performance at nine grade levels and the extent to which this ability 370
is influenced by the basic reading skills of decoding and fluency. All analyses
included the full data after the exclusion of six multivariate outliers (cases of
more than 3 SD from the mean).
Qualitative Analysis of Reading Comprehension Errors

Regarding the first research question, a descriptive overview of means and 375
standard deviations for each grade in all measures is shown in Table 2 along
with the range of achievable scores per variable. As expected there was an
ascending ability to achieve better in all variables through the grades.
Regarding the second research question, in order to find out the turning
point of change for reading comprehension competence we conducted an 380
analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey analyses for all grades. Table 3
demonstrates that for the narrative text there was a significant difference
(p < .05) between the sixth grade and Grades 1–4, whereas Grades 6–9 did
not differ significantly (p > .10) in terms of narrative text reading comprehen-
sion scores. Fifth-grade scores differed significantly (p < .05) from all grade 385
narrative reading comprehension scores except for fourth- and sixth-grade
TABLE 2 Mean (SD) Proportion of Correct Responses to Reading Preconditions and Reading Comprehension as a Function of Grade Level
Grade
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Range
Decoding words 47.12 (28.30) 73.60 (22.40) 90.70 (14.95) 95.52 (12.85) 98.49 (11.56) 99.49 (11.26) 104.02 (4.39) 104.61 (5.18) 105.38 (5.73) 0–110
11
Decoding 31.44 (14.70) 36.52 (11.42) 45.45 (12.48) 49.32 (11.56) 48.97 (12.25) 49.98 (11.44) 54.37 (8.98) 54.91 (8.62) 55.19 (8.65) 0–60
pseudowords
Fluency 26.03 (15.40) 54.49 (16.97) 80.39 (22.04) 98.47 (26.81) 109.74 (25.05) 125.15 (30.57) 138.82 (23.62) 151.00 (29.22) 159.19 (27.66) 0–277
RC 1.73 (1.38) 3.33 (1.80) 5.59 (1.55) 6.50 (1.32) 6.86 (1.20) 7.41 (1.02) 7.61 (0.71) 7.83 (0.85) 7.98 (0.67) 0–7
NRC 1.39 (0.93) 2.45 (1.15) 3.90 (0.82) 4.27 (0.58) 4.42 (0.58) 4.58 (0.45) 4.64 (0.30) 4.71 (0.38) 4.73 (0.27) 0–7
ERC 0.34 (0.49) 0.88 (0.71) 1.69 (0.80) 2.20 (0.76) 2.44 (0.72) 2.83 (0.64) 2.96 (0.51) 3.11 (0.55) 3.24 (0.48) 0–7
Note. RC = reading comprehension; NRC = narrative reading comprehension; ERC = expository reading comprehension.
TABLE 3 Mean (SD) Correct Answers in Reading Comprehension
Grade
Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
RC
M 12.121,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 23.32,1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 39.113,1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9 45.764,1,2,3,6,7,8,9 48.745,1,2,3,6,7,8,9 52.056,1,2,3,4,5,9 53.417,1,2,3,4,5 55.058,1,2,3,4,5 56.04059,1,2,3,4,5
SD (9.64) (12.6) (10.9) (8.49) (7.11) (6.69) (4.68) (5.13) (4.19)
NRC
12
M 9.751,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 17.22,1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 27.33,1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9 29.94,1,2,3,6,7,8,9 30.95,1,2,3,7,8,9 326,1,2,3,4 32.57,1,2,3,4 338,1,2,3,4,5 33.19,1,2,3,4,5
SD (6.53) (8.02) (5.72) (4.46) (4.03) (3.17) (2.07) (2.63) (1.88)
ERC
M 2.381,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 6.122,1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 11.83,1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9 15.64,1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9 17.55,1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 19.96,1,2,3,4,5,8,9 20.87,1,2,3,4,5,9 21.98,1,2,3,4,5,6 22.89,1,2,3,4,5,6,7
SD (3.46) (4.98) (5.61) (5.11) (4.48) (4.35) (3.46) (3.61) (3.17)
Note. Subscripts indicate significant differences between groups using the first group as a reference. RC = reading comprehension; NRC = narrative reading comprehen-
sion; ERC = expository reading comprehension.
scores. Similarly, for expository text reading comprehension, sixth grade was
the point at which the pattern of the significantly different scores of the first
five grades changed. The sixth and seventh grades did not seem to differ
significantly from each other, and the seventh grade did not differ from the 390
eighth, and the eighth did not differ from the ninth (p < .05).
This finding is related to the third research question about the compe-
tencies of understanding in each grade, or, in other words, what are the
questions that show the major deficits in reading comprehension in each
grade for both text genres? We conducted paired t tests in order to find the 395
differences between the means for each question. As shown in Table 4, over-
all, first and second graders seemed to face statistically significantly greater
difficulties answering inconsistency questions correctly than the other ques-
tions (p < .001). However, there was no statistical difference for the first grade
between the inconsistency and the evaluative questions, t(113) = 1.51, p > .10, 400
nor was there any statistical difference for the second grade between the
inconsistency and the title questions, t(112) = –.468, p > .10. Third and fourth
graders had deficits in the vocabulary-dependent questions, which differed
significantly from their achievement on the rest of the questions except the
deductive question, t(128) = –3.03, p > .10, for the third grade. From the fifth 405
grade up students failed to answer questions that required deduction.
Regarding the fourth research question, concerning narrative text com-
prehension (see Table 5), the first two grades faced difficulties answering
questions of inconsistency (M = 0.82, SD = 1.23; and M = 2.06, SD = 1.68,
respectively). The difference between the mean scores for inconsistency and 410
the rest of the questions was significant (p < .001) except for that between
inconsistency and evaluative, t(128) = –3.03, p > .10. This finding was repli-
cated in the second grade, where the difference in scores, which was yielded
by the paired t tests in the fist grade, was significantly different (p < .001)
from all reading comprehension questions except for the evaluative ques- 415
tion, t(112) = 1.295, p > .10, and the title question, t(112) = 1.817, p > .05. In
the third through the sixth grades, the comprehension error that was most
frequently made was in the literal difficult question. The difference between
the scores of the literal difficult questions was significantly different from all
other scores of the rest of the questions in the third and fourth grades, and 420
it did not differ from the deductive question, t(125) = 1.875, p > .05, and the
title question, t(125) = 1.835, p > .05, for the fifth grade. In the sixth grade the
only nonsignificant difference found was between the literal difficult and the
literal easy questions, t(133) = –0.541, p > .10. For the last three grades the
scheme changed, and the larger amount of deficits in comprehension were 425
centered on the vocabulary-dependent questions. For the last two grades the
differences between the vocabulary-dependent questions and the rest of the
comprehension questions were significant, except for the one between the
Q12 Q13 vocabulary dependent and literal high level, t(111) = 1.366, p > .10, and
t(107) = –1.393, p > .10, respectively; and low level, t(111) = 0.699, p > .10, 430
TABLE 4 Mean (SD) Proportion of Correct Responses to Different Types of Comprehension Questions
Grade
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Textually explicit
Literal easy M 2.43 3.96 5.86 6.65 6.79 7.31 7.45 7.72 7.73
SD (1.63) (1.72) (1.75) (1.57) (1.42) (1.25) (1.05) (1.15) (1.07)
Literal difficult M 2.17 3.60 5.57 6.37 6.85 7.34 7.74 7.84 8.14
SD (1.67) (2.07) (1.77) (1.56) (1.49) (1.42) (1.16) (1.20) (1.01)
Deductive M 1.84 3.50 5.29 6.15 6.26 6.74 6.94 7.34 7.43
14
SD (1.42) (1.85) (1.63) (1.43) (1.35) (1.33) (1.21) (1.22) (1.14)
Textually implicit
Title M 1.73 3.12 5.67 6.74 7.06 7.77 7.69 7.89 8.08
SD (1.62) (2.12) (1.96) (1.79) (1.66) (1.19) (1.17) (1.18) (0.99)
Inconsistency M 1.07 2.76 5.64 6.52 7.06 7.59 7.81 7.95 8.11
SD (1.69) (2.46) (1.95) (1.95) (1.63) (1.43) (0.94) (1.08) (0.92)
Scriptually implicit
Vocabulary M 1.66 3.18 5.16 5.84 6.36 7.02 7.30 7.51 7.85
SD (1.49) (2.04) (1.62) (1.46) (1.49) (1.17) (1.05) (1.17) (1.07)
Evaluative M 1.23 3.19 5.93 7.02 7.67 8.07 8.31 8.53 8.49
SD (1.41) (2.29) (2.11) (1.88) (1.53) (1.40) (0.90) (0.83) (0.75)
TABLE 5 Mean (SD) Proportion of Correct Responses to Different Types of Narrative Text Comprehension Questions
Grade
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Textually explicit
Literal easy M 1.96 2.90 3.97 4.30 4.44 4.54 4.62 4.69 4.63
SD (1.17) (1.18) (1.00) (0.87) (0.74) (0.64) (0.56) (0.57) (0.56)
SD (1.07) (1.26) (1.05) (0.88) (0.87) (0.77) (0.63) (0.68) (0.49)
Deductive M 1.48 2.62 3.95 4.36 4.35 4.60 4.66 4.79 4.78
15
SD (1.03) (1.26) (1.07) (0.92) (0.88) (0.71) (0.57) (0.54) (0.54)
Textually implicit
Title M 1.39 2.34 3.91 4.33 4.35 4.55 4.56 4.64 4.63
SD (1.14) (1.44) (1.02) (0.87) (0.82) (0.68) (0.60) (0.58) (0.57)
Inconsistency M 0.82 2.06 4.16 4.40 4.63 4.71 4.88 4.82 4.88
SD (1.23) (1.68) (1.10) (0.96) (0.79) (0.69) (0.35) (0.51) (0.38)
Vocabulary 1.45 2.51 3.85 4.17 4.33 4.58 4.51 4.60 4.62
dependent M
SD (1.25) (1.48) (0.96) (0.80) (0.83) (0.64) (0.65) (0.61) (0.56)
Evaluative M 1.00 2.24 3.82 4.32 4.64 4.65 4.74 4.82 4.88
SD (1.05) (1.48) (1.03) (0.86) (0.71) (0.69) (0.52) (0.47) (0.38)
Q14 and t(107) = –1.393, p > .10, respectively; as well as from the title question,
t(111) = 0.699, p > .10, and t(107) = –0.120, p > .10, respectively. In the sev-
enth grade, in addition to the nonsignificant difference between the vocabu-
lary-dependent question and the literal high level, t(107) = 1.451, p > .10, and
low level, t(107) = 1.463, p > .10, as well as from the title question, 435
t(107) = –0.631, p > .10, there was also a nonsignificant difference from the
deductive question, t(107) = –1.937, p > .05.
Regarding expository text comprehension, it was shown that students
attending the first four grades had low achievement in answering vocabu-
lary-dependent questions, whereas the older students (Grades 5–9) faced 440
Q15 deficits in deductive comprehension (see Table 6). Specifically, first graders
did not have difficulties only in understanding the text’s vocabulary; they
also had difficulty answering inconsistency questions, t(113) = 0.425, p > .10,
and evaluative questions, t(113) = 0.928, p > .10. This finding was partly rep-
licated in the second grade. Students’ responses to vocabulary-dependent 445
questions did not differ from their answers to inconsistency questions,
t(112) = –0.403, p > .10, and title questions, t(112) = –1.215, p > .10. The differ-
ences between the scores for vocabulary-dependent questions and the
inconsistency and deductive questions were not significant (p > .10) for the
third grade, t(128) = –1.742, and t(128) = 0.344, respectively. Deductive ques- 450
tion responses did not differ significantly from the vocabulary-dependent
Q16 question scores, t(125) = 1.377, p > .10, in the fourth grade, while the literal
high level question turned out to be as difficult for the fifth graders as the
vocabulary-dependent question, t(125) = 1.177, p > .10. Finally, for Grades
6–9 all means of the deductive comprehension responses differed signifi- 455
cantly from the rest of the comprehension questions (p < .001).
Prediction of Specific Reading Comprehension Problems

From Specific Decoding and Fluency Competence
Regarding the fifth research question, correlation analyses were conducted
in order to gain information on the magnitude of the relations between the 460
reading preconditions and reading comprehension. Correlation coefficients
between the measures of word decoding, pseudoword decoding, reading
fluency, and reading comprehension generally, as well as comprehension of
narrative and expository texts, are presented in Table 7. Reading perfor-
mance differences were tested across and within grades. There were positive 465
and significant correlations between almost all of the variables across all
grades. Reading preconditions were significantly correlated with all compre-
hension measures (p < .001), except pseudoword decoding in Grades 2, 7,
and 9 for expository text comprehension (and all comprehension measures
for the ninth grade). Nevertheless, it seems that word decoding and fluency 470
consistently showed stronger correlations with comprehension than pseudo-
word decoding. These correlations remained stable across grades, and only
TABLE 6 Mean (SD) Proportion of Correct Responses to Different Types of Expository Text Comprehension Questions
Grade
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Textually explicit
Literal easy M 0.47 0.98 1.89 2.35 2.35 2.76 2.83 3.04 3.10
SD (0.67) (0.73) (1.01) (0.97) (0.95) (0.93) (0.83) (0.83) (0.74)
SD (0.77) (1.00) (0.99) (1.00) (0.94) (0.92) (0.81) (0.85) (0.78)
Deductive M 0.36 0.88 1.33 1.79 1.91 2.14 2.29 2.55 2.65
17
SD (0.57) (0.81) (0.82) (0.91) (0.89) (0.94) (0.90) (0.96) (0.90)
Textually implicit
Title M 0.33 0.78 1.77 2.40 2.71 3.22 3.12 3.25 3.45
SD (0.65) (1.02) (1.20) (1.16) (1.11) (0.78) (0.85) (0.82) (0.69)
Inconsistency M 0.25 0.70 1.48 2.12 2.44 2.88 2.94 3.13 3.23
SD (0.64) (1.00) (1.08) (1.21) (1.06) (0.90) (0.85) (0.82) (0.77)
Vocabulary 0.21 0.66 1.30 1.67 2.02 2.44 2.79 2.91 3.23
dependent M
SD (0.47) (0.83) (0.97) (0.98) (0.92) (0.82) (0.81) (0.82) (0.83)
Evaluative M 0.23 0.95 2.11 2.70 3.02 3.43 3.56 3.71 3.61
SD (0.60) (1.03) (1.30) (1.25) (1.07) (0.86) (0.67) (0.55) (0.59)
TABLE 7 Correlations Among Predictor and Reading Comprehension Measures in Nine Grades
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6
Grade 1
1. WD —
2. PD .780** —
3. Fl .633** 509** —
4. RC .446** .230** .471** —
5. NRC .438** .243** .467** .982** —
6. ERC .418** .181 .433** .935** .852** —
Grade 2
1. WD —
2. PD .710** —
3. Fl .470** .372** —
4. RC .352** .268** .426** —
5. NRC .363** .278** .407** .981** —
6. ERC .308** .231** .422** .951** .874** —
Grade 3
1. WD —
2. PD .686** —
3. Fl .548** .430** —
4. RC .493** .343** .449** —
5. NRC .466** .333** .394** .961** —
6. ERC .481** .326** .469** .959** .843** —
Grade 4
1. WD —
2. PD .736** —
3. Fl .490** .599** —
4. RC .439** .373** .395** —
5. NRC .328** .319** .362** .910** —
6. ERC .434** .336** .355** .946** .726** —
Grade 5
1. WD —
2. PD .665** —
3. Fl .505** .502** —
4. RC .460** .435** .386** —
5. NRC .339** .342** .396** .872** —
6. ERC .442** .431** .336** .929** .630** —
Grade 6
1. WD —
2. PD .786** —
3. Fl .679** .624** —
4. RC .492** .499** .498** —
5. NRC .469** .450** .412** .890** —
6. ERC .433** .445** .495** .954** .713** —
Grade 7
1. WD —
2. PD .662** —
3. Fl .335** .279** —
4. RC .375** .213* .240* —
5. NRC .403** .249** .146 .753** —
6. ERC .275** .176 .272** .929** .455** —
Grade 8
1. WD —
2. PD .695** —
(Continued)
TABLE 7 Continued
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. Fl .582** .411** —
4. RC .434** .413** .393** —
5. NRC .318** .447** .308** .827** —
6. ERC .431** .387** .396** .946** .599** —
Grade 9
1. WD —
2. PD .705** —
3. Fl .496** .494** —
4. RC .171 .114 .335** —
5. NRC .098 .081 .130 .753** —
6. ERC .208* .132 .373** .943** .491** —
Note. WD = word decoding; PD = pseudoword decoding; Fl = reading fluency; RC = reading comprehen-

sion; NRC = narrative reading comprehension; ERC = expository reading comprehension.
* p < .05. **p < .001.
in the ninth grade decoding, both word and pseudoword decoding, did not
seem to influence considerably reading comprehension (rs = .171 and .114,
p > .10, respectively), while fluency correlated significantly with expository 475
text comprehension (r = .335, p < .001). The fact that by the fifth grade the
correlations between the two text structures decreased and the correlation of
each text structure with the total score in reading comprehension declined
for the narrative text (rs = .872, .890, .753, .827, .753, for fifth through ninth
grade) led us to examine students’ reading comprehension competence not 480
only as a total score but also separately for each genre. However, based on
the analyses, it appears that the type of text does not influence the magni-
tude of reading comprehension (r > .750).
The last research question of this study was whether basic reading skills
can predict students’ reading comprehension performance across the nine 485
school grades. Regressing reading comprehension on the linear combination
of basic reading skills (word and pseudoword decoding and fluency) pro-
duced R2 = 29.7 for the first grade, suggesting that almost one third of the
variability in reading comprehension could be explained by basic reading
skills. As shown in Table 8, all three basic skills were significantly associated 490
with reading comprehension (bword decoding = .166, p < .001; bpseudoword decoding =
.207, p < .001; bfluency = .202, p < .001). Using a series of slope-difference tests,
we found that there was no significant difference between slopes. With regard
to second graders’ reading comprehension, 22% of its variance was accounted
for by fluency. Significant effects emerged for fluency only (bfluency = 495
.261, p < .001). Between-coefficient contrasts showed no significant differ-
ences between the fluency slope and the slopes of all other basic reading
skills. Regarding the reading comprehension of third graders, 29.3% of
comprehension was accounted for by basic reading skills, F(4, 89) = 5.045,
p < .01. Word decoding and reading fluency were significant positive predictors 500
TABLE 8 Results of Linear Regressions for Each Grade for Reading Comprehension
B SE t p R2
Variable RC NRC ERC RC NRC ERC RC NRC ERC RC NRC ERC RC NRC ERC
Grade 1 (df = 110)

.297 .279 .278
Word decoding .166 –.101 –.065 .048 .033 .018 3.43 –3.06 –3.68 .001 .003 .000
Pseudoword –.207 .117 .089 .084 .057 .03 –2.47 2.04 2.93 .015 .044 .004
decoding
Fluency .202 –.137 –.065 .065 .044 .024 3.12 –3.08 –2.78 .002 .003 .006
20
Grade 2 (df = 106)
.22 .214 .2
Word decoding .112 .08 .032 .072 .046 .029 1.55 1.74 1.1 .124 .085 .273
Pseudoword –.020 –.014 –.005 .136 .086 .055 –.144 –.16 –.10 .886 .87 .921
decoding
Fluency .261 .152 .108 .072 .046 .029 3.62 3.33 3.73 0 .001 0
Grade 3 (df = 122)
.293 .251 .291
Word decoding .259 .132 .126 .085 .046 .044 3.04 2.88 2.86 .003 .005 .005
Pseudoword .006 .014 –.009 .091 .049 .047 .06 .29 –.19 .951 .771 .853
decoding
Fluency .13 .053 .077 .045 .024 .023 2.91 2.19 3.32 .004 .03 .001
Grade 4 (df = 117)
.247 .235 .165
Word decoding .246 .174 .069 .08 .044 .049 3.07 1.54 3.58 .003 .125 .001
Pseudoword –.032 –.048 .009 .095 .053 .058 –.33 –.18 –.84 .74 .861 .404
decoding
Fluency .078 .041 .043 .032 .018 .019 2.44 2.44 2.12 .016 .016 .037
Grade 5 (df = 118)
.26 .189 .236
Word decoding .155 .041 .095 .067 .039 .043 2.33 1.03 2.22 .022 .306 .028
Pseudoword .104 .04 .077 .063 .037 .04 1.64 1.07 1.91 .103 .288 .059
decoding
Fluency .049 .044 .02 .027 .016 .017 1.81 2.81 1.13 .074 .006 .26
Grade 6 (df = 126)
.313 .255 .274
Word decoding .071 .056 .019 .077 .038 .051 .92 1.48 .36 .359 .142 .717
Pseudoword .139 .054 .075 .072 .035 .048 1.96 1.52 1.58 .055 .131 .116
decoding
Fluency .061 .018 .048 .023 .011 .015 2.7 1.64 3.21 .008 .104 .002
Grade 7 (df = 101)
.156 .163 .108
Word decoding .405 .183 .188 .134 .058 .102 3.03 3.14 1.85 .003 .002 .067
Pseudoword –.039 .004 –.018 .067 .029 .051 –.58 .131 –.35 .566 .896 .726
decoding
Fluency .024 .001 .028 .019 .008 .015 1.23 .11 1.91 .22 .91 .059
21
Grade 8 (df = 106)
.235 .207 .229
Word decoding .132 –.007 .132 .132 –.014 .095 1.57 –.10 1.4 .12 .92 .165
Pseudoword .076 .122 .076 .072 .417 .052 1.71 3.48 1.46 .09 .001 .146
decoding
Fluency .026 .009 .026 .019 .097 .013 1.46 .91 1.91 .147 .368 .059
Grade 9 (df = 102)
.116 .018 .148
Word decoding .058 .018 .064 .099 .047 .074 .58 .38 .87 .563 .703 .388
Pseudoword –.056 –.002 –.051 .065 .031 .048 –.85 –.08 –1.05 .395 .936 .297
decoding
Fluency .053 .007 .044 .017 .008 .012 3.17 .9 3.53 .002 .368 .001
Note. RC = reading comprehension; NRC = narrative reading comprehension; ERC = expository reading comprehension.
Q17 (bword decoding = .259, p = .003; bfluency = .130, p = .004). Pseudoword decoding
did not predict comprehension in a significant way. Using slope-difference
tests, we did not note any significant differences among the basic reading
skills among grades. With regard to the reading comprehension of students in
the fourth grade, 24.7% of its variance was explained by basic reading skills. 505
Once again, word decoding and reading fluency were positive predictors of
Q18 reading comprehension (bword decoding = .246, p = .003; bfluency = .078, p < .05). All
subsequent slope comparison tests did not exceed levels of significance. The
linear combination of basic reading skills of the fifth graders explained 26%
of the variance in reading comprehension. Word decoding was a significant 510
positive predictor of reading comprehension (b = .155, p < .05). No significant
effects emerged for pseudoword decoding (b = .104, p > .10) or reading flu-
ency (b = .049, p > .05). Slope-difference test results did not show any signifi-
cant differences between grades for word decoding. With regard to reading
the comprehension of sixth graders, 31.3% of its variance was accounted for 515
by basic reading skills, but only reading fluency emerged as a significant pre-
dictor (bfluency = .061, p = .008). Using slope-difference tests, we found signifi-
cant differences for word decoding between sixth and seventh grade (sixth
grade vs. seventh grade). Regarding the reading comprehension of seventh
graders, 15.6% of comprehension was accounted for by basic reading skills. 520
Q19 Word decoding was a significant positive predictor (bword decoding = .405,
p = .003). Pseudoword decoding and reading fluency did not predict compre-
hension in a significant way. All slope comparison tests between grades did
not exceed levels of significance.
With regard to the reading comprehension of students in the eighth 525
grade, 23.5% of its variance was explained by basic reading skills. However,
its coefficients approached and did not reach significance (p between .05
and .10 for pseudoword decoding). The findings did not resemble the basic
reading skill results pattern observed in the other grades for the ninth grade
either. A positive predictor of reading comprehension was reading fluency 530
(bfluency = .053, p = .002), and not word or pseudoword decoding, which
explained less than 11.6% of the variance in reading comprehension.
These findings illustrate the prominent role of basic reading skills in
reading comprehension. Word decoding explained significant amounts of
variance in reading comprehension in Grades 1–5 (except for the second 535
grade) and 7. Fluency also explained a significant amount of variance in
Grades 2–4, 6, and 9. Pseudoword decoding did not emerge as a significant
predictor of reading comprehension except in the first grade.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to thoroughly investigate the quality 540
of the reading comprehension performance of students from Grades 1–9
regarding different text genres (narrative and expository). Furthermore, a

