- Email: [email protected]
Examining the effects of PASS cognitive processes on Chinese reading accuracy and fluency
Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 139–143
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif
Examining the effects of PASS cognitive processes on Chinese reading accuracy and fluency Xiaochen Wang a, George K. Georgiou b,⁎, J.P. Das b a b
Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 April 2011 Received in revised form 7 October 2011 Accepted 11 November 2011 Keywords: Cognitive processes Chinese Reading PASS theory
a b s t r a c t The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive) processes to Chinese reading accuracy and fluency. One-hundred-forty Grade 3 to 5 Mandarinspeaking children were assessed on measures of PASS processes, phonological awareness, and orthographic knowledge. A year later they were assessed on reading accuracy and fluency. The results indicated that successive processing predicted reading through the effects of phonological awareness and simultaneous processing predicted reading through the effects of orthographic knowledge. The results were similar for reading accuracy and fluency. Implications for the PASS theory are discussed. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Intelligence, assessed with traditional IQ tests, has been heavily criticized as insufficient to account for individual differences in reading (e.g., Jiménez, Siegel, O'Shanahan, & Ford, 2009; Kortteinen, Närhi, & Ahonen, 2009; Naglieri & Reardon, 1993; Siegel, 1989). It has also been argued that when intelligence is operationalized in terms of cognitive processes it enhances our understanding of reading (e.g., Das, Papadopoulos, & Parrila, 2000; Joseph, McCachran, & Naglieri, 2003; Naglieri & Das, 2005). The purpose of this study was to examine the connection of cognitive processes, namely Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS; Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994) with Chinese reading accuracy and fluency. Examining the role of PASS processes in Chinese is important in light of recent arguments that (a) the models of reading acquisition that have been developed for English may not generalize across languages (e.g., Share, 2008) and (b) the high achievements of Chinese students in international competitions (see OECD, 2010) could be explained by their high intelligence (e.g., Lynn, 2010). Following Luria (1966), the PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive) theory of intelligence proposes that cognition is organized in three systems and four processes (e.g., Das, Kirby, & Jarman, 1979; Das et al., 1994; Naglieri & Das, 2005). The first system is the Planning system, which involves executive functions responsible for controlling and organizing behavior, selecting and constructing strategies, and monitoring performance. The second system is the ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Educational Psychology, 6-102 Education North, University of Alberta, Edmonton-AB, Canada T6G 2G5. Tel.: + 1 780 492 8247. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.K. Georgiou). 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.006
Attention system, which is responsible for maintaining arousal levels and alertness, and ensuring focus on relevant stimuli. The third system is the Information Processing system, which employs Simultaneous and Successive processing to encode, transform, and retain information. According to PASS theory, successive processing predicts reading through the effects of phonological recoding and simultaneous processing predicts reading through the effects of orthographic knowledge (Das et al., 1994; Kirby & Williams, 1991; Naglieri & Das, 2005). Planning and attention play an auxiliary role, namely they allow the deployment of the proximal cognitive skills (phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge). Despite the long history of PASS theory as it relates to reading (see Cummins & Das, 1978; Das et al., 1979), there are still few issues that have not been resolved. First, although the theory assumes that phonological processing is predicted by successive processing and orthographic knowledge is predicted by simultaneous processing, none of the existing studies has included any measures of orthographic knowledge, defined here as knowledge of character structure and radical awareness (Chan & Nunes, 2001). Likewise, there are studies that have only examined the direct effects of the PASS processes on reading without including measures of phonological processing or orthographic knowledge. In one of these, which is most relevant in the context of our paper, Leong, Cheng, and Das (1985) showed in a cross-sectional study with Chinese readers in Hong Kong that in Grade 4, reading was predicted by simultaneous processing and, to a lesser extent, by successive processing. In Grade 6, there was a shift in processing strategies; successive accounted for more variance than simultaneous processing. Although this early study by Leong and colleagues did establish an
140
X. Wang et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 139–143
important connection between reading and simultaneous–successive processing, it is still unknown whether PASS processes would predict reading if phonological awareness or orthographic knowledge were taken into account. Second, none of the existing studies has examined the relationship between PASS processes and reading fluency, which is one of the primary goals of reading instruction beyond the early grades. Finally, to our knowledge, this is first longitudinal study that examined the relationship between PASS processes and reading in an unselected sample of children. The characteristics of Chinese orthography have implications for the role of PASS processes on reading. Given that the Chinese characters are visually compact and complicated, simultaneous processing should play an important role because of its emphasis on holistic processing of visual information. In addition, because most Chinese characters are read by analyzing and synthesizing the component radicals, successive processing should contribute to reading as well. Therefore, we would expect that both successive and simultaneous processes have a role to play in Chinese reading. However, several researchers pointed out that the relationship between phonological awareness or orthographic knowledge (the presumed mediators between PASS processes and reading) and Chinese reading is much weaker than what has been found in alphabetic languages and may disappear in older grades (e.g., Siok & Fletcher, 2001; Tan, Spinks, Eden, Perfetti, & Siok, 2005; Tong & McBride-Chang, 2010). Subsequently, the presumed link between PASS processes and reading may as well fade or disappear in older grades.
children and adolescents ranging from 5 through 17 years of age that has been designed to assess the four PASS cognitive processes. The standard battery, which was used in this study, consists of 12 subtests; three subtests for each one of the PASS scales. Descriptions of the subtests and scales as well as evidence for the reliability of the individual subtest scores are provided in the manual (Naglieri & Das, 1997). The CAS was translated into Chinese from its English version (Naglieri & Das, 1997) under the guidance of the third author. Both administration and scoring of the CAS tasks were completed following the instructions in the manual (Naglieri & Das, 1997). Because there are no standardized norms for CAS in Chinese, the subscale score was derived from the results of factor analysis (see Results section). The psychometric properties of the CAS in Chinese have been published by Deng, Liu, Wei, Chan, and Das (2011). All subtests of CAS were reported to have acceptable test–retest reliability (r = .72–.90, p b .01). 1.2.4. Reading accuracy and fluency The Character Recognition and the One-Minute reading tasks, adapted from HKT SpLD (Ho et al., 2000), were used to assess reading accuracy and fluency, respectively. In Character Recognition, the children were asked to read aloud 150 Chinese two-character words arranged in terms of difficulty. One point was given for each word correctly read. In One-Minute reading, the children were asked to read aloud as many words as possible within 1 min. The task included 90 words that were arranged in 10 columns. A participant's score was the total number of words correctly read within a minute.
1. Method 1.3. Procedure 1.1. Participants One hundred forty-five children from Fuding City, Fujian Province, China were randomly selected to participate in this study. When tested for the first time, 48 of the children (25 boys and 23 girls) were attending Grade 3 and had a mean age of 8 years 7 months (SD= .51), 48 of the children (23 boys and 25 girls) were attending Grade 4 and had a mean age of 10 years 1 month (SD= .49), and 49 children (25 boys and 24 girls) were attending Grade 5 and had a mean age of 11 years 2 months (SD= .63). A follow-up was carried out a year later, when the children were in Grades 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The final sample consisted of 140 children. All participants were native speakers of Mandarin, attended school regularly, and did not have any developmental or sensory disabilities. Written permission from parents was obtained prior to testing.
The participants were assessed in a quiet room in their schools during school hours by the first author and a graduate student. At the first measurement point, the testing was completed in two sessions. Session A consisted of the phonological awareness tests (rhyme, onset, and tone awareness) and the orthographic knowledge tests (lexical reversal and lexical decision), which could generally be completed within 30 min. Session B consisted of the PASS cognitive measures, which generally took around 90 min to complete. At the second measurement point, the participants were assessed on Character Recognition and One-Minute reading, which took approximately 15 min to complete. The administration of the tests within each session was counterbalanced across the participants to avoid order effects. 2. Results
1.2. Materials 1.2.1. Phonological awareness The rhyme awareness, the onset awareness, and the tone awareness tasks, adapted from the Hong Kong Test of Specific Learning Difficulties in Reading and Writing (HKT-SpLD; Ho, Chan, Tsang, & Lee, 2000), were used to assess phonological awareness. The administration and scoring was done according to the manual. 1.2.2. Orthographic knowledge The lexical reversal and lexical decision tasks, adapted from the HKT SpLD (Ho et al., 2000), were used to assess orthographic knowledge. The lexical reversal task assesses children's ability to identify the correct orientation of certain highly frequent orthographic units. In turn, the lexical decision task assesses children's knowledge of Chinese character structure. The administration and scoring was done according to the manual. 1.2.3. Cognitive assessment system The Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997) is an individually administered test of cognitive functioning for
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for all the measures used in the study. The distributions of the measures were normal or close to normal. Before examining the effect of PASS processes on reading, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the factor structure of CAS in Chinese. The z scores of the CAS subtests were used instead of the raw scores, because the raw scores showed diverse ranges and variances (see Table 1). Maximum likelihood estimation procedures were used to analyze the variance/covariance matrix of the observed variables using AMOS 17 (Arbuckle, 2006). To evaluate the model fit, the chi-square value and a set of fit indices were used: (a) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI); (b) the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI); and (c) the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The factor loadings are shown in Table 2. The model fitted the data very well. The fit indices obtained were: χ 2 (48, N = 145) = 48.95, χ 2/ df = .99, p = .499, CFI = .99, GFI = .95, and RMSEA = .01. For comparison purposes, we also list in Table 2 the factor loadings of the data used for the standardization of CAS with an American sample (ages 8–10 years) taken from the CAS manual (Naglieri & Das, 1997). The results indicate that the factor loadings for the Chinese and the American
X. Wang et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 139–143 Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all the variables in the study. Variables
M
Phonological awareness Rhyme awareness Onset awareness Tone awareness Orthographic knowledge Lexical reversal Lexical decision Planning Matching numbers Planned codes Planned connection Attention Expressive attention Number detection Receptive attention Simultaneous NVM VSR Figure memory Successive Words series Sentence repetition Sentence question Reading One-Minute reading Character Recognition
SD
Min
Max
Cronbach's α
16.11 17.37 8.52
3.69 4.05 2.32
4 5 2
22 23 12
.75 .72 .70
37.74 35.13
3.81 4.57
28 25
40 40
.73 .76
11.81 59.21 242.94
3.26 17.83 69.86
4 7 122
20 103 426
.90 .83 .81
38.17 50.85 37.42
9.84 17.09 10.50
15 11 6
74 87 62
.89 .88 .82
21.83 19.33 16.44
4.52 3.40 4.25
10 12 6
30 27 26
.92 .85 .90
17.81 5.92 8.24
4.70 1.92 2.85
8 3 2
27 11 18
.82 .85 .78
96.48 125.77
15.10 16.97
60 78
128 150
.94 .89
Note. NVM = Nonverbal matrices; VSR = Verbal spatial relations.
PASS model were very similar. The factor scores for each CAS subscale were used in further analyses. 2.1. Correlational analyses Table 3 presents the correlations between the different measures for the entire sample (n = 140). First, the correlations indicate that the phonological awareness measures were highly correlated with each other (rs > .66). The two orthographic knowledge tasks were also highly correlated with each other (r = .73). Second, among the PASS processes, the correlations were, in general, weak and in some instances failed to reach significance. The highest correlation was between simultaneous and successive processing (r = .50) and the lowest between planning and successive processing (r = .14). Third, planning did not correlate significantly with the onset and tone awareness as well as with both orthographic knowledge measures. In contrast, attention, simultaneous, and successive processing correlated significantly with all phonological awareness and orthographic
Table 2 Results of confirmatory factor analysis. Subtest
Scale Planning
Matching numbers Planned codes Planned connections Nonverbal matrices Verbal spatial relations Figure memory Expressive attention Number detection Receptive attention Word series Sentence repetition Sentence question
Simultaneous
Attention
Successive
.614 (.734) .559 (.543) .703 (.766) .618 (.509) .682 (.681) .708 (.804) .683 (.688) .682 (.598) .765 (.667) .791 (.691) .784 (.854) .657 (.805)
Note. In parenthesis the factor loadings derived from a confirmatory factor analysis with an American sample for ages 8–10 years as reported in the manual of Cognitive Assessment System (see Naglieri & Das, 1997, p. 54).
141
knowledge measures. It is worth noting that the correlations between simultaneous processing and the orthographic knowledge measures were higher than the corresponding ones with the phonological awareness measures. Similarly, the correlations between successive processing and phonological awareness were higher than the corresponding ones with orthographic knowledge. Finally, with the exception of planning, all the PASS measures correlated significantly with the two reading outcomes. 2.2. Regression analyses Next, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses in order to examine the role of the PASS processes on reading. OneMinute Reading and Character Recognition were the dependent variables. Factor scores for the PASS processes, phonological awareness, and orthographic knowledge were calculated and used in further analyses. Because planning was not significantly related with the phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, and reading measures (see Table 3), it was eliminated from the regression analyses. The order of the variables entered in the regression equation was as follows. First, we controlled for age (entered at step 1) and attention (entered at step 2). Phonological awareness was entered at step 3 followed by successive processing at step 4. The order of entry between steps 3 and 4 was then reversed to examine the unique contribution of phonological awareness (entered now at step 4), after controlling for the effects of successive processing (entered now at step 3). This would test the prediction that the effect of successive processing is mediated by phonological awareness. In a second set of hierarchical regression analyses, we entered in the regression equation orthographic knowledge at step 3 and simultaneous processing at step 4. The order of entry between steps 3 and 4 was then reversed to examine the unique contribution of orthographic knowledge (entered now at step 4), after controlling for the effects of simultaneous processing (entered now at step 3). This would test the prediction that the effect of simultaneous processing is mediated by orthographic knowledge. Table 4 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses. Standardized beta coefficients, R² changes, and level of significance are presented. When One-Minute reading was the dependent variable, phonological awareness (entered at step 3) accounted for 14% of the variance and successive processing (entered at step 4) explained an additional 3%. When we reversed the order of entry, successive processing accounted for 9% of the variance and phonological awareness for 7% of the variance. We then examined the effects of orthographic knowledge and simultaneous processing. Orthographic processing (entered at step 3) accounted for 18% of the variance, but simultaneous processing did not account for any unique variance. When we reversed the order of entry, simultaneous processing accounted for 12% of the variance and orthographic processing for an additional 6%. When Character Recognition was the dependent variable, phonological awareness (entered at step 3) explained 13% of the variance and successive processing (entered at step 4) did not account for any unique variance. Simultaneous processing did not account for a significant amount of variance when entered last in the regression equation after age, attention, and orthographic knowledge. When successive processing was entered in the regression equation before phonological awareness and simultaneous processing before orthographic processing, they accounted for 6% and 9% of the variance, respectively. To examine further whether the effects of successive and simultaneous processing were mediated by phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge, respectively, mediation analysis was conducted. Sobel's z statistic was used (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2003). The results indicated that phonological awareness mediated the relationship between successive processing and Character Recognition (Sobel's z = 4.72, p b .001) and One-Minute reading (Sobel's z = 4.61, p b .001).
142
X. Wang et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 139–143
Table 3 Correlations between the measures.
1. Rhyme awareness 2. Onset awareness 3. Tone awareness 4. Lexical reversal 5. Lexical decision 6. Planning 7. Attention 8. Simultaneous 9. Successive 10. One-Minute reading 11. Character recognition
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
.76⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .18⁎ .42⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .46⁎⁎ .55⁎⁎
.69⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .07 .36⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎
.40⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎ .15 .24⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎
.73⁎⁎ .04 .21⁎ .73⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .53⁎⁎
.15 .28⁎⁎ .67⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎
.49⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .14 .18 .16
.29⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎
.50⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎
.42⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎
.58⁎⁎
⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
Likewise, orthographic knowledge mediated the relationship between simultaneous processing and Character Recognition (Sobel's z = 4.15, p b .001) and One-Minute reading (Sobel's z = 4.87, p b .001).
3. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of PASS cognitive processes on Chinese reading accuracy and fluency. The results verified the predictions of the PASS theory: successive processing predicted reading through the effects of phonological awareness and simultaneous processing predicted reading through the effects of orthographic knowledge. Thus, it could be argued that both successive and simultaneous processes are needed in parallel in Chinese reading. Within the family of PASS cognitive processes, planning was the only one that did not significantly correlate with any of the phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, or reading measures. There may be two reasons for this. First, it is possible that planning, as operationalized in CAS, is not relevant for any of the operations involved in the outcome measures. Second, the contribution of planning is likely influenced by the contribution of attention, which precedes planning in the PASS theory (Das et al., 1994). It is worth noting that attention produced equally strong correlations with One-Minute reading as successive processing. Certainly, for a child to read fast and accurately in a language (Chinese) that provides only partial clues on the pronunciation of the different characters, attention is needed for deciphering the details of each character composition that would differentiate it from a similar one.
Table 4 Regression analyses predicting One-Minute reading and Character Recognition. Step
1. 2. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4.
Variables
Age Attention PHA Successive Successive PHA OK Simultaneous Simultaneous OK
One-Minute reading
Character Recognition
β
ΔR²
β
ΔR²
.253 .376 .403 .206 .329 .321 .423 .046 .345 .389
.06⁎⁎ .09⁎⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎⁎ .03⁎ .09⁎⁎⁎ .07⁎⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎⁎
.366 .402 .399 .133 .266 .346 .409 .056 .299 .356
.13⁎⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎⁎
.00 .12⁎⁎⁎ .06⁎⁎
Note. PHA = Phonological Awareness; OK = Orthographic Knowledge. ⁎ p b .05.; ** p b .01; *** p b .001.
.01 .06⁎⁎⁎ .09⁎⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎⁎ .00 .09⁎⁎⁎ .06⁎⁎
The importance of successive and simultaneous processing for phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, and reading, suggests that cognitive processes should continue to be examined in relation to reading and reading-related skills. For instance, studying the relationship between cognitive processes and phonological awareness may improve our understanding about the underlying components of phonological skills. In turn, this knowledge could be used in the development of cognitive-based remediation programs (e.g., Das, Mishra, & Pool, 1995; Papadopoulos, Charalambous, Kanari, & Loizou, 2004; Parrila, Das, Kendrick, Papadopoulos, & Kirby, 2000). Papadopoulos et al. (2004), for example, demonstrated that intensive intervention in cognitive processes, such as successive and simultaneous processing significantly improves the phonological skills of kindergarten children at-risk for reading disabilities. Some limitations of the study are worth mentioning. First, we did not use any measures of morphological awareness in this study despite the evidence from several studies showing their relevance to reading in Chinese (e.g., Ho, Chan, Tsang, & Lee, 2002; Shu, McBride-Chang, Wu, & Liu, 2006). Certainly, future research should include these measures to evaluate the relative weight of phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge in relation to morphological awareness. It is possible, as nicely demonstrated in McBride-Chang and colleagues' work (e.g., McBride-Chang & Kail, 2002; McBride-Chang et al., 2005), that the inclusion or non-inclusion of measures of morphological awareness determines the significance of phonological awareness on reading. Second, this study focused on word reading skills and did not include measures of comprehension. Given that reading comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading, future studies should incorporate measures of comprehension and examine how the PASS processes may contribute to it. Third, although we have tested a theoretical account that considers two routes for accurate word recognition we do not rule out the possibility of a third route involved in Chinese reading. In fact, several studies have shown that Chinese children use information derived from semantic radicals to read (e.g., Chen & Weekes, 2004; Law, Wong, Yeung, & Weekes, 2008; Leung & Ho, 2009). Finally, we have used raw scores for the PASS processes in the absence of a standardized CAS battery in Chinese. This, in turn, prohibits any direct comparisons between the cognitive profiles of Chinese children and those examined in English studies. In conclusion, the findings of the present study supported the relevance of PASS theory and its connection to reading through the effects of phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge. It is important that these connections have been found in a non-alphabetic language (Chinese), which does not allow the application of simple decoding strategies to read. Given the known contribution of PASS cognitive processes in alphabetic languages, these findings may suggest that the effects of simultaneous and successive processing in reading are likely universal.
X. Wang et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 139–143
References Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS 7.0 user's guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. Chan, L., & Nunes, T. (2001). Explicit teaching and implicit learning of Chinese characters. In L. Tolchinsky (Ed.), Developemetal aspects in learning to write (pp. 33–53). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Chen, M. J., & Weekes, B. S. (2004). Effects of semantic radicals on Chinese character categorization and character decision. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 46, 181–196. Cummins, J., & Das, J. P. (1978). Simultaneous and successive syntheses and linguistic processes. International Journal of Psychology, 3, 129–138. Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., & Jarman, R. F. (1979). Simultaneous and successive cognitive processes. New York: Academic Press. Das, J. P., Mishra, R. K., & Pool, J. E. (1995). An experiment of cognitive remediation of word-reading difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 66–79. Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes: The PASS theory of intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Das, J. P., Papadopoulos, T. C., & Parrila, R. (2000). Explaining reading by cognitive processes, not IQ. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 5–6. Deng, C. -P., Liu, M., Wei, W., Chan, R. C. K., & Das, J. P. (2011). Latent factor structure of the Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System: A confirmatory factor analysis in a Chinese setting. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1988–1997. Ho, C. S. -H., Chan, D. W. -O., Tsang, S. -M., & Lee, S. -H. (2000). The Hong Kong test of specific learning difficulties in reading and writing (HKT-SpLD) manual. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Specific Learning Difficulties Research Team (In Chinese). Ho, C. S. -H., Chan, D. W. -O., Tsang, S. -M., & Lee, S. -H. (2002). The cognitive profile and multiple-deficit hypothesis in Chinese developmental dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 38, 543–553. Jiménez, J. E., Siegel, L., O'Shanahan, I., & Ford, L. (2009). The relative roles of IQ and cognitive processes in reading disability. Educational Psychology, 29, 27–43. Joseph, L. M., McCachran, M. E., & Naglieri, J. A. (2003). PASS cognitive processes, phonological processes, and the basic reading performance for a sample of referred primary-grade children. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 304–314. Kirby, J. R., & Williams, N. H. (1991). Learning problems: A cognitive approach. Toronto: Kagan & Woo Limited. Kortteinen, H., Närhi, V., & Ahonen, T. (2009). Does IQ matter in adolescents' reading disability? Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 257–261. Law, S. -P., Wong, W., Yeung, O., & Weekes, B. S. (2008). A case study of the effects of age-of-acquisition on reading aloud in Chinese dyslexia. Neurocase, 14, 276–289. Leong, C. K., Cheng, S. C., & Das, J. P. (1985). Simultaneous–successive syntheses and planning in Chinese reader. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 19–31. Leung, K. N. -K., & Ho, C. S. -H. (2009). Semantic radical awareness in Chinese dyslexic and its role in Chinese word reading. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 10, 169–190. Luria, A. R. (1966). Human brain and psychological processes. New York: Harper & Row. Lynn, R. (2010). High IQ is sufficient to explain the high achievements in math and science of the East Asian people. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 567–568.
143
McBride-Chang, C., Cho, J. -R., Liu, H., Wagner, R., Shu, H., Zhou, A., et al. (2005). Changing models across cultures: Associations of phonological awareness and morphological structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second graders from Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 140–160. McBride-Chang, C., & Kail, R. (2002). Cross-cultural similarities in the predictors of reading acquisition. Child Development, 73, 1392–1407. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (2005). Planning, Attantion, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) theory: A revision of the concept fo intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 120–135). New York: Guiford Press. Naglieri, J. A., & Reardon, S. M. (1993). Traditional IQ is irrelevant to learning disabilities —intelligence is not. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 127–133. OECD (2010). PISA 1009 results: What students know and can do — Students performance in reading, mathematics and science, volume I, Retrieved from. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1787/9789264091450-en Papadopoulos, T. C., Charalambous, A., Kanari, A., & Loizou, M. (2004). Kindergarten intervention for dyslexia: The PREP remediation in Greek. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19, 79–105. Parrila, R. K., Das, J. P., Kendrick, M. E., Papadopoulos, T. C., & Kirby, J. R. (2000). Cognitive reading remediation for at-risk children in grade 1. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 1, 114–139. Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Calculations for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. Available at. http://people.ku.edu/~preacher/ sobel/sobel.htm Share, D. L. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615. Shu, H., McBride-Chang, C., Wu, S., & Liu, H. (2006). Understanding Chinese developmental dyslexia: Morphological awareness as a core cognitive construct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 122–133. Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 468–478. Siok, W. T., & Fletcher, P. (2001). The role of phonological awareness and visualorthographic skills in Chinese reading acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 37, 886–899. Tan, L. H., Spinks, J. A., Eden, G. F., Perfetti, C. A., & Siok, W. T. (2005). Reading depends on writing, in Chinese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 8781–8785. Tong, X., & McBride-Chang, C. (2010). Developmental models of learning to read Chinese words. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1662–1676.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif
Examining the effects of PASS cognitive processes on Chinese reading accuracy and fluency Xiaochen Wang a, George K. Georgiou b,⁎, J.P. Das b a b
Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 April 2011 Received in revised form 7 October 2011 Accepted 11 November 2011 Keywords: Cognitive processes Chinese Reading PASS theory
a b s t r a c t The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive) processes to Chinese reading accuracy and fluency. One-hundred-forty Grade 3 to 5 Mandarinspeaking children were assessed on measures of PASS processes, phonological awareness, and orthographic knowledge. A year later they were assessed on reading accuracy and fluency. The results indicated that successive processing predicted reading through the effects of phonological awareness and simultaneous processing predicted reading through the effects of orthographic knowledge. The results were similar for reading accuracy and fluency. Implications for the PASS theory are discussed. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Intelligence, assessed with traditional IQ tests, has been heavily criticized as insufficient to account for individual differences in reading (e.g., Jiménez, Siegel, O'Shanahan, & Ford, 2009; Kortteinen, Närhi, & Ahonen, 2009; Naglieri & Reardon, 1993; Siegel, 1989). It has also been argued that when intelligence is operationalized in terms of cognitive processes it enhances our understanding of reading (e.g., Das, Papadopoulos, & Parrila, 2000; Joseph, McCachran, & Naglieri, 2003; Naglieri & Das, 2005). The purpose of this study was to examine the connection of cognitive processes, namely Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS; Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994) with Chinese reading accuracy and fluency. Examining the role of PASS processes in Chinese is important in light of recent arguments that (a) the models of reading acquisition that have been developed for English may not generalize across languages (e.g., Share, 2008) and (b) the high achievements of Chinese students in international competitions (see OECD, 2010) could be explained by their high intelligence (e.g., Lynn, 2010). Following Luria (1966), the PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive) theory of intelligence proposes that cognition is organized in three systems and four processes (e.g., Das, Kirby, & Jarman, 1979; Das et al., 1994; Naglieri & Das, 2005). The first system is the Planning system, which involves executive functions responsible for controlling and organizing behavior, selecting and constructing strategies, and monitoring performance. The second system is the ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Educational Psychology, 6-102 Education North, University of Alberta, Edmonton-AB, Canada T6G 2G5. Tel.: + 1 780 492 8247. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.K. Georgiou). 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.006
Attention system, which is responsible for maintaining arousal levels and alertness, and ensuring focus on relevant stimuli. The third system is the Information Processing system, which employs Simultaneous and Successive processing to encode, transform, and retain information. According to PASS theory, successive processing predicts reading through the effects of phonological recoding and simultaneous processing predicts reading through the effects of orthographic knowledge (Das et al., 1994; Kirby & Williams, 1991; Naglieri & Das, 2005). Planning and attention play an auxiliary role, namely they allow the deployment of the proximal cognitive skills (phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge). Despite the long history of PASS theory as it relates to reading (see Cummins & Das, 1978; Das et al., 1979), there are still few issues that have not been resolved. First, although the theory assumes that phonological processing is predicted by successive processing and orthographic knowledge is predicted by simultaneous processing, none of the existing studies has included any measures of orthographic knowledge, defined here as knowledge of character structure and radical awareness (Chan & Nunes, 2001). Likewise, there are studies that have only examined the direct effects of the PASS processes on reading without including measures of phonological processing or orthographic knowledge. In one of these, which is most relevant in the context of our paper, Leong, Cheng, and Das (1985) showed in a cross-sectional study with Chinese readers in Hong Kong that in Grade 4, reading was predicted by simultaneous processing and, to a lesser extent, by successive processing. In Grade 6, there was a shift in processing strategies; successive accounted for more variance than simultaneous processing. Although this early study by Leong and colleagues did establish an
140
X. Wang et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 139–143
important connection between reading and simultaneous–successive processing, it is still unknown whether PASS processes would predict reading if phonological awareness or orthographic knowledge were taken into account. Second, none of the existing studies has examined the relationship between PASS processes and reading fluency, which is one of the primary goals of reading instruction beyond the early grades. Finally, to our knowledge, this is first longitudinal study that examined the relationship between PASS processes and reading in an unselected sample of children. The characteristics of Chinese orthography have implications for the role of PASS processes on reading. Given that the Chinese characters are visually compact and complicated, simultaneous processing should play an important role because of its emphasis on holistic processing of visual information. In addition, because most Chinese characters are read by analyzing and synthesizing the component radicals, successive processing should contribute to reading as well. Therefore, we would expect that both successive and simultaneous processes have a role to play in Chinese reading. However, several researchers pointed out that the relationship between phonological awareness or orthographic knowledge (the presumed mediators between PASS processes and reading) and Chinese reading is much weaker than what has been found in alphabetic languages and may disappear in older grades (e.g., Siok & Fletcher, 2001; Tan, Spinks, Eden, Perfetti, & Siok, 2005; Tong & McBride-Chang, 2010). Subsequently, the presumed link between PASS processes and reading may as well fade or disappear in older grades.
children and adolescents ranging from 5 through 17 years of age that has been designed to assess the four PASS cognitive processes. The standard battery, which was used in this study, consists of 12 subtests; three subtests for each one of the PASS scales. Descriptions of the subtests and scales as well as evidence for the reliability of the individual subtest scores are provided in the manual (Naglieri & Das, 1997). The CAS was translated into Chinese from its English version (Naglieri & Das, 1997) under the guidance of the third author. Both administration and scoring of the CAS tasks were completed following the instructions in the manual (Naglieri & Das, 1997). Because there are no standardized norms for CAS in Chinese, the subscale score was derived from the results of factor analysis (see Results section). The psychometric properties of the CAS in Chinese have been published by Deng, Liu, Wei, Chan, and Das (2011). All subtests of CAS were reported to have acceptable test–retest reliability (r = .72–.90, p b .01). 1.2.4. Reading accuracy and fluency The Character Recognition and the One-Minute reading tasks, adapted from HKT SpLD (Ho et al., 2000), were used to assess reading accuracy and fluency, respectively. In Character Recognition, the children were asked to read aloud 150 Chinese two-character words arranged in terms of difficulty. One point was given for each word correctly read. In One-Minute reading, the children were asked to read aloud as many words as possible within 1 min. The task included 90 words that were arranged in 10 columns. A participant's score was the total number of words correctly read within a minute.
