Set for Variability as a Critical Predictor of Word Reading: Potential Implications for Early Identification and Treatment of Dyslexia
Corresponding Author
Laura M. Steacy
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAshley A. Edwards
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorValeria M. Rigobon
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorNuria Gutiérrez
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorNancy C. Marencin
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorNoam Siegelman
Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Departments of Psychology and Cognitive and Brain Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorAlexandra C. Himelhoch
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCristina Himelhoch
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJay Rueckl
Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA
Search for more papers by this authorDonald L. Compton
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Laura M. Steacy
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAshley A. Edwards
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorValeria M. Rigobon
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorNuria Gutiérrez
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorNancy C. Marencin
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorNoam Siegelman
Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Departments of Psychology and Cognitive and Brain Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorAlexandra C. Himelhoch
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCristina Himelhoch
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJay Rueckl
Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA
Search for more papers by this authorDonald L. Compton
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Quasiregular orthographies such as English contain substantial ambiguities between orthography and phonology that force developing readers to acquire flexibility during decoding of unfamiliar words, a skill referred to as a “set for variability” (SfV). The ease with which a child can disambiguate the mismatch between the decoded form of a word and its actual lexical phonological form has been operationalized using the SfV mispronunciation task (e.g., the word wasp is pronounced to rhyme with clasp [i.e., /wæsp/] and the child must recognize the actual pronunciation of the word to be /wɒsp/). SfV has been shown to be a significant predictor of word reading variance. However, little is known about the relative strength of SfV as a predictor of word reading compared to other well-established predictors or the strength of this relationship in children with dyslexia. To address these questions, we administered the SfV task to a sample of grade 2–5 children (N = 489) along with other reading related measures. SfV accounted for 15% unique variance in word reading above and beyond other predictors, whereas phonological awareness (PA) accounted for only 1%. Dominance analysis indicated SfV is the most powerful predictor, demonstrating complete statistical dominance over other variables including PA. Quantile regression revealed SfV is a stronger predictor at lower levels of reading skill, indicating it may be an important predictor in students with dyslexia. Results suggest that SfV is a powerful and potentially highly sensitive predictor of early reading difficulties and, therefore, may be important for early identification and treatment of dyslexia.
References
- Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. The MIT Press.
- Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 129.
- Brooks, L. (1977). Visual pattern in fluent word identification. In A. S. Reber & D. L. Scarborough (Eds.), Towards a psychology of reading (pp. 95–110). Erlbaum.
- Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 542.
- Castles, A., & Nation, K. (2006). How does orthographic learning happen? In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Challenges and controversies about word recognition and reading. Psychology Press.
- Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the Reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51.
- Chetail, F., Balota, D., Treiman, R., & Content, A. (2015). What can megastudies tell us about the orthographic structure of English words? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1519–1540.
- Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Share, D. L. (2002). Orthographic learning during reading: Examining the role of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 185–199.
- de Jong, P. F., Bitter, D. J., Van Setten, M., & Marinus, E. (2009). Does phonological recoding occur during silent reading, and is it necessary for orthographic learning? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(3), 267–282.
- Duff, F. J., & Hulme, C. (2012). The role of children's phonological and semantic knowledge in learning to read words. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 504–525.
- Dyson, H., Best, W., Solity, J., & Hulme, C. (2017). Training mispronunciation correction and word meanings improves children's ability to learn to read words. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(5), 392–407.
- Edwards, A., Steacy, L. M., Seigelman, N., Rigobon, V. M., Kearns, V. M., Rueckl, J. R., & Compton, D. L. (2022). Unpacking the unique relationship between set for variability and word reading development: Examining word- and child-level predictors of performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(6), 1242–1256.
- Ehri, L. C., & Saltmarsh, J. (1995). Beginning readers outperform older disabled readers in learning to read words by sight. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7(3), 295–326.
- Elbro, C., & de Jong, P. F. (2017). Orthographic learning is verbal learning. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton, & R. K. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 169–189). John Benjamins.
10.1075/swll.15.10elb Google Scholar
- Elbro, C., de Jong, P. F., Houter, D., & Nielsen, A. M. (2012). From spelling pronunciation to lexical access: A second step in word decoding? Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(4), 341–359.
- Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for education evaluation and regional assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov
- Gibson, E. J., & Levin, H. (1975). The psychology of reading. The MIT press.
- Gough, P. B., Juel, C., & Griffith, P. L. (1992). Reading, spelling, and the orthographic cipher. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 35–48). Erlbaum.
- Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106(3), 491.
- Harm, M. W., McCandliss, B. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2003). Modeling the successes and failures of interventions for disabled readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(2), 155–182.
- Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in Reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111(3), 662–720.
- Kearns, D. M., Rogers, H. J., Koriakin, T., & Al Ghanem, R. (2016). Semantic and phonological ability to adjust recoding: A unique correlate of word reading skill? Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(6), 455–470.
- Keenan, J. M., & Betjemann, R. S. (2008). Comprehension of single words: The role of semantics in word identification and reading disability. In E. Grigorenko (Ed.), Single- word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 191–209). Erlbaum Publishers.
- Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Blackwell.
- McCrimmon, A. W., & Smith, A. D. (2013). Review of Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence, second edition (WASI-II). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(3), 337–341.
- Mousikou, P., Sadat, J., Lucas, R., & Rastle, K. (2017). Moving beyond the monosyllable in models of skilled reading: Mega-study of disyllabic nonword reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 169–192.
- Nation, K., Angells, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read English: Effects of exposure, durability, and context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 71–84.
- Nation, K., & Castles, A. (2017). Putting the learning in orthographic learning. In K. Cain, D. Compton, & R. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 147–168). John Benjamins.
10.1075/swll.15.09nat Google Scholar
- Nation, K., & Cocksey, J. (2009). The relationship between knowing a word and reading it aloud in children's word reading development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 296–308.
- Navarrete, C. B., & Soares, F. C. (2020). Dominanceanalysis: Dominance analysis. R package version, 2(0).
- Liaw, A., & Wiener, M. (2002). Classification and regression by randomForest. R news, 2(3), 18–22.
- Ouellette, G., & Fraser, J. R. (2009). What exactly is a yait anyway: The role of semantics in orthographic learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 239–251.
- Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Representations and awareness in the acquisition of reading competence. In L. Rieben & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 33–44). Erlbaum.
- Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Erlbaum.
- Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.
- Perfetti, C. A. (2017). Lexical quality revisited. In E. Segers & P. Broek (Eds.), Developmental perspectives in written language and literacy: In honor of Ludo Verhoeven (pp. 51–67). John Benjamins.
10.1075/z.206.04per Google Scholar
- Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of Functional Literacy, 11, 67–86.
- Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37.
- Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2010). Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the connectionist dual process (CDP++) model. Cognitive Psychology, 61(2), 106–151.
- Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103(1), 56–115.
- Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36(2), 321–339.
- Rueckl, J. G., Zevin, J. D., & Wolf, H. (2019). Using computational techniques to model and better understand developmental word- reading disorders (i.e., dyslexia). In J. A. Washington, D. L. Compton, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Dyslexia: Revisiting etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and policy (pp. 57–70). Brookes Publishing Co.
- Seidenberg, M. S. (2005). Connectionist models of word reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 238–242.
- Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many Can't, and what can be done about it. Basic Books.
- Seidenberg, M., & MacDonald, M. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 569–588.
- Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523.
- Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Barnes, M. A., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 383–404.
- Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
- Share, D. L. (2008). Orthographic learning, phonological recoding, and self-teaching. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 31–82.
- Share, D. L. (2011). On the role of phonology in reading acquisition: The self-teaching hypothesis. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 45–68). Psychology Press.
- Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Rand Corporation.
- Steacy, L. M., & Compton, D. L. (2019). Examining the role of imageability and regularity in word reading accuracy and learning efficiency among first and second graders at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 178, 226–250.
- Steacy, L. M., Compton, D. L., Petscher, Y., Elliott, J. D., Smith, K., Rueckl, J. G., … Pugh, K. R. (2019a). Development and prediction of context-dependent vowel pronunciation in elementary readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(1), 49–63.
- Steacy, L. M., Petscher, Y., Rueckl, J. R., Edwards, A., & Compton, D. L. (2021). Modeling and visualizing the co-development of word and nonword reading in children from first through fourth grade: Informing developmental trajectories of children with dyslexia. Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13468
- Steacy, L. M., Wade-Woolley, L., Rueckl, J. G., Pugh, K. R., Elliott, J. D., & Compton, D. L. (2019b). The role of set for variability in irregular word reading: Word and child predictors in typically developing readers and students at-risk for reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(6), 523–532.
- Swanson, J. M., Schuck, S., Porter, M. M., Carlson, C., Hartman, C. A., Sergeant, J. A., … Wigal, T. (2012). Categorical and dimensional definitions and evaluations of symptoms of ADHD: History of the SNAP and the SWAN rating scales. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 10(1), 51–70.
- Taylor, J. S. H., Plunkett, K., & Nation, K. (2011). The influence of consistency, frequency, and semantics on learning to read: An artificial orthography paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020126
- Treiman, R., Kessler, B., Zevin, J. D., Bick, S., & Davis, M. (2006). Influence of consonantal context on the reading of vowels: Evidence from children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(1), 1–24.
- Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (1998). Language prediction skill, phonological recoding ability and beginning reading. In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorder (pp. 33–67). Erlbaum.
- Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 122–140.
- Venezky, R. L. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English orthography. Guilford Press.
- Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C., & Pearson, N. A. (2013). Comprehensive test of phonological processing 2. Pro-Ed.
- Wang, H., Nickels, L., Nation, K., & Castles, A. (2013). Predictors of orthographic learning of regular and irregular words. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.749879
- Waters, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & Bruck, M. (1984). Children's and adults' use of spelling-sound information in three reading tasks. Memory and Cognition, 12, 293–305.
- Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence–second edition (WASI-II). NCS Pearson.
- Wegener, S., Wang, H. C., de Lissa, P., Robidoux, S., Nation, K., & Castles, A. (2018). Children reading spoken words: Interactions between vocabulary and orthographic expectancy. Developmental Science, 21, e12577. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12577
- Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement.
- Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 502–529.
- Zipke, M. (2016). The importance of flexibility of pronunciation in learning to decode: A training study in set for variability. First Language, 36(1), 71–86.