Simple View of Reading Across the Transition from Kindergarten to Grade 1 in a Transparent Orthography

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Simple View of Reading Across the Transition from Kindergarten to Grade 1 in a Transparent Orthography © 2023 the Authors Published version Silinskas, Gintautas; Gedutiene, Reda; Torppa, Minna; Raiziene, Saule Silinskas, G., Gedutiene, R., Torppa, M., & Raiziene, S. (2024). Simple View of Reading Across the Transition from Kindergarten to Grade 1 in a Transparent Orthography. Scientific Studies of Reading, 28(1), 60-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2023.2220848 2024 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hssr20 Scientific Studies of Reading ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hssr20 Simple View of Reading Across the Transition from Kindergarten to Grade 1 in a Transparent Orthography Gintautas Silinskas, Reda Gedutiene, Minna Torppa & Saule Raiziene To cite this article: Gintautas Silinskas, Reda Gedutiene, Minna Torppa & Saule Raiziene (2023): Simple View of Reading Across the Transition from Kindergarten to Grade 1 in a Transparent Orthography, Scientific Studies of Reading, DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2023.2220848 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2023.2220848 © 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Published online: 07 Jun 2023. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Simple View of Reading Across the Transition from Kindergarten to Grade 1 in a Transparent Orthography Gintautas Silinskas a , Reda Gedutiene b , Minna Torppa c , and Saule Raiziene d a Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; b Department of Psychology, Klaipeda University, Klaipeda, Lithuania; c Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; d Department of Psychology, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania ABSTRACT Purpose: This longitudinal study investigated the simple view of reading (SVR) model and its cognitive basis in a transparent orthography of the Lithuanian across the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. Method: The language and early literacy skills of 229 children (Mage = 6.79, SD = .47) were tested at the end of kindergarten (vocabulary, letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and RAN); listening comprehension and word reading fluency were tested at the start of Grade 1; and reading comprehension was measured at the end of Grade 1. Results: Together with parental education, word reading fluency and listening comprehension predicted reading comprehension (R2 = 43.2%). The second model, which also included language and early literacy skills, showed that vocabulary and phonological awareness indirectly predicted reading comprehension via listening comprehension, while phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and rapid automatized naming (RAN) indirectly predicted reading comprehension via word reading fluency (R2 = 43.6%). However, after allowing the direct paths from language and early literacy skills in kindergarten to reading comprehension, listening comprehension and word reading fluency were no longer significant predictors of reading comprehension, whereas vocabulary and letter knowledge were (R2 = 58.9%). Conclusion: The results provided support for the SVR model in transparent Lithuanian orthography in that linguistic and decoding components are important for early reading comprehension. However, the results also suggested that, in the Lithuanian context, kindergarten vocabulary and letter knowledge are stronger measures in predicting reading comprehension than listening comprehension and word reading fluency in Grade 1. Children’s ability to understand what they have read is a goal in children’s first years of schooling, and it further predicts later school success (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Juel, 1988). According to one popular model of reading acquisition – the simple view of reading (SVR) – reading comprehension is a product of two components: linguistic comprehension and decoding (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990). Linguistic (or listening) comprehension refers to the ability to understand and make sense of spoken language (Hogan et al., 2014; Kendeou et al., 2009), and decoding is understood as the ability to rapidly produce sounds corresponding to the graphemes of a given CONTACT Gintautas Silinskas [email protected] Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä 40014, Finland This study is a part of “Get involved!” longitudinal data collection, which was supported by the Academy of Finland (#296082, #331525, and #336148). The materials, data and analysis code for this study are available upon reasonable request by emailing the corresponding author. The analyses presented in this study were not preregistered. SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2023.2220848 © 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. orthography (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Kendeou et al., 2009). Although previous research has emphasized the need for longitudinal studies to support the SVR (Florit & Cain, 2011), many studies have relied on concurrent data and tested children attending primary school and after (Tilstra et al., 2009). These studies found that the amount of explained variance in reading comprehension decreased in higher grades (Joshi, 2018; Tilstra et al., 2009), and that the relative importance of decoding decreased, while the relative importance of listening comprehension increased with higher grades (Joshi et al., 2012; Tilstra et al., 2009). Given these tendencies, it is surprising that only a few studies considered following children earlier, for instance, across the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1 (see, e.g., LARRC & Chiu & LARRC, 2018; Torppa et al., 2016). The vast majority of SVR research has concerned children learning to read in English (Florit & Cain, 2011; J. R. Kirby & Savage, 2008; Joshi, 2018; Stuart et al., 2008). This is a clear gap in the literature, given that the majority of alphabetic languages in which children learn to read are languages other than English (Arab-Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001; Gedutienė, 2020). Some SVR research is also available in different orthographies varying in transparency (e.g., Finnish: Torppa et al., 2016; Greek: Kendeou et al., 2013; Italian: Florit et al., 2022; German: Landerl & Wimmer, 2008), but such research has not yet been examined among children learning to read Lithuanian. As children are learning to read in a large variety of cultural environments, and orthographies vary in transparency (Florit & Cain, 2011), new evidence coming from different orthographies may enrich our current understanding of the generalizability of the SVR across orthographies. Transparency of orthography has important effects on reading acquisition (Seymour et al., 2003), and Lithuanian orthography represents a relatively consistent grapheme – phoneme correspondence with a somewhat complex syllable structure. In transparent orthographies, the decoding component of reading comprehension can be tested early due to early and rapid reading acquisition. Therefore, a novelty of the current study is that it uses longitudinal data following children across the critical period of acquiring reading skills – the transition from kindergarten to formal reading instruction in Grade 1. This study also examines whether the SVR components offer the best prediction of reading comprehension or whether an extension of the model is needed for accurate early prediction of reading comprehension. When investigating early reading development, it has been proposed that a variety of language (e.g., vocabulary) and early literacy skills (e.g., letter knowledge, RAN) predict SVR components and reading comprehension across orthographies (e.g., Kim, 2020a, 2020b; LARRC & Chiu & LARRC, 2018; Torppa et al., 2016). In sum, the present longitudinal study investigates the SVR model in a transparent orthography of Lithuanian children learning to read across the critical transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. We also sought to determine a set of language and early literacy skills that would best predict early reading acquisition and to identify whether their impact on reading comprehension was direct or mediated via the key components of SVR, decoding, and listening comprehension. Listening comprehension, reading fluency, and reading comprehension According to SVR, linguistic comprehension is one of the two major contributors to children’s reading comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990). Linguistic comprehension can be viewed as a broad construct, including the understanding of words, sentences, and text-level skills, and it is often labeled by a variety of concepts, such as language, listening, and oral (language) skills (Hogan et al., 2014; Kendeou et al., 2009). Previous studies have typically measured linguistic comprehension by listening comprehension or vocabulary tasks (Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Kendeou et al., 2009; Torppa et al., 2016). In the present study, the oral language tasks measured children’s understanding of spoken language at the story comprehension level, which is referred to as listening comprehension. The second crucial predictor of reading comprehension in SVR is decoding (or word recognition; Hoover & Tunmer, 2022), which can broadly be described as the ability to apply knowledge of letter – sound relations in reading (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Kendeou et al., 2009). Decoding has been assessed using a variety of measures related to the accuracy and fluency of reading. Within the SVR theoretical 2G. SILINSKAS ET AL. framework, decoding has been defined as the ability to read isolated words efficiently (i.e., quickly and accurately; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Tunmer, 2018, 2022). To this end, many researchers, especially those investigating SVR in transparent orthographies, have incorporated timed measures of decoding (i.e., measures of word reading fluency) to assess the efficiency of word recognition (Huo et al., 2021; Silverman et al., 2013; Torppa et al., 2016). In the context of transparent orthographies, using timed measures for decoding is especially relevant, as children learn to read with almost full accuracy soon after school entry (Aro & Wimmer, 2003; Seymour et al., 2003). Although both listening comprehension and decoding feed into reading comprehension, explaining 40%–80% of the variance (Joshi, 2018), their relative importance in predicting reading comprehension differs between transparent and opaque orthographies. Florit and Cain’s (2011) meta-analysis concluded that, in opaque orthographies (i.e., English), decoding is a stronger contributor to reading comprehension than oral language measures for a longer time than in transparent orthographies. This is because decoding in transparent orthographies becomes fluent/automatized earlier (de Jong & van der Leij, 2002; Joshi et al., 2012; Seymour et al., 2003). However, over time, listening comprehension becomes a more important predictor of reading comprehension than decoding in both transparent and opaque orthographies (e.g., Florit & Cain, 2011). Once decoding becomes automatized and fast enough, the effect of listening comprehension on reading comprehension should become stronger than that of decoding, as decoding no longer causes cognitive load or burdens the memory required for reading comprehension (e.g., Perfetti, 1985). Therefore, in transparent orthographies (e.g., Lithuanian), listening comprehension can be a more powerful predictor of reading comprehension than decoding quite early on (Florit & Cain, 2011; Florit et al., 2022; Torppa et al., 2016). However, particularly in the beginning stages of reading development, it is possible that decoding still has a large effect on reading comprehension. Consequently, in the present study, we expected to find a significant effect of both listening comprehension and decoding on Grade 1 reading comprehension. Language and early literacy predictors of listening comprehension, word reading fluency, and reading comprehension The two main predictors of reading comprehension in the SVR – listening comprehension and decoding efficiency – are based on a number of language and early literacy skills (e.g., vocabulary, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, RAN). This idea is comprehensively described in the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER; Kim, 2017, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). According to DIER, foundational cognitive skills (e.g., language and early literacy skills) are necessary building blocks for the decoding and listening comprehension components of SVR. In addition to the hierarchical structure, the DIER also emphasizes interactive and dynamic relations between the component skills. That is, developing skills are interrelated with each other, and their relative importance changes as a function of reading skill development (Kim, 2017, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). From a practical viewpoint, knowledge of the cognitive predictors of the components of SVR can thus add to the efficacy of the early identification of children at risk for reading difficulties. In the present study, we examine the roles of vocabulary, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and rapid automatized naming (RAN) as predictors of the SVR components, word reading fluency, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension. First, among a number of predictors identified to predict listening comprehension, vocabulary has been shown to be among the strongest (Cain et al., 2004; Florit et al., 2022; G. P. Ouellette, 2006; Manolitsis et al., 2011; Sénéchal, 2006). For instance, in the transparent Finnish orthography, vocabulary in kindergarten was found to predict listening comprehension in Grade 1 (Silinskas, Torppa, et al., 2020; Torppa et al., 2016). Second, several predictors have been identified to predict decoding in terms of word reading fluency. Letter knowledge and phonological awareness are among the strongest predictors of early reading fluency development (e.g., Manolitsis et al., 2009; Puolakanaho et al., 2007; Torppa et al., 2016). This is not surprising because difficulties in the ability to recognize letters or process speech sounds (e.g., identify or manipulate phonemes in the words) may undermine the ability to make SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 3 sequences of grapheme – phoneme connections that are required for the development of decoding. Furthermore, as a spoken language measure, phonological awareness is also closely linked with other linguistic measures (e.g., vocabulary; Puolakanaho et al., 2007; Torppa, Poikkeus, et al., 2007a, 2007b) and is therefore proposed as a potential predictor of reading comprehension via both decoding and linguistic pathways. Finally, another important cognitive predictor of decoding is RAN, which is especially predictive of timed reading-related tasks such as word reading fluency (Georgiou et al., 2008; Landerl et al., 2019; Savage & Frederickson, 2005). The exact mechanism explaining the association between RAN and reading fluency is debated, but in general terms, the association stems from RAN and reading requiring the rapid serial cascaded processing of familiar linguistic items (e.g., Altani et al., 2020; J. R. Kirby et al., 2010; Protopapas et al., 2013). Early predictors of reading skill development have been extensively investigated but not in the Lithuanian context. Research on the early prediction of reading difficulties among Lithuanian children is still sparse (e.g., Labanienė et al., 2019). Also of interest to researchers is the longitudinal perspective – the pathways through which these cognitive skills measured at the end of kindergarten predict reading comprehension at the end of Grade 1 directly and indirectly through related skills at the start of Grade 1. The idea of these direct and indirect relations is advocated by the DIER (Kim, 2017, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c), suggesting that foundational early cognitive skills, through the development of oral language or decoding skills, enhance higher-order cognition or skills (e.g., reading comprehension). To investigate this idea in detail, we raised two alternative hypotheses. As the first alternative, we tested the indirect effects model, which implemented a strict hierarchical structure (Kim, 2020a). Previous research suggests that early literacy skills (e.g., letter knowledge and phonological awareness) before Grade 1 can influence reading comprehension indirectly through later decoding (Catts et al., 2005, 2006; Kendeou et al., 2009; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Torppa et al., 2016). While these indirect paths through decoding are frequently found, only a handful of studies have investigated how early language skills (e.g., vocabulary) indirectly predict reading comprehension through, for example, listening comprehension (Florit et al., 2022; LARRC & Chiu & LARRC, 2018; Lepola et al., 2016). As the second alternative, we tested the indirect and direct effects models (Kim, 2020a). The rationale for the second alternative was that, although language and early literacy skills in kindergarten can indirectly predict reading comprehension, it is possible that those early kindergarten skills can exert their influences on reading comprehension directly, over and above listening comprehension and reading fluency (Kim, 2020a). Notably, previous studies have typically measured reading comprehension among older children (e.g., Grade 3; LARRC & Chiu & LARRC, 2018; Lepola et al., 2016) or children in Grade 1 (Florit et al., 2022). Consequently, to expand on previous research, our longitudinal study followed children and applied age-appropriate measures to investigate reading development over the transition from kindergarten (T1) to Grade 1 (T2) and until the end of Grade 1 (T3). Reading skill development in the Lithuanian language and cultural/educational environment Lithuanian is the only official language of the Republic of Lithuania and one of the official languages of the European Union. The language represents the Baltic branch of the IndoEuropean language family and is widely considered to be among the oldest Indo-European languages still spoken today, retaining some archaic phonological and grammar features found only in extinct languages (Gedutienė, 2020). By contrast, the modern standard literary Lithuanian orthography was created in the early 20th century and thus represents a relatively new orthography with a relatively consistent grapheme – phoneme correspondence in reading (Gedutienė, 2020). The Lithuanian alphabet consists of 32 letters (20 consonants/45 phonemes and 12 vowels/10 phonemes). Vowels are represented in writing by 12 letters. The Lithuanian vowels are pronounced as short and long sounds. The two pairs of letters – y and į, ū and ų— represent the same long vowel phonemes,/i:/and/u:/, respectively. Consonants are represented in 4G. SILINSKAS ET AL. writing by 20 letters; for 3 consonants, the digraphs ch, dz, dž are used. The Lithuanian consonants are pronounced as hard and soft sounds (Gedutienė, 2020). As in some instances the same sound can be represented by a few letters/letter combinations, it is assumed that the Lithuanian orthography has quite consistent grapheme – phoneme correspondences (feedforward or spelling-to-sound consistency) but less consistent phoneme – grapheme correspondences (feedback or sound-to-spelling consistency). This “asymmetry” (the fact that spelling is more difficult than reading) is common even in orthographies considered highly transparent for both reading and spelling (Babayiğit, 2022). Apart from grapheme – phoneme correspondence, another criterion for classifying alphabetic orthographies is the complexity of the syllable structure (Seymour et al., 2003). In this respect, Lithuanian is quite complex, as it has numerous closed CVC (consonant-vowel-consonant) syllables (Gedutienė, 2020). As the transparency of the writing system has a direct effect on the speed with which children acquire reading skills (Pinto et al., 2015; Seymour et al., 2003), these features of language need to be acknowledged in reading research. Lithuanian children enter kindergarten on the first of September of the calendar year of their sixth birthday. In Lithuania, kindergarten education, