The Simple View of Reading in Bilingual Language-Minority Children Acquiring a Highly Transparent Second Language

ABSTRACT

The present study evaluated which components within the simple view of reading model better predicted reading comprehension in a sample of bilingual language-minority children exposed to Italian, a highly transparent language, as a second language. The sample included 260 typically developing bilingual children who were attending either the first 2 years (n = 95) or the last 3 years (n = 165) of primary school and who had Italian as an instructional language. Children were administered a comprehensive battery for the assessment of decoding skills, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension latent variables. Results showed that, in both groups, listening comprehension was the most powerful predictor of reading comprehension, followed, only for younger children, by reading accuracy. Reading speed was not a significant predictor. These results confirmed the primary role of listening comprehension in predicting reading comprehension in bilinguals and added important evidence regarding the role of reading accuracy as a predictor of reading comprehension.

Notes

¹ Three alternative models of CFA were tested; the observed variables included in each factor are shown in parentheses. a) The original model (Bonifacci et al., 2014), represented by the following factors: reading speed (s/s for word, nonword, narrative, and descriptive passages), reading accuracy (errors for word, nonword, narrative, and descriptive passages), listening comprehension (local and global comprehension for the orally presented passage), and reading comprehension (local and global comprehension for the two written presented passages). Results: root mean square error of approximation = .058, comparative fit index = .966, Tucker–Lewis index = .962, standardized root mean square residual = .074. b) The first alternative model, represented by the following factors: word reading (speed and errors), nonword reading (speed and errors), passage reading (speed and errors for narrative and descriptive passages), listening comprehension (local and global comprehension for the orally-presented passage), reading comprehension (local and global comprehension for the two written presented passages). Results: root mean square error of approximation = .110, comparative fit index = .889, Tucker–Lewis index = .865, standardized root mean square residual = .097. c) The second alternative model, represented by the following factors: word reading (speed and errors), nonword reading (speed and errors), narrative passage reading (speed and errors), descriptive passage reading (speed and errors), listening comprehension passage (local and global comprehension for the orally-presented passage), reading comprehension for narrative passage (local and global comprehension), reading comprehension for descriptive passage (local and global comprehension). Results: root mean square error of approximation = .119, comparative fit index = .892, Tucker–Lewis index = .842, standardized root mean square residual = .093.