core question of the study was whether reading preconditions, such as
decoding and fluency, predict different types of reading comprehension of
different text genres across all grades. 545
Qualitative Analysis of Reading Comprehension Errors

As shown by the results, reading comprehension develops rapidly from one
grade to the other, and this is true for the first five elementary grades and for
both narrative and expository text comprehension. Specifically, after sixth
grade it is the expository text comprehension that appeared to be more 550
influential to the total reading comprehension performance of the students.
However, students in all grades found the expository texts more difficult
than the narrative ones, a finding that replicates the results of previous stud-
ies (Diakidou et al., 2005; Taylor & Beach, 1984). It is interesting that the
level of expository text comprehension in ninth grade resembled the narra- 555
tive text comprehension level of third grade (almost six grades back). There
seems to be a developmental pattern that appears in other studies too
(Diakidou et al., 2005).
In regard to the type of comprehension errors made, the results of the
present study underline the difficulty that first graders exhibited answering 560
textually (title and inconsistency) and scriptually (vocabulary and evaluative)
implicit questions from text. Second-grade students also had difficulties
answering textually implicit–type questions. Similar findings were also
reported by Bowyer-Crane and Snowling (2005), who found that poor com-
prehenders had low performance in knowledge-based and elaborative ques- 565
tions. It has also been documented that elementary school students face
significant deficits in identifying inconsistencies in text even if they are
prompted with hints and clues (Anderson & Beal, 1995; Beal, 1990). This
finding may lie on the fact that early elementary school students often lack
prior knowledge or the strategies to activate prior knowledge, which is nec- 570
essary to answer inferential questions (Carr & Thompson, 1996). Moreover,
in first and second grades they are taught decoding, which is the major
instructional emphasis. Furthermore, students of the first and second grade
are often unable to figure out the meaning of a word just by using contextual
clues (Saenz & Fuchs, 2002). Such vocabulary difficulties may be factors that 575
inhibit students’ understanding of the text or even comprehension of the
relevant inferential questions. Students in the remaining elementary grades—
from third through sixth—showed weak competence in textually explicit–
type questions (literal easy, literal difficult, and deductive). This may lie on
the fact that by middle elementary school students start adopting strategies 580
in order to comprehend more demanding texts and therefore base their
comprehension on strategy usage and not on their text-specific knowledge
(Willson & Rupley, 1997). Especially for the narrative text, third and fourth
graders had difficulties answering scriptually implicit questions, but it was

not the same for eighth and ninth graders. Findings from the literature con- 585
firm that by about fourth grade elementary school students are expected to
comprehend inferential clues included in expository texts (Taylor & Beach,
1984).
Although reading comprehension appeared to develop during all grades,
a closer look shows that in sixth grade there was a qualitative differentiation. 590
Around sixth grade students appeared to make significantly fewer errors that
younger students and entered a new state that included all Grades 7–9. Sixth
graders were equally effective in reading narrative and expository texts, and
this finding may reflect the fact that maturity to read is optimal at that grade
level. This level coincides with the end of elementary school and the entrance 595
of the students into a more textually demanding environment. It is interesting
that the differences in reading comprehension between the grades after sixth
grade appear to be more persistent for expository texts than for narrative
texts. An interesting replication of this finding is that expository comprehen-
sion became gradually higher by Grade 4 in the study of Diakidou et al. 600
(2005), whereas narrative comprehension became steadily lower by the eighth
grade. However, it has been reported that although secondary students may
have similar reading comprehension in both narrative and expository texts,
they achieve less inferential comprehension in expository texts (Saenz &
Fuchs, 2002). One could assume that the increasing frequency of expository 605
text occurrence (Diakidou et al., 2005; Taylor & Beach, 1984) and the lan-
guage used in these texts, which becomes more difficult (Graesser, Swamer,
Baggett, & Sell, 1996), are factors that play a significant role in students’ com-
prehension. Nevertheless, students’ ability to comprehend is superior when it
involves comprehending narrative text (Saenz & Fuchs, 2002). 610
In general, it appeared that students start off facing mostly inconsis-
tency- and evaluative-type errors and move onto vocabulary- and mostly
deductive-type of errors. What is interesting is that the major errors differed
depending on the genre of the text. Thus, when they faced narrative texts,
students made errors of literal nature or vocabulary. In contrast, when stu- 615
dents faced expository tests, although vocabulary errors persisted, students
made mostly deductive-type errors. It seems that students face difficulties
from the grade they are supposed to make use of strategies that assist under-
standing. In order to answer deductive questions they need to combine prior
knowledge with the information derived from the text, which requires not 620
only strategy usage knowledge but also topic knowledge. This may compli-
cate students’ efforts to comprehend the text, as they are not yet able to com-
bine these abilities with accuracy and automaticity. Based on these findings
one may assume that by exposing students to diverse text genres during early
elementary grades (Duke, 2000) and to questions that require different levels 625
of inference making, experts may enhance their comprehension competence.
As reported by Cain and Oakhill (1996), students who are familiar with
particular story structures and who are exposed to different types of assess-
ment may be able to comprehend literal and nonliteral information in a text.
The Prediction of Specific Reading Comprehension Problems 630

From Specific Decoding and Fluency Competence
In regard to the relationships between basic skills and reading comprehen-
sion, the findings also indicate that there were significant positive correla-
tions between almost all preconditions and reading comprehension across
all grades. It was shown that predictors related to real word decoding yielded 635
strong correlations with comprehension, as only word decoding and fluency
were consistently correlated with all comprehension measures at each grade
level, a result that is well supported by a number of empirical studies
Q20 (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998; Jenkins, Fuchs, Espin, van den Broeck, &
Deno, 2000; Meyer & Felton, 1999). Furthermore, it has been shown that 640
even in mature readers, decoding is a significant predictor of text under-
standing (Bell & Perfetti, 1994; Shankweiler et al., 1999). This finding was
also replicated by similar studies (Catts, Hogan, & Fey, 2003; Hosp & Fuchs,
2005; Snowling, 2000) concluding that the relations between word decoding
and comprehension were strong at each grade level of early elementary 645
school (first through fourth). This relationship between reading comprehen-
sion and fluency is stronger in the early elementary grades and is weaker
during secondary education (Fuchs et al., 2001). However, middle and high
school students with reading disabilities yield high correlation scores between
reading fluency and comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxwell, 1988). It is 650
well documented that when students have to use their cognitive resources in
order to decode fluently they do not invest in comprehension (National
Reading Panel, 2000). According to Ehrlich, Kurtz-Costes, and Loridant
(1993), decoding is a significant predictor in the early elementary grades, but
once decoding becomes automatic there are other procedures that are more 655
significant for reading comprehension achievement. Our findings are in
agreement because it seems that by fourth grade, word decoding accounts
for less of the variance in reading comprehension (Spear-Swerling, 2004).
As the results of the present study indicate across all grades, almost one
third of the variability in reading comprehension can be explained by basic 660
reading skills and especially by word decoding and/or fluency. It seems that
students who perform well in decoding benefit from contextual clues offered
in narrative and expository texts and are able to understand the textual
meaning. As suggested by Saenz and Fuchs (2002), efficient decoders benefit
from contextual clues, especially in expository texts, as was the case for stu- 665
dents in Grades 7–9. Furthermore, the role of lexical representation, which
is supported by basic reading skills, also ameliorates reading comprehension
Q21 problems (Protopapas et al., 2007) in middle and upper elementary school
grades (Stanovich, Cunningham, & Freeman, 1989). In general, there seems
to be a high correlation between reading comprehension and vocabulary 670

Q22 knowledge (Aarnoutse & Leeouve, 1998), whereas in secondary education
vocabulary knowledge turns out to be a significant predictor of reading com-
prehension (Espin & Foegen, 1996). However, more than normal depen-
dence on vocabulary and prior knowledge for the higher grades can come
out as less productive in regard to the comprehension of inferential text 675
information (McCormick, 1992).
The analysis of the data in this study reveals that reading comprehen-
sion goes through different developmental breakthroughs depending on
whether the text to be comprehended is narrative or expository. Furthermore,
the specific comprehension difficulties that students face change after 680
approximately fourth grade. Thus, the fourth grade level also becomes a
focal point when one is investigating the prediction of reading comprehen-
sion based on decoding and fluency, as up to the fourth grade there is a
consistent role of both decoding and fluency, whereas after that only flu-
ency appears to be a constant predictor all the way to eighth grade. 685
These findings reveal that even in languages that are more transparent
than English, decoding plays a significant role for at least four grades and
fluency for even more grades in the reading comprehension of students.
Based on this analysis of the nature of the comprehension problems of stu-
dents we can conclude that comprehension difficulties vary based on both 690
the text genre and the grade level as well. Nevertheless, vocabulary appears
to be a definite problem, especially after the elementary grades.
Limitations
Caution should be taken in interpreting the results of the present study,
although the sample size was pretty large to likely reflect population esti- 695
mates. A limitation of the study is that students’ prior knowledge of the
topics was not tested prior to the study. Furthermore, although students with
learning disabilities were included in the present sample, these participants
did not make up a distinct group for further analyses because of their small
number. Future research could focus on exploring patterns of comprehen- 700
sion ability in students with learning disabilities.
Instructional Implications
Thorough research and in-depth understanding of the development of read-
ing comprehension and the contribution of basic reading skills to this devel-
opment allows experts to design future reading instruction. Based on the 705
analyses of the results of our study, specific instructional implications can be
drawn. These implications may be conceived either as an addition to the
traditional curriculum or as a significant change in it.
In the traditional Greek curriculum, instructional emphasis is placed on
decoding and fluency only in the first two elementary grades. After that, 710
reading aloud is not required or practiced in classroom. Students are assumed

to be efficient in fluent decoding, especially because Greek is a phonologi-
cally shallow language, and the instructional emphasis turns toward unlocking
the meaning of written texts. However, it becomes evident that for several
students decoding and fluency are still a problem that block their compre- 715
hension. Therefore, there is a need for instructional support for fluent read-
ing for almost all grades. Provision of this support is certainly out of the
existing curriculum and requires immediate attention on the part of teachers
and curriculum developers as well.
Furthermore, the issue of teaching vocabulary appears to be a serious 720
problem to be resolved. Vocabulary is traditionally taught initially as part of
narrative texts, and expository texts are introduced only in third grade, with-
out specific vocabulary instruction. However, vocabulary instruction is not
present in higher grades when students are reading narrative texts and
becomes increasingly important in the instruction of expository texts. 725
Unfortunately, the data from this study suggest a completely different struc-
ture for vocabulary instruction. For the expository texts, vocabulary plays a
major role even for the first four elementary grades, whereas in narrative text
comprehension, vocabulary appears as a prominent comprehension factor
in middle school. This means that vocabulary instruction should accompany 730
the use of expository texts from Grade 1 and should be part of narrative text
comprehension in middle school.
In contrast to vocabulary instruction, in which the curriculum needs to
be altered significantly, strategies instruction could be an addition to current
curricula. The results regarding the nature of comprehension problems reveal 735
that students in all grades need support, especially when deduction is
required. Therefore, specific instruction in comprehension strategies is
needed to orient students toward deductive comprehension.
The aforementioned suggestions call for balanced instruction instead of
the traditional bottom-up approach to reading. It appears that teaching first 740
decoding, then fluency, then vocabulary, and then strategies is not what the
students need. In contrast, effective, balanced instruction that incorporates
research findings has to include all of the above from Grade 1. This means that
educators need to provide vocabulary instruction in middle school when work-
ing with narrative texts, fluency support in late elementary grades, and compre- 745
hension strategies even when students start reading. The instructional emphasis
at each grade may vary, but all instructional parts need to be present.
REFERENCES
Aarnoutse, C., & van Leeuwe, J. (1998). Relation between reading comprehension,
vocabulary, reading pleasure and reading frequency. Educational Research and 750
Evaluation, 4, 143–166.
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Allbritton, D. (2004). Strategic production of predictive inferences during compre-

Q23 hension. Discourse Processes, 38, 309–322.
Anderson, G., & Beal, C. R. (1995). Children’s recognition of inconsistencies in sci- 755
ence texts: Multiple measures of comprehension monitoring. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 9, 261–272.
Archer, A. L., Gleason, M. M., & Vachon, V. L. (2003). Decoding and fluency:
Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly,
26, 89–95. 760
Beal, C. R. (1990). The development of text evaluation and revision skills. Child
Development, 61, 247–258.
Bell, L. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1994). Reading skill: Some adult comparisons. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 244–255.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Vermeulen, K., & Fulton, C. M. (2006). Paths to read- 765
ing comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 4, 334–351.
Bowyer-Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2005). Assessing children’s inference genera-
tion: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75, 189–201. 770
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1996). The nature of the relationship between comprehen-
sion skill and the ability to tell a story. British Journal of Developmental
Carr, S. C., & Thompson, B. (1996). The effects of prior knowledge and schema acti-
vation strategies on the inferential reading comprehension of children with and 775
without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 48–61.
Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis
of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 36, 151–164.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. 780
American Educator, 22, 8–15.
Cunningham, A. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Wilson, M. R. (1990). Cognitive variation in
adult college students differing in reading ability. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy
(Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 129–
159). San Diego, CA: Academic. 785
de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects on phonological abilities and linguis-
tic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading,
6, 51–77.
Diakidou, I-A. N., Stylianou, P., Karefillidou, C., & Papageorgiou, P. (2005). The rela-
tionship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of 790
text at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26, 55–80.
DuBravac, S., & Dalle, M. (2002). Reader question formation as a tool for measuring
comprehension: Narrative and expository textual inferences in a second lan-
guage. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 217–231.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first 795
grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
Ehrlich, M.-F., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Loridant, C. (1993). Cognitive and motivational
determinants of reading comprehension in good and poor readers. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 25, 365–381.
Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text struc- 800
tures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65–74.
Espin, C. A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predict-
ing secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional
Children, 62, 497–514.
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Curriculum-based measurement: Current applica- 805
tions and future directions. Exceptional Children, 57, 466–501.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative
evaluation of academic progress: How much growth should we expect? School
Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as 810
an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical
analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal measures of
reading comprehension. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–28.
Ghelani, K., Sidhu, R., Jain, U., & Tannock, R. (2004). Reading comprehension and 815
reading related abilities in adolescents with reading disabilities and attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Dyslexia, 10, 364–384.
Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning
from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Q24 Handbook of reading research (pp. 311–335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 820
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during nar-
rative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Graesser, A. C., Swamer, S. S., Baggett, W. B., & Sell, M. A. (1996). New models of
deep comprehension. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of under-
standing text (pp. 1–32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 825
Hintze, J. M., Callahan, J. E., III, Matthews, W. J., Williams, S. A. S., & Tobin, K. G.
(2002). Oral reading fluency and prediction of reading comprehension in
African American and Caucasian elementary school children. School Psychology
Review, 31, 540–553.
Hintze, J. M., Daly, E. J., & Shapiro, E. S. (1998). An investigation of the effects of 830
passage difficulty level on outcomes of oral reading fluency progress monitor-
ing. School Psychology Review, 27, 433–445.
Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1997). Curriculum-based measurement and literature
based reading: Is curriculum-based measurement meeting the needs of chang-
ing reading curricula? Journal of School Psychology, 35, 351–375. 835
Horiba, Y. (2000). Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text
type and task. Discourse Processes, 29, 223–267.
Hosp, M. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word
reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade? School
Psychology Review, 34, 9–26. 840
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., Espin, C., van den Broek, P., & Deno, S. L. (2000). Effects
of task format and performance dimension on word reading measures: Criterion
Q25 validity, sensitivity to impairment, and context facilitation.
Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. (2003). Sources of
individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal 845
of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729.
Kariotis, T. (1997). The development of the phonological awareness and the reading
Q26 acquisition (in Greek). Language (Glossa), 43, 41–49.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press. 850
Kintsch, W., & Kozminsky, E. (1977). Summarizing stories after reading and listening.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 491–499.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and
production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Kotoulas, V., & Padeliadu, S. (1999). The nature of spelling errors in Greek language: 855
The case of students with reading disabilities. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (pp. 330–339).
Thessaloniki, Greece: School of English.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. E. (2002). Reading. In M. Mastropieri & T. E. Scruggs
(Eds.), Effective instruction for special education (pp. 97–128). Austin, TX: 860
PRO-ED.
McCormick, S. (1992). Disabled readers’ erroneous responses to inferential compre-
hension questions: Description and analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 27,
55–77.
Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old 865
approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306.
Nation, K. (1999). Reading skills in hyperlexia: A developmental perspective.
Q27 Psychological Bulletin, 125, 338–355.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity of
Q28 current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 870
359–370.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of
word recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension
difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 85–101.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to 875
semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from
semantic priming. Cognition, 70, 1–13.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assess-
ment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and 880
Human Development.
Oakhill, J. (1982). Constructive processes in skilled and less skilled comprehenders’
memory for sentences. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 13–20.
Padeliadu, S., & Sideridis, G. D. (2000). Discriminant validation of the Test of Reading
Performance (TORP) for identifying children at risk of reading difficulties. 885
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 139–146.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-foster-
ing and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1,
117–175.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New 890
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical bases of comprehension skill. In D. S.
Gorfien (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on
resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 67–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association. 895
Porpodas, K. (1992). Reading and spelling acquisition in regard to age and to pho-
Q29 nemic awareness (in Greek). Psychology, 1, 30–43.
Protopapas, A., Sideridis, G. D., Mouzaki, A., & Simos, P. G. (2007). Development of
lexical mediation in the relation between reading comprehension and word
reading skills in Greek. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 1–33. 900
Saenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary
students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial
and Special Education, 23, 31–41.
Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Katz, L., Fowler, A. E., Liberman, A. M., Brady, S.
A., … Shaywitz, B. A. (1995). Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled children: 905
Comparison of language skills in phonology, morphology and syntax.
Psychological Science, 6, 149–156.
Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K., Fletcher, J., Brady, S., … Shaywitz,
B. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children
with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69–94. 910
Sideridis, G. D., & Padeliadu, S. (2000). An examination of the psychometric proper-
ties of the Test of Reading Performance using structural equation modeling.
Psychological Reports, 86, 789–802.
Snowling, M. (2000). Dyslexia (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Spear-Swerling, L. (2004). Fourth graders’ performance on a state-mandated assess- 915
ment involving two different measures of reading comprehension. Reading
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing.
Q30 Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402–433.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta- 920
analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford.
Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on
middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text.
Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134–146.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of nar- 925
rative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77–110.
Willson, V. L., & Rupley, W. H. (1997). A structural equation model for reading com-
prehension based on background, phonemic, and strategy knowledge. Scientific
Q31 Studies of Reading, 1, 45–64.
View publication stats

4 TherelationshipbetweenreadingcomprehensiondecodingandfluencyinGreekacrosssectionalstudy

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

4 TherelationshipbetweenreadingcomprehensiondecodingandfluencyinGreekacrosssectionalstudy

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Relationship Between Reading Comprehension, Decoding, and Fluency in

Article in Reading and Writing Quarterly · November 2013

Susana Padeliadu Faye Antoniou

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Phd studies View project

Dyscalculia View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Relationship Between Reading

SUSANA PADELIADU and FAYE ANTONIOU

TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTING

The Relationship Between Reading Comprehension, Decoding, and Fluency in Greek:

The Relationship Between Reading

SUSANA PADELIADU and FAYE ANTONIOU

Experts widely consider decoding and fluency as the basis of read-

Students comprehend a written text successfully when they attain a number 25

Q2 Address correspondence to Susana Padeliadu, Department of Special Education,

Q3 comprehension refers to the combination of knowledge-based and text-ori-

THE INFLUENCE OF BASIC READING SKILLS 35

p. 348), has been proven to be a crucial predictor of reading comprehension.

THE INFLUENCE OF TEXT-ORIENTED STRUCTURES 95

Reading comprehension may be influenced not only by abilities that are

1. How do decoding, fluency, and reading comprehension (in general and

3. What type of reading comprehension errors do students make in each of

Regarding our second goal, the prediction of reading comprehension perfor-

1. What is the relationship between general reading comprehension, reading

Participants were 1,070 elementary and secondary students from first to

Age M Non-native Greek

1 114 54 60 6.75 (0.26) 7

READING FLUENCY 290

TEXT COMPREHENSION 300

seven following grades they were constructed by us and corresponded to

goal, generalization, and comparison/contrast relationships between idea

Qualitative Analysis of Reading Comprehension Errors

Prediction of Specific Reading Comprehension Problems

Note. WD = word decoding; PD = pseudoword decoding; Fl = reading fluency; RC = reading comprehen-

Grade 1 (df = 110)

regarding different text genres (narrative and expository). Furthermore, a

Qualitative Analysis of Reading Comprehension Errors

graders had difficulties answering scriptually implicit questions, but it was

The Prediction of Specific Reading Comprehension Problems 630

to be a high correlation between reading comprehension and vocabulary 670

reading aloud is not required or practiced in classroom. Students are assumed

Allbritton, D. (2004). Strategic production of predictive inferences during compre-

resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 67–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological

View publication stats

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen