The simple view of reading and its broad types of reading difficulties

Abstract

AbstractCommon depictions of the simple view of reading (SVR), in both research and practice, describe reading comprehension difficulties by using the dichotomous variables of “poor” and “good” for each of its three constructs. But these fail to accurately capture the role the product of the two subcomponents of word recognition and language comprehension plays in defining such difficulties. When the skills in both subcomponents are “good,” most depictions show reading comprehension as “good” – but this is not what the SVR holds. This can lead users of the SVR to both overlook the great variation in reading comprehension skills that are possible within each of the SVR’s defined reading difficulty types as well as misunderstand that reading comprehension may still suffer even when both word recognition and language comprehension do not. This article first reviews the SVR and its main predictions, followed by an overview of the evidence bearing on these. The article then describes how reading comprehension difficulties are defined under the SVR, presenting graphics that employ continuous variables that accurately reflect these definitions. The article concludes with a discussion of classification studies that have investigated SVR-defined reading difficulties and their findings of cases of good skills in word recognition and language comprehension coupled with poor reading comprehension. The article argues that these can be interpreted as consistent with the SVR rather than counter to it.