Merging the Simple View of Reading with Rauding Theory

The Simple View of reading was merged with rauding theory by advancing a revision, called Simple View II. The original Simple View, described by Hoover and Gough (1990), has several inconsistencies between theoretical concepts and how concepts are measured. These inconsistencies were illuminated and clarified by using constructs from rauding theory. The resulting Simple View II focuses on how individual differences in reading level (called rauding accuracy level, AL) are almost entirely a function of word recognition level (called pronunciation level, PL) and listening comprehension level (called auditory accuracy level, AudAL). An analysis of data collected from 61 students in Grades 3–5, indicated that all of the reliable variance in AL was probably accounted for by PL and AudAL, thus providing strong support for Simple View II. Furthermore, the reading level of students in GE units (e.g., Grade 5) could be predicted highly accurately by simply averaging (a) their level of word recognition in GE units (e.g., Grade 3) and (b) their level of language comprehension in GE units (e.g., Grade 7). When Simple View II is merged with rauding theory, the result is a theoretical framework which includes interrelationships among all of the important constructs involved in reading ability, for students in Grade 1 through college.

The Three Factors in Reading Ability: Reanalysis of a Study by Cunningham, Stanovich, and Wilson

Cunningham, Stanovich, and Wilson (1990) tested college students and concluded from their 22 measures that three factors were needed to explain individual differences in reading ability; one of these factors was called Word Recognition. Their data have been reanalyzed to determine whether there is any support for the three individual difference factors advanced in rauding theory—called rauding accuracy level (AL), rauding rate level (RL), and rauding efficiency level (EL). A factor analysis of their nine variables that measured reading ability yielded two factors; one was readily identified as AL because its highest loadings were on vocabulary and listening tests, and the other was readily identified as RL because its highest loadings were on measures of reading rate. When a single factor fit was forced upon these data, the resulting factor was readily identified as EL because the highest loadings were on measures of general reading ability such as reading comprehension and efficiency. It appears that individual differences in almost all measures of reading ability can be explained by regarding AL and RL as correlated subfactors of general reading ability, EL. The Word Recognition factor found by Cunningham et al. appears to be a rate factor, called rauding rate level, RL.