1. Method 1.3. Procedure 1.1. Participants One hundred forty-five children from Fuding City, Fujian Province, China were randomly selected to participate in this study. When tested for the first time, 48 of the children (25 boys and 23 girls) were attending Grade 3 and had a mean age of 8 years 7 months (SD= .51), 48 of the children (23 boys and 25 girls) were attending Grade 4 and had a mean age of 10 years 1 month (SD= .49), and 49 children (25 boys and 24 girls) were attending Grade 5 and had a mean age of 11 years 2 months (SD= .63). A follow-up was carried out a year later, when the children were in Grades 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The final sample consisted of 140 children. All participants were native speakers of Mandarin, attended school regularly, and did not have any developmental or sensory disabilities. Written permission from parents was obtained prior to testing.
The participants were assessed in a quiet room in their schools during school hours by the first author and a graduate student. At the first measurement point, the testing was completed in two sessions. Session A consisted of the phonological awareness tests (rhyme, onset, and tone awareness) and the orthographic knowledge tests (lexical reversal and lexical decision), which could generally be completed within 30 min. Session B consisted of the PASS cognitive measures, which generally took around 90 min to complete. At the second measurement point, the participants were assessed on Character Recognition and One-Minute reading, which took approximately 15 min to complete. The administration of the tests within each session was counterbalanced across the participants to avoid order effects. 2. Results
1.2. Materials 1.2.1. Phonological awareness The rhyme awareness, the onset awareness, and the tone awareness tasks, adapted from the Hong Kong Test of Specific Learning Difficulties in Reading and Writing (HKT-SpLD; Ho, Chan, Tsang, & Lee, 2000), were used to assess phonological awareness. The administration and scoring was done according to the manual. 1.2.2. Orthographic knowledge The lexical reversal and lexical decision tasks, adapted from the HKT SpLD (Ho et al., 2000), were used to assess orthographic knowledge. The lexical reversal task assesses children's ability to identify the correct orientation of certain highly frequent orthographic units. In turn, the lexical decision task assesses children's knowledge of Chinese character structure. The administration and scoring was done according to the manual. 1.2.3. Cognitive assessment system The Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997) is an individually administered test of cognitive functioning for
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for all the measures used in the study. The distributions of the measures were normal or close to normal. Before examining the effect of PASS processes on reading, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the factor structure of CAS in Chinese. The z scores of the CAS subtests were used instead of the raw scores, because the raw scores showed diverse ranges and variances (see Table 1). Maximum likelihood estimation procedures were used to analyze the variance/covariance matrix of the observed variables using AMOS 17 (Arbuckle, 2006). To evaluate the model fit, the chi-square value and a set of fit indices were used: (a) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI); (b) the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI); and (c) the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The factor loadings are shown in Table 2. The model fitted the data very well. The fit indices obtained were: χ 2 (48, N = 145) = 48.95, χ 2/ df = .99, p = .499, CFI = .99, GFI = .95, and RMSEA = .01. For comparison purposes, we also list in Table 2 the factor loadings of the data used for the standardization of CAS with an American sample (ages 8–10 years) taken from the CAS manual (Naglieri & Das, 1997). The results indicate that the factor loadings for the Chinese and the American
X. Wang et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 139–143 Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all the variables in the study. Variables
M
Phonological awareness Rhyme awareness Onset awareness Tone awareness Orthographic knowledge Lexical reversal Lexical decision Planning Matching numbers Planned codes Planned connection Attention Expressive attention Number detection Receptive attention Simultaneous NVM VSR Figure memory Successive Words series Sentence repetition Sentence question Reading One-Minute reading Character Recognition
SD
Min
Max
Cronbach's α
16.11 17.37 8.52
3.69 4.05 2.32
4 5 2
22 23 12
.75 .72 .70
37.74 35.13
3.81 4.57
28 25
40 40
.73 .76
11.81 59.21 242.94
3.26 17.83 69.86
4 7 122
20 103 426
.90 .83 .81
38.17 50.85 37.42
9.84 17.09 10.50
15 11 6
74 87 62
.89 .88 .82
21.83 19.33 16.44
4.52 3.40 4.25
10 12 6
30 27 26
.92 .85 .90
17.81 5.92 8.24
4.70 1.92 2.85
8 3 2
27 11 18
.82 .85 .78
96.48 125.77
15.10 16.97
60 78
128 150
.94 .89
Note. NVM = Nonverbal matrices; VSR = Verbal spatial relations.
PASS model were very similar. The factor scores for each CAS subscale were used in further analyses. 2.1. Correlational analyses Table 3 presents the correlations between the different measures for the entire sample (n = 140). First, the correlations indicate that the phonological awareness measures were highly correlated with each other (rs > .66). The two orthographic knowledge tasks were also highly correlated with each other (r = .73). Second, among the PASS processes, the correlations were, in general, weak and in some instances failed to reach significance. The highest correlation was between simultaneous and successive processing (r = .50) and the lowest between planning and successive processing (r = .14). Third, planning did not correlate significantly with the onset and tone awareness as well as with both orthographic knowledge measures. In contrast, attention, simultaneous, and successive processing correlated significantly with all phonological awareness and orthographic
Table 2 Results of confirmatory factor analysis. Subtest
Scale Planning
Matching numbers Planned codes Planned connections Nonverbal matrices Verbal spatial relations Figure memory Expressive attention Number detection Receptive attention Word series Sentence repetition Sentence question
Simultaneous
Attention
Successive
.614 (.734) .559 (.543) .703 (.766) .618 (.509) .682 (.681) .708 (.804) .683 (.688) .682 (.598) .765 (.667) .791 (.691) .784 (.854) .657 (.805)
Note. In parenthesis the factor loadings derived from a confirmatory factor analysis with an American sample for ages 8–10 years as reported in the manual of Cognitive Assessment System (see Naglieri & Das, 1997, p. 54).
141
knowledge measures. It is worth noting that the correlations between simultaneous processing and the orthographic knowledge measures were higher than the corresponding ones with the phonological awareness measures. Similarly, the correlations between successive processing and phonological awareness were higher than the corresponding ones with orthographic knowledge. Finally, with the exception of planning, all the PASS measures correlated significantly with the two reading outcomes. 2.2. Regression analyses Next, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses in order to examine the role of the PASS processes on reading. OneMinute Reading and Character Recognition were the dependent variables. Factor scores for the PASS processes, phonological awareness, and orthographic knowledge were calculated and used in further analyses. Because planning was not significantly related with the phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, and reading measures (see Table 3), it was eliminated from the regression analyses. The order of the variables entered in the regression equation was as follows. First, we controlled for age (entered at step 1) and attention (entered at step 2). Phonological awareness was entered at step 3 followed by successive processing at step 4. The order of entry between steps 3 and 4 was then reversed to examine the unique contribution of phonological awareness (entered now at step 4), after controlling for the effects of successive processing (entered now at step 3). This would test the prediction that the effect of successive processing is mediated by phonological awareness. In a second set of hierarchical regression analyses, we entered in the regression equation orthographic knowledge at step 3 and simultaneous processing at step 4. The order of entry between steps 3 and 4 was then reversed to examine the unique contribution of orthographic knowledge (entered now at step 4), after controlling for the effects of simultaneous processing (entered now at step 3). This would test the prediction that the effect of simultaneous processing is mediated by orthographic knowledge. Table 4 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses. Standardized beta coefficients, R² changes, and level of significance are presented. When One-Minute reading was the dependent variable, phonological awareness (entered at step 3) accounted for 14% of the variance and successive processing (entered at step 4) explained an additional 3%. When we reversed the order of entry, successive processing accounted for 9% of the variance and phonological awareness for 7% of the variance. We then examined the effects of orthographic knowledge and simultaneous processing. Orthographic processing (entered at step 3) accounted for 18% of the variance, but simultaneous processing did not account for any unique variance. When we reversed the order of entry, simultaneous processing accounted for 12% of the variance and orthographic processing for an additional 6%. When Character Recognition was the dependent variable, phonological awareness (entered at step 3) explained 13% of the variance and successive processing (entered at step 4) did not account for any unique variance. Simultaneous processing did not account for a significant amount of variance when entered last in the regression equation after age, attention, and orthographic knowledge. When successive processing was entered in the regression equation before phonological awareness and simultaneous processing before orthographic processing, they accounted for 6% and 9% of the variance, respectively. To examine further whether the effects of successive and simultaneous processing were mediated by phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge, respectively, mediation analysis was conducted. Sobel's z statistic was used (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2003). The results indicated that phonological awareness mediated the relationship between successive processing and Character Recognition (Sobel's z = 4.72, p b .001) and One-Minute reading (Sobel's z = 4.61, p b .001).
142
X. Wang et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 139–143
Table 3 Correlations between the measures.
1. Rhyme awareness 2. Onset awareness 3. Tone awareness 4. Lexical reversal 5. Lexical decision 6. Planning 7. Attention 8. Simultaneous 9. Successive 10. One-Minute reading 11. Character recognition
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
.76⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .18⁎ .42⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .46⁎⁎ .55⁎⁎
.69⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .07 .36⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎
.40⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎ .15 .24⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎
.73⁎⁎ .04 .21⁎ .73⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .53⁎⁎
.15 .28⁎⁎ .67⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎
.49⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .14 .18 .16
.29⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎
.50⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎
.42⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎
.58⁎⁎
⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
Likewise, orthographic knowledge mediated the relationship between simultaneous processing and Character Recognition (Sobel's z = 4.15, p b .001) and One-Minute reading (Sobel's z = 4.87, p b .001).
3. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of PASS cognitive processes on Chinese reading accuracy and fluency. The results verified the predictions of the PASS theory: successive processing predicted reading through the effects of phonological awareness and simultaneous processing predicted reading through the effects of orthographic knowledge. Thus, it could be argued that both successive and simultaneous processes are needed in parallel in Chinese reading. Within the family of PASS cognitive processes, planning was the only one that did not significantly correlate with any of the phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, or reading measures. There may be two reasons for this. First, it is possible that planning, as operationalized in CAS, is not relevant for any of the operations involved in the outcome measures. Second, the contribution of planning is likely influenced by the contribution of attention, which precedes planning in the PASS theory (Das et al., 1994). It is worth noting that attention produced equally strong correlations with One-Minute reading as successive processing. Certainly, for a child to read fast and accurately in a language (Chinese) that provides only partial clues on the pronunciation of the different characters, attention is needed for deciphering the details of each character composition that would differentiate it from a similar one.
Table 4 Regression analyses predicting One-Minute reading and Character Recognition. Step
1. 2. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4.
Variables
Age Attention PHA Successive Successive PHA OK Simultaneous Simultaneous OK
One-Minute reading
Character Recognition
β
ΔR²
β
ΔR²
.253 .376 .403 .206 .329 .321 .423 .046 .345 .389
.06⁎⁎ .09⁎⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎⁎ .03⁎ .09⁎⁎⁎ .07⁎⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎⁎
.366 .402 .399 .133 .266 .346 .409 .056 .299 .356
.13⁎⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎⁎
.00 .12⁎⁎⁎ .06⁎⁎
Note. PHA = Phonological Awareness; OK = Orthographic Knowledge. ⁎ p b .05.; ** p b .01; *** p b .001.
.01 .06⁎⁎⁎ .09⁎⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎⁎ .00 .09⁎⁎⁎ .06⁎⁎
The importance of successive and simultaneous processing for phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, and reading, suggests that cognitive processes should continue to be examined in relation to reading and reading-related skills. For instance, studying the relationship between cognitive processes and phonological awareness may improve our understanding about the underlying components of phonological skills. In turn, this knowledge could be used in the development of cognitive-based remediation programs (e.g., Das, Mishra, & Pool, 1995; Papadopoulos, Charalambous, Kanari, & Loizou, 2004; Parrila, Das, Kendrick, Papadopoulos, & Kirby, 2000). Papadopoulos et al. (2004), for example, demonstrated that intensive intervention in cognitive processes, such as successive and simultaneous processing significantly improves the phonological skills of kindergarten children at-risk for reading disabilities. Some limitations of the study are worth mentioning. First, we did not use any measures of morphological awareness in this study despite the evidence from several studies showing their relevance to reading in Chinese (e.g., Ho, Chan, Tsang, & Lee, 2002; Shu, McBride-Chang, Wu, & Liu, 2006). Certainly, future research should include these measures to evaluate the relative weight of phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge in relation to morphological awareness. It is possible, as nicely demonstrated in McBride-Chang and colleagues' work (e.g., McBride-Chang & Kail, 2002; McBride-Chang et al., 2005), that the inclusion or non-inclusion of measures of morphological awareness determines the significance of phonological awareness on reading. Second, this study focused on word reading skills and did not include measures of comprehension. Given that reading comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading, future studies should incorporate measures of comprehension and examine how the PASS processes may contribute to it. Third, although we have tested a theoretical account that considers two routes for accurate word recognition we do not rule out the possibility of a third route involved in Chinese reading. In fact, several studies have shown that Chinese children use information derived from semantic radicals to read (e.g., Chen & Weekes, 2004; Law, Wong, Yeung, & Weekes, 2008; Leung & Ho, 2009). Finally, we have used raw scores for the PASS processes in the absence of a standardized CAS battery in Chinese. This, in turn, prohibits any direct comparisons between the cognitive profiles of Chinese children and those examined in English studies. In conclusion, the findings of the present study supported the relevance of PASS theory and its connection to reading through the effects of phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge. It is important that these connections have been found in a non-alphabetic language (Chinese), which does not allow the application of simple decoding strategies to read. Given the known contribution of PASS cognitive processes in alphabetic languages, these findings may suggest that the effects of simultaneous and successive processing in reading are likely universal.
X. Wang et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 139–143
References Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS 7.0 user's guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. Chan, L., & Nunes, T. (2001). Explicit teaching and implicit learning of Chinese characters. In L. Tolchinsky (Ed.), Developemetal aspects in learning to write (pp. 33–53). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Chen, M. J., & Weekes, B. S. (2004). Effects of semantic radicals on Chinese character categorization and character decision. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 46, 181–196. Cummins, J., & Das, J. P. (1978). Simultaneous and successive syntheses and linguistic processes. International Journal of Psychology, 3, 129–138. Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., & Jarman, R. F. (1979). Simultaneous and successive cognitive processes. New York: Academic Press. Das, J. P., Mishra, R. K., & Pool, J. E. (1995). An experiment of cognitive remediation of word-reading difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 66–79. Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes: The PASS theory of intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Das, J. P., Papadopoulos, T. C., & Parrila, R. (2000). Explaining reading by cognitive processes, not IQ. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 5–6. Deng, C. -P., Liu, M., Wei, W., Chan, R. C. K., & Das, J. P. (2011). Latent factor structure of the Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System: A confirmatory factor analysis in a Chinese setting. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1988–1997. Ho, C. S. -H., Chan, D. W. -O., Tsang, S. -M., & Lee, S. -H. (2000). The Hong Kong test of specific learning difficulties in reading and writing (HKT-SpLD) manual. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Specific Learning Difficulties Research Team (In Chinese). Ho, C. S. -H., Chan, D. W. -O., Tsang, S. -M., & Lee, S. -H. (2002). The cognitive profile and multiple-deficit hypothesis in Chinese developmental dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 38, 543–553. Jiménez, J. E., Siegel, L., O'Shanahan, I., & Ford, L. (2009). The relative roles of IQ and cognitive processes in reading disability. Educational Psychology, 29, 27–43. Joseph, L. M., McCachran, M. E., & Naglieri, J. A. (2003). PASS cognitive processes, phonological processes, and the basic reading performance for a sample of referred primary-grade children. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 304–314. Kirby, J. R., & Williams, N. H. (1991). Learning problems: A cognitive approach. Toronto: Kagan & Woo Limited. Kortteinen, H., Närhi, V., & Ahonen, T. (2009). Does IQ matter in adolescents' reading disability? Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 257–261. Law, S. -P., Wong, W., Yeung, O., & Weekes, B. S. (2008). A case study of the effects of age-of-acquisition on reading aloud in Chinese dyslexia. Neurocase, 14, 276–289. Leong, C. K., Cheng, S. C., & Das, J. P. (1985). Simultaneous–successive syntheses and planning in Chinese reader. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 19–31. Leung, K. N. -K., & Ho, C. S. -H. (2009). Semantic radical awareness in Chinese dyslexic and its role in Chinese word reading. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 10, 169–190. Luria, A. R. (1966). Human brain and psychological processes. New York: Harper & Row. Lynn, R. (2010). High IQ is sufficient to explain the high achievements in math and science of the East Asian people. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 567–568.
143
McBride-Chang, C., Cho, J. -R., Liu, H., Wagner, R., Shu, H., Zhou, A., et al. (2005). Changing models across cultures: Associations of phonological awareness and morphological structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second graders from Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 140–160. McBride-Chang, C., & Kail, R. (2002). Cross-cultural similarities in the predictors of reading acquisition. Child Development, 73, 1392–1407. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (2005). Planning, Attantion, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS) theory: A revision of the concept fo intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 120–135). New York: Guiford Press. Naglieri, J. A., & Reardon, S. M. (1993). Traditional IQ is irrelevant to learning disabilities —intelligence is not. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 127–133. OECD (2010). PISA 1009 results: What students know and can do — Students performance in reading, mathematics and science, volume I, Retrieved from. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1787/9789264091450-en Papadopoulos, T. C., Charalambous, A., Kanari, A., & Loizou, M. (2004). Kindergarten intervention for dyslexia: The PREP remediation in Greek. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19, 79–105. Parrila, R. K., Das, J. P., Kendrick, M. E., Papadopoulos, T. C., & Kirby, J. R. (2000). Cognitive reading remediation for at-risk children in grade 1. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 1, 114–139. Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Calculations for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. Available at. http://people.ku.edu/~preacher/ sobel/sobel.htm Share, D. L. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615. Shu, H., McBride-Chang, C., Wu, S., & Liu, H. (2006). Understanding Chinese developmental dyslexia: Morphological awareness as a core cognitive construct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 122–133. Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 468–478. Siok, W. T., & Fletcher, P. (2001). The role of phonological awareness and visualorthographic skills in Chinese reading acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 37, 886–899. Tan, L. H., Spinks, J. A., Eden, G. F., Perfetti, C. A., & Siok, W. T. (2005). Reading depends on writing, in Chinese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 8781–8785. Tong, X., & McBride-Chang, C. (2010). Developmental models of learning to read Chinese words. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1662–1676.