Updated on
October 8, 2026
Simple View of Reading: Formula and Four Reader Profiles
The Simple View of Reading formula and four profiles explained. Assess decoding and language comprehension, then choose phonics or vocabulary support.
The Simple View of Reading is a model that says reading comprehension is the product of two skills: decoding and language comprehension. Gough and Tunmer proposed it in 1986, and it is usually written as RC = D × LC. If either skill is missing, a learner cannot understand what they read, however strong the other one is.
The model tells you where to look when a learner struggles. A learner who cannot read the words needs different teaching from one who reads fluently but does not follow the meaning. This guide covers the formula, the four reader profiles, two quick classroom checks, the evidence for and against the model, and the two original papers. It belongs to our guide to reading comprehension strategies, which covers the teaching that builds understanding once learners can read the words.
What is the Simple View of Reading?
Gough and Tunmer (1986) set out the model in a five-page paper called Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Their aim was to clarify the role of decoding. They proposed that reading equals the product of decoding and comprehension. From that they drew a firm conclusion: there must be three types of reading difficulty, caused by weak decoding, weak comprehension or both.
Key Takeaways
- Two skills, multiplied: reading comprehension depends on decoding and on language comprehension, and a gap in either one limits understanding.
- Check the two parts separately: a reading comprehension test mixes them, so read a word list with the learner and read a passage aloud to them.
- Four patterns, not four diagnoses: the profiles guide what to teach next; a diagnosis needs a specialist assessment.
- Strong but not complete: in English the two parts explain most of the differences between readers, yet studies disagree on multiplying versus adding, and the model leaves out self-regulation and deeper, critical reading.
Hoover and Gough (1990) then tested the model with English-Spanish bilingual children in Grades 1 to 4 (UK Years 2 to 5). They held that both parts are necessary for skilled reading. Decoding and listening comprehension together explained a large share of the differences in reading comprehension, and including their product improved the fit.
The model is deliberately small. Kirby and Savage (2008) describe it as neither a full theory of reading nor a blueprint for teaching, but a helpful way to think about two broad skills and to plan. Hoover and Tunmer (2018) made a similar point thirty years on, setting out what the model is and what it is not.
It also sits behind a wider argument about how reading should be taught. Castles, Rastle and Nation (2018) explain why phonics teaching is so central in a writing system such as English, then move beyond phonics to everything else children need to become expert readers. Our guide to the science of reading sets out that debate.
What is the Simple View of Reading formula?
The formula is Reading Comprehension = Decoding × Language Comprehension, or RC = D × LC. You will also see it written R = D × C or R = D × L, where C or L stands for comprehension of spoken language. The letters change; the idea does not.
Decoding (D) is turning print into words, accurately and without effort. Many writers now call it word recognition, because skilled readers recognise most words at a glance. Language comprehension (LC) is understanding spoken language: words, sentences, background knowledge and the inferences that join them. Reading comprehension (RC) is understanding written text.
Language comprehension is wider than vocabulary. Lervåg, Hulme and Melby-Lervåg (2018) followed 198 children from age 7 and a half for five years. What vocabulary, grammar, verbal working memory and inference had in common was a strong predictor of both listening and reading comprehension.
The multiplication sign carries the main message. Give each skill a score from 0 to 1 and multiply. If either score is 0, the answer is 0. The grid below shows every combination of three scores, with three worked cases underneath.
Diagram · Build It · Simple View of Reading
Why the formula multiplies
RC = D × LC. Give each skill a score from 0 to 1 for illustration. If either is 0, the product is 0.
- 1 × 1 = 1
Secure in both
The learner reads the words accurately and understands the language. Comprehension is limited only by the text and what they know about the topic.
- 0 × 1 = 0
Language, but no decoding yet
A child who follows a story read aloud but cannot yet read its words understands nothing from the page on their own.
- 1 × 0.5 = 0.5
Decoding, but weaker language
A learner who reads a passage fluently but does not know key words or cannot follow the sentences understands only part of it.
Scores from 0 to 1 are an illustration of the idea in Gough and Tunmer (1986), not the output of any test.
Read the grid from the zero row and the zero column. A child who follows a story read aloud but cannot yet read its words gets nothing from the page alone. A learner who reads every word but does not know what half of them mean gets part of the meaning. Only the corner where both are secure gives full understanding.
Is the Simple View of Reading multiplication or addition?
This is the part of the model that the evidence has not settled. Hoover and Gough (1990) found that the product fitted better than the sum. Chen and Vellutino (1997) tested the model again with children whose first language was English and found the product alone did not explain most of the variance. Their best model used decoding plus listening plus the product.
Other studies found no advantage for the product. In 40 Grade 3 children (UK Year 4), sum and product made no real difference, and speed at naming letters explained a further 10% (Joshi and Aaron, 2000). In 15-year-olds with severe reading delays, an additive model fitted well and the product term added nothing (Savage, 2006). In 467 Norwegian Grade 6 learners, the sum explained more than the product (Høien‐Tengesdal, 2010).
So treat the multiplication as a way to remember that both parts matter, not as a law. Every version of the model keeps both skills. The classroom rule is the same whichever fits better: check both, and teach both.
What are the four reader profiles?
Cross the two skills and you get four patterns. Gough and Tunmer (1986) named three types of reading difficulty. In their words: "It is argued that the first is dyslexia, the second hyperlexia, and the third common, or garden variety, reading disability." Add learners who are secure in both and you have the four profiles.
Those labels come from 1986. In a classroom today, a pattern in two quick checks is a reason to plan teaching, not a diagnosis. Many learners with weak decoding are simply early in learning to read, and a diagnosis needs a specialist assessment. This guide describes the profiles in plain terms.
The chart is a summary, and real learners rarely sit neatly in one box. Tunmer and Chapman (2012) found that vocabulary fed into word recognition as well as into comprehension in 122 seven-year-olds. Across Grades 1 to 10, Foorman, Petscher and Herrera (2018) found that much of what the two parts explain, they explain together.
Secure in both
These learners read the words accurately and understand the language of the text. When they struggle, the cause is usually the text, the topic or the task. Keep them reading harder texts on topics they are building knowledge in, and teach comprehension skills on texts worth the effort.
Weaker decoding, secure language
These learners follow a story read aloud and talk about it well, but read slowly, lose their place or guess at words. Teach decoding directly, with systematic phonics and practice on text they can decode, and keep reading rich texts aloud so their language keeps growing. The phonics screening check is one early signal in England. If the pattern persists after good teaching, our guide to supporting learners with dyslexia explains the next steps with your SENCO.
Secure decoding, weaker language
These learners read aloud fluently, so their difficulty is easy to miss. Ask them what the passage meant and the answer is thin. Nation (2019) discusses how weaknesses in language, and not only in decoding, sit behind many children's reading comprehension difficulties. Teach key words before reading, using our guide to tier 2 and tier 3 vocabulary, talk through how long sentences work, and ask why and how questions that practise inference and deduction.
Weaker in both
These learners need decoding and language teaching at the same time. Do not wait for decoding to be secure before working on language. Short daily phonics practice can sit alongside story reading, talk and vocabulary teaching. Review progress on both checks after a set number of weeks.
How do you assess decoding and language comprehension?
Assess the two parts separately. A reading comprehension test mixes them, so a low score does not tell you which part is holding the learner back. Two short checks, each about five minutes, give you a first answer. Our companion guide to assessment and classroom support with the Simple View covers published tests and how to run checks across a class. For the separate policy context at Year 8, see our reading test announcement guide.
The decoding check
Ask the learner to read aloud a list of about 20 words at their phonics stage, half real and half made up. Made-up words such as "vap" or "meech" stop a learner reading from memory, so you see decoding itself. Note accuracy and pace. A learner who is accurate but very slow may need reading fluency practice as much as phonics.
How you measure decoding changes the picture. In a study of 15-year-olds with severe reading delays, the model worked well when decoding was measured with made-up words. When decoding was measured by accuracy reading a passage, verbal ability explained the results better than listening comprehension (Savage, 2006).
The language check
Read a short passage aloud while the learner listens without the text. Ask five questions, including two that start with why or how, and ask them to retell it. Because you did the reading, their answers show language comprehension without the load of decoding. Record what you hear in a reading record so the two results stay separate.
The planner below turns the two results into a starting point. Choose what you saw in each check, and it suggests the pattern, what to teach next and what to look for when you check again.
Mini app · Build It · Reading profiles
Plan from two checks
Choose what you saw in each check. You get the pattern it suggests, what to teach next and what to look for when you check again. It is a planning aid, not a diagnosis.
Built on Gough and Tunmer (1986) and Hoover and Gough (1990). Two short checks sort needs; they do not identify a learning difficulty. If a pattern persists after good teaching, talk to your SENCO.
Treat the planner's answer as a first hypothesis. If a learner succeeds partly on both checks, run a second pair with a different text before you decide. For learners in an intervention group, our guide to progress monitoring shows simple ways to track change over the weeks.
The planning sheet below puts the two checks, the four patterns and a class record on one printable page, so you can run the checks with a group and plan from the results.
Keep the completed sheet with your reading records. When you recheck after about six weeks, the earlier row shows whether the learner has moved, and which part moved.
Worked examples at two phases
Here is the same two-check routine at two ages: Year 2 (US Grade 1) and Year 8 (US Grade 7). The names are invented.
Year 2 (Grade 1): a learner who loves stories
Sam's teacher notices that Sam joins in eagerly when stories are read to the class, but avoids reading alone. In the decoding check, Sam reads "ship" and "chop" but reads the made-up word "vap" as "van" and stops at "meech". In the language check, the teacher reads a short story about a lost dog. Sam answers all five questions, including why the dog hid under the bench.
That is the pattern of weaker decoding with secure language. The teacher adds ten minutes of daily phonics practice with a teaching assistant, using books matched to the sounds Sam knows. Sam keeps hearing whole-class stories, so vocabulary and story knowledge keep growing. After six weeks, the teacher repeats the word list with new words and checks accuracy and pace.
Year 8 (Grade 7): a fluent reader who misses the point
Priya reads a history textbook section aloud smoothly, with no errors. When asked why the alliances made war more likely, she repeats a sentence from the page. In the language check, the teacher reads a different paragraph aloud. Priya can say what happened but not why, and does not know what "mobilise" or "treaty" mean.
That is the pattern of secure decoding with weaker language. The history teacher pre-teaches the five words the unit cannot be understood without, and models how a long sentence links cause and effect. Priya answers one why question in writing each lesson. Six weeks later, the teacher repeats the listening check with a new passage from the next unit.
Both examples use the model for its intended job: deciding what to teach next. Neither label says anything about why a learner finds a part hard, and both learners keep getting the rest of their reading diet.
How does the Simple View connect to Scarborough's Reading Rope?
Scarborough (2001) drew the two parts of the Simple View as bundles of strands that twist together into skilled reading. The language comprehension strands are background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge. The word recognition strands are phonological awareness, decoding and sight recognition.
The rope adds detail to the Simple View rather than replacing it. It helps when a check shows a weakness and you need to know which strand to teach, such as vocabulary rather than sentence structure. Our guide to Scarborough's Reading Rope describes each strand with classroom activities.
How do teachers talk about the two halves?
Teachers online rarely name Gough and Tunmer, but they argue about the same two halves. A retired teacher called practice with patterned decodable books "barking at print", saying of such a book that learners are "just decoding because there’s no meaning to be had" (@robynbryant33). A literacy coach replied: "Meaning and language comprehension are fundamental. They just aren’t strategies for identifying words." (@SophieMedlin_Ed).
The Simple View supports both sides of that exchange. Decodable text practises the decoding half, and it was never meant to feed the language half on its own. That is the job of stories read aloud, talk and vocabulary teaching, running alongside phonics from the start.
What teachers are saying · September 2026
Reading the words is only half
Teachers on social media rarely name Gough and Tunmer, but they argue about the same two halves: can the learner read the words, and do the words mean anything. Four points from recent weeks. Their words, unedited.
The problem is you can decode words and still not know what they mean or what the text suggests.
A reading teacher doesn't just ask: “Can you read this?” They also ask: “What is preventing this child from reading comfortably?”
Reading TO them 2-3 grades up while they read easy books lets comprehension get practice without decoding eating all the oxygen.
Letter formation is strand one; the ones fraying by high school are vocabulary, syntax, background knowledge, and the morphology nobody taught after 3rd grade.
The last card matches the evidence on age. Decoding explains most of the difference between young readers, but by secondary school the gaps that matter are vocabulary, sentence structure and knowledge. If training for secondary teachers stops at letter formation, it misses the strands their learners most often need.
Does the evidence support the Simple View?
For readers of English, largely yes. Lonigan, Burgess and Schatschneider (2018) studied 757 children in Grades 3 to 5 (UK Years 4 to 6) and found the two parts accounted for almost all of the variance in reading comprehension. Hjetland et al. (2019) followed children from age 4 to 9: at age 7, language comprehension and decoding, with their interaction, explained 99.7% of the variance. Lervåg, Hulme and Melby-Lervåg (2018) found 96% for early reading comprehension.
The evidence check below asks one question of eight studies: do decoding and language comprehension together explain most of the differences in learners' reading comprehension?
The bar counts only the eight studies checked for this guide, not the whole literature. Two cautions stand out. The highest figures come from studies, such as those by Lonigan and by Hjetland, that used several measures of each skill and statistical models that allow for measurement error. Two quick classroom checks cannot do that. And in a transparent spelling system the share was far lower: 37% in Grade 2 and 28% in Grade 3 for 1,815 Finnish children (Torppa et al., 2016).
The balance shifts with age
Decoding explains more of the difference between readers early on, and language explains more later. Lonigan, Burgess and Schatschneider (2018) found developmental trends in the weight of the two parts. Snow (2018), reviewing the same 2018 special issue, noted a shift from decoding to language as the main predictor after about Grade 3. A review of Chinese studies found decoding contributed more before Grade 2 than after (Peng et al., 2021).
For secondary teachers this matters. Once decoding is secure for most of a class, the differences you see in reading are mostly differences in vocabulary, knowledge and language. That is why every subject teacher is, in part, a teacher of reading.
Spelling systems and second languages
The model holds across languages, with a different balance. A meta-analysis found that the relative influence of decoding and linguistic comprehension differed between English and more transparent spelling systems in the early years (Florit and Cain, 2011). Across 267 samples of readers of Chinese, the two parts explained 52.7% of the variance (Peng et al., 2021).
For learners reading in a second language, a meta-analysis of 81 samples and 10,526 participants found the two parts explained over 60% of the variance, with language comprehension carrying more weight (Lee, Jung and Lee, 2022). Decoding mattered less for older and more proficient second language readers.
What are the limits of the Simple View?
The model explains a lot with two parts, and it leaves a lot out. Duke and Cartwright (2021) set out three advances since 1986. Reading difficulties have causes outside decoding and listening comprehension. The two parts overlap rather than acting independently. And active, self-regulatory processes that the model does not name play a substantial role. They proposed the Active View of Reading to capture these.
Snow (2018) argues that 21st century reading tasks ask for analysis, synthesis and critique. Academic language, perspective taking and argumentation then become important predictors, and most studies of the model used simple comprehension tests that do not measure them. Catts (2018) credits the model with major advances in understanding reading comprehension, but argues it has also created some false impressions that affect research and practice.
Some findings do not fit at all. Georgiou, Das and Hayward (2009) studied First Nations children with average decoding and listening comprehension who still had poor reading comprehension. Kirby and Savage (2008) list further gaps: how decoding is defined, how reading comprehension is measured, and the roles of strategies, fluency and illustrations. For how the model sits among other accounts of reading, see our guide to theories of reading.
What the evidence does and does not support
The evidence supports three uses. Check decoding and language comprehension separately. Teach both from the start. Expect decoding to matter most in the first years of reading and language to matter more after that.
It does not support four common claims. It does not show that the product formula is settled, because several studies found the sum fitted as well. It does not show that phonics alone produces comprehension. It does not turn two classroom checks into a diagnosis. And the near-total figures do not travel to every language and every age, as the Finnish and Chinese results show.
The original papers behind the Simple View
Two papers set out and first tested the model, and they are the ones to cite. Both links go to the publisher's record.
Gough and Tunmer (1986). Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10. The paper that proposed the model, argued that reading equals the product of decoding and comprehension, and named three types of reading disability.
Hoover and Gough (1990). The Simple View of Reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160. The first longitudinal test, with English-Spanish bilingual children in Grades 1 to 4, and a discussion of what the model means for teaching and for defining reading disability.
Thirty years on, a 2018 special issue of Remedial and Special Education (volume 39, issue 5) revisited the model, including Lonigan, Burgess and Schatschneider (2018), Catts (2018), Snow (2018) and a reply by Hoover and Tunmer (2018). Full references for every study on this page are listed at the end.
Try the two checks with one learner who puzzles you this week: a word list with made-up words, then a passage you read aloud with five questions. Plan the next six weeks from the pattern, and recheck with new material. When decoding is secure, go back to our guide to reading comprehension strategies in the classroom for the teaching that builds understanding.
Teacher voices
Real public posts on X, quoted word for word. We have not edited or endorsed them.
Themes are our labels.
| Theme | What teachers said | Who and when |
|---|---|---|
| The model is too simple | @JtuckerJames @SaraJPeden @MichaelRosenYes The simple view of reading is too simple. | @JohnBaldLangLit13 November 2025Original post |
| A little knowledge prefers the Active View | A little bit of SoR knowledge is a dangerous thing... - Simple View of Reading instead of Active View of Reading - Rules instead of statistical learning - Decodable instead of decodability - Mental set for rigidity instead of mental set for variability #Frustrating | @ameliadgvl11 March 2023Original post |
| Regret about how the model was written | @turing_hamster The rest of the book made clear the role of instruction for word recognition automaticity (though I wish I had discussed mispronunciation correction more), but I still have a pang of regret about my chosen formulation of the Simple View of Reading when organising the book. | @Suchmo8311 July 2026Original post |
| Word recognition includes automaticity and prosody | @dwofthepeople More recent definitions of the Simple View of Reading tend to use 'word recognition'. I think this is helpful, assuming we understand that it isn't just the accuracy of recognising words that matters, but also the automaticity and - when reading aloud - the prosody. | @Suchmo837 April 2026Original post |
| Comprehension sits at the core | @gingercatsareok @SchoolsWeek Phonics instruction to learn to read doesn’t promote simply phonics instruction. The Simple View of Reading, which I’ve yet to see rejected by any camp, has comprehension at its core. | @teachfirstlast18 December 2025Original post |
| Used in a staff planning meeting | Teacher leaders dove into the SoR & the Simple View of Reading, connecting research to practice. PLCs, reflected on the 4 Essential Questions & used the PLC rubric to reflect our current practices. Literacy instructional alignment is key🔑 @GinaChisum1 @AGHoulihan @MrsAmyWeddine https://t.co/txGKTiUWxF | @MattieDeal_AP20 August 2025Original post |
| Name the strategies for each quadrant | We know the Simple View of Reading. We know Ss need decoding AND Language comp’n skills. But what are the instructional strategies to teach them?! Thank you @marthakovack for helping develop this SVR quadrant with strategies for every S. This is research to classroom practice. https://t.co/cAkYiS8tqq | @MmeLockhartLDS12 November 2022Original post |
Frequently asked questions
What is the formula used in the Simple View of Reading?
Reading comprehension equals decoding multiplied by language comprehension: RC = D × LC. Some sources write it R = D × C or R = D × L.
Who created the Simple View of Reading?
Gough and Tunmer proposed it in 1986 in the journal Remedial and Special Education. Hoover and Gough tested and extended it in 1990.
Does the Simple View of Reading apply to older learners?
Yes, but the balance changes. Decoding explains more of the difference between readers in the early years, and language comprehension explains more from about Grade 3 (UK Year 4). For secondary learners, vocabulary, knowledge and language usually matter most.
Can I use the Simple View of Reading with EAL learners?
Yes. Hoover and Gough (1990) first tested it with bilingual children, and a meta-analysis of second language readers found the two parts explained over 60% of the variance (Lee, Jung and Lee, 2022). Check listening comprehension in English and, where you can, in the learner's home language before deciding the barrier is language.
What is the difference between the Simple View and the Active View of Reading?
The Active View of Reading, proposed by Duke and Cartwright (2021), keeps decoding and language comprehension, shows how the two overlap, and adds active, self-regulatory processes that the Simple View does not name.
Can the Simple View of Reading diagnose dyslexia?
No. Gough and Tunmer used the word dyslexia for poor decoding in 1986, but two classroom checks only show a pattern. A diagnosis needs a specialist assessment, so share persistent patterns with your SENCO.
References
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
Catts, H. W. (2018). The Simple View of Reading: Advancements and False Impressions. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 317-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518767563
Chen, R. S., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). Prediction of Reading Ability: A Cross-Validation Study of the Simple View of Reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969709547947
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25-S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The Simple View of Reading: Is It Valid for Different Types of Alphabetic Orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6
Foorman, B. R., Petscher, Y., & Herrera, S. (2018). Unique and common effects of decoding and language factors in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1-10. Learning and Individual Differences, 63, 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011
Georgiou, G. K., Das, J. P., & Hayward, D. (2009). Revisiting the "Simple View of Reading" in a Group of Children With Poor Reading Comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 76-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326210
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Hjetland, H. N., Lervåg, A., Lyster, S. H., Hagtvet, B. E., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2019). Pathways to reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from 4 to 9 years of age. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 751-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000321
Høien‐Tengesdal, I. (2010). Is the Simple View of Reading too Simple? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(5), 451-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2010.508914
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799
Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2018). The Simple View of Reading: Three Assessments of Its Adequacy. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 304-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518773154
Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710050084428
Kirby, J. R., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42(2), 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00487.x
Lee, H., Jung, G., & Lee, J. H. (2022). Simple view of second language reading: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(6), 585-603. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2087526
Lervåg, A., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2018). Unpicking the Developmental Relationship Between Oral Language Skills and Reading Comprehension: It's Simple, But Complex. Child Development, 89(5), 1821-1838. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12861
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2018). Examining the Simple View of Reading With Elementary School Children: Still Simple After All These Years. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 260-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518764833
Nation, K. (2019). Children’s reading difficulties, language, and reflections on the simple view of reading. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 24(1), 47-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1609272
Peng, P., Lee, K., Luo, J., Li, S., Joshi, R. M., & Tao, S. (2021). Simple View of Reading in Chinese: A One-Stage Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling. Review of Educational Research, 91(1), 3-33. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320964198
Savage, R. (2006). Reading Comprehension Is Not Always the Product of Nonsense Word Decoding and Linguistic Comprehension: Evidence From Teenagers Who Are Extremely Poor Readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(2), 143-164. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1002_2
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97-110). Guilford Press.
Snow, C. E. (2018). Simple and Not-So-Simple Views of Reading. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 313-316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518770288
Torppa, M., Georgiou, G. K., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Niemi, P., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2016). Examining the Simple View of Reading in a Transparent Orthography: A Longitudinal Study From Kindergarten to Grade 3. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 62(2), 179-206. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.62.2.0179
Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The Simple View of Reading Redux. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 453-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432685
