Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Componential Model of Reading (CMR): Implications for Assessment and Instruction of Literacy Problems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Reading Development and Difficulties

Abstract

Literacy skills—defined as reading, writing, and spelling—are fundamental for academic achievement as well as being a productive citizen in society. However, despite spending trillions of dollars over the decades, literacy skills in the USA have not improved. In this chapter, a model, called the Componential Model of Reading (CMR) is described and how it can help in the assessment and intervention of reading problems. Some of the common assessment and intervention techniques are also outlined to help the teachers and administrators to solve the reading problems at school.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Boulware-Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the Component Model of Reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., & Quatroche, D. (2008). Becoming a professional reading teacher: What to teach, how to teach, and why it matters. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaron, P. G., Joshi, M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 933–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Kabbini, N. S. (2001). The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103, 760–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binks-Cantrell, E., Joshi, R. M., & Washburn, E. (2012). Validation of an instrument for assessing teacher knowledge of basic language constructs of literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 62, 153–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E., Joshi, R. M., & Hougan, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.601434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braze, D., Tabor, W., Shankweiler, D. P., & Mencl, W. E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1987). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural history of one program for enhancing learning. In J. D. Day & J. G. Borkowski (Eds.), Intelligence and exceptionality: New directions for theory, assessment, and instructional practice (pp. 81–132). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carreker, S., & Joshi, R. M. (2010). Response to intervention: Are the emperor’s clothes really new? Psicothema, 22, 943–948.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (2011). Oral and written language scales—Second edition (OWLS-II). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charity, A. H., Scarborough, H. S., & Griffin, D. M. (2004). Familiarity with school English in African American children and its relation to early reading achievement. Child Development, 75, 1340–1356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00744.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1004_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Public Law 94–142, November 29, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In C. Perfeti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 237–268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, C., Tolar, T. M., Reese, L., Francis, D. J., & Mejia-Arauz, R. (2014). How important is teaching phonemic awareness to children learning to read in Spanish? American Educational Research Journal, 51, 604–633. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214529082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (2009). Test of written language—Fourth edition (TOWL-IV). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinshelwood, J. (1895). Word-blindness and visual memory. The Lancet, 1, 1506–1508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00401799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R. 1350, 108 Cong., 2nd Sess (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M. (2018). Simple view of reading (SVR) in different orthographies: Seeing the forest with the trees. In T. Lachman & T. Weiss (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia (pp. 71–80). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of orthography and literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M., Dean, E., & Smith, D. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M., Ji, X., Breznitz, Z., Amiel, M., & Yulia, A. (2015). Validation of the simple view of reading in Hebrew—A semitic language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1010117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M., Tao, S., Aaron, P. G., & Quiroz, B. (2012). Cognitive component of componential model of reading applied to different orthographies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M., Treiman, R., Carreker, S., & Moats, L. (2008). How words cast their spell: Spelling instruction focused on language, not memory, improves reading and writing. American Educator, 32(4), 6–16, 42–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M., Williams, K., & Wood, J. (1998). Predicting reading comprehension with listening comprehension: Is this the answer to the IQ debate? In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 319–327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juel, C. (1995). Learning to read and write in one elementary school. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, J. M., & Meenan, C. E. (2014). Test differences in diagnosing reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labov, W. (1995). Can reading failure be reversed? A linguistic approach to the question. In V. L. Gadsden & D. A. Wagner (Eds.), Literacy among African-American youth (pp. 39–68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labov, W. (1998). Co-existent systems in African-American English. In S. Mufwene, J. Rickford, J. Baugh, & G. Bailey (Eds.), The structure of African-American English (pp. 110–153). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, S. C., Hammill, D., & Moats, L. (2013). Test of written spelling—Fifth edition (TWS-5). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, I. Y. (1987). Language and literacy: The obligation of the schools of education. In W. Ellis (Ed.), Intimacy with language: A forgotten basic in teacher education (pp. 1–9). Baltimore, MD: The Orton Dyslexia Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindamood, P. C., & Lindamood, P. (2004). Lindamood auditory conceptualization test—Third edition (LAC–3). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, G. R. (2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. In Hearing Before House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Education Reform, 107th Congress. Available at http://www.nrrf.org/learning/statement-of-dr-g-reid-lyon-before-the-u-s-house-subcommittee-on-education-and-the-workforce-hearing/.

  • MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Katherine Maria, L., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D, Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., Quiroga, T, & Gray, A. L. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered system of support: Blending RtI and PBIS. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, W. P. (1896). A case of congenital word-blindness. British Medical Journal, 2, 1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2017). The nation’s report card: Mathematics & Reading. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/.

  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J., Berenhaus, M. S., & Cain, K. (2015). Children’s reading comprehension and comprehension difficulties. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittman, R. T., Joshi, R. M., & Carreker, S. (2014). Improving the spelling ability among speakers of African American English through explicit instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53, 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2013.870623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Protopapas, A., Simos, P. G., Sideridis, G. D., & Mouzaki, A. (2012). The components of the simple view of reading: A confirmatory factor analysis. Reading Psychology, 33, 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2010.507626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement–IV. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L. G., & Dickinson, D. D. (1996). Reading and spelling difficulties in high school students: Causes and consequences. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00420279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. G. (2009). Diagnostic evaluation of language variation screening test (DELV-ST). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1993). Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and the development of verbal intelligence. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 24, 133–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984). Relation between early reading acquisition and word decoding with and without context: A longitudinal study of first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 668–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, R. W. (2004). The big picture: Where we are nationally on the reading front and how we got there. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 13–44). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Texas Education Agency. (2012). Texas English language proficiency assessment system (TELPAS). Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., & Bryant, B. R. (2004). Test of phonological awareness (TOPA 2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency—Second edition (TOWRE–2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran, L., Sanchez, B., Arellano, L., & Swanson, H. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the literature for children at-risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 283–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treiman, R. (2004). Spelling and dialect: Comparisons between speakers of African American vernacular English and white speakers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 338–342. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 453–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K. (2008). Rediscovering dyslexia: New approaches for identification and classification. In G. Reid, A. Fawcett, F. Manis, & L. Siegel (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of dyslexia (pp. 174–191). London, UK: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2013). Comprehensive test of phonological processing—Second edition (CTOPP-2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington, J. A., & Craig, H. K. (2002). Morphosyntactic forms of African American English used by young children and their caregivers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 209–231. http://doi.org/10.1017.S0142716402002035.

  • Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray oral reading tests–Fifth edition (GORT-5). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J., & Turci, L. (2016). Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12184.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2017). Wide range achievement test—Fifth edition (WRAT-5). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. J. (2011). Woodcock reading mastery test-III. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., & Denckla, M. B. (2005). Rapid automatized naming and rapid alternating stimulus tests (RAN/RAS). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. J., Schrank, F. A., Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2005). Woodcock-Muñoz Batería III. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education & Human Development, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    R. Malatesha Joshi

Authors
  1. R. Malatesha Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Malatesha Joshi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. State University of New York, College at Cortland, Cortland, NY, USA

    David A. Kilpatrick

  2. College of Education and Human Development, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    R. Malatesha Joshi

  3. Department of Psychology, Florida State University Florida Center for Reading Research, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Richard K. Wagner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Joshi, R.M. (2019). The Componential Model of Reading (CMR): Implications for Assessment and Instruction of Literacy Problems. In: Kilpatrick, D., Joshi, R., Wagner, R. (eds) Reading Development and Difficulties. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26550-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation