Same

Thank you for your question; we certainly understand how challenging it can be for parents to interpret educational evaluation results. The primary responsibility of interpretation and explanation should rest with the person or team who issued the evaluation (e.g., school-based team, school psychologist, outside evaluator). If there are questions beyond those that should be answered in these meetings, parents can check with their state's department of education to see if they partner with organizations that offer support in this area. There are also advocacy organizations such as Decoding Dyslexia and/or professional organizations such as NCIL which have helpful guidance and tools. Here is a link to the NCIL family landing page that may be helpful: improvingliteracy.org/family

Thank you for your question. We reached out to Dr. Hogan and her team and this was their response, " Thank you for this question and for thinking about adolescents. Unfortunately, there are not as many evidence-based curricula for adolescents. Though these are two great resources for classroom and small group lessons: greatmiddleschools.org/ and www.serpinstitute.org/educator-resources. As for assessments, the clinical evaluation of language fundamentals www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Speech-%26-Language/Clinical-Evaluation-of-Language-Fundamentals-%7C-Fifth-Edition/p/100000705.html and the test of integrated language and literacy are good options."

What do you recommend using to screen for language comprehension difficulties?

Do you stand by this statement, as phrased? ""The Simple View holds that ONLY two abilities are needed to read a language."

Abbey, this is a great question. We have reached out to Dr. Hoover to ask if he has such an ongoing list. If you have access to PsycINFO, you can find many of these studies by doing a search for the Simple View of Reading. In the meantime, we recommend reading The Reading League Journal's article on The Simple View of Reading, a preview of which can be found here: www.thereadingleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/13-14_Kilpatrick.pdf

@@billieball1 We will be glad to share your perspective with Dr. Hoover, thank you.

@@billieball1 First, in the interest of advancing learning I urge the SOR community to reject the unprofessional manner in which your comments are offered. Second, your comments reflect several misunderstandings. As the SVR hypothesizes (RC = WR x LC), reading comprehension is the product of two (and only two) factors, word recognition and language comprehension. These are proposed as the proximal determinants of reading comprehension, and the SVR holds that any other factors impacting reading comprehension are distal ones operating through these two (and only) proximal factors. Accordingly, these two abilities are the only ones that must be mastered in order to master reading comprehension, there being no additional abilities beyond them that are required. To be sure, multiple abilities are needed to master the two proximal abilities, but beyond defining the two proximal abilities and their product, these are not addressed in the SVR. For the interested reader, as a description of the “big picture” of reading, the relationships between the abilities defined within the SVR (and some of their supportive empirical findings) have been discussed in several papers (e.g., Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Hoover & Tunmer, 2018, 2020, 2022; Tunmer & Hoover, 1992, 2019), as has the distinction between models of reading ability and process. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10. doi:10.1177/074193258600700104 Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160. doi: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, 304-312. doi:10.1177/0741932518773154 Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2020). The cognitive foundations of reading and its acquisition: A framework with applications connecting teaching and learning. Cham, CH: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-44194-4 Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2022). The primacy of science in communicating advances in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 57, 399-408. doi:10.1002/rrq.446. Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ISBN 9781351236904 Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (2019). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A framework for preventing and remediating reading difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 24, 75-93. doi:10.1080/19404158.2019.1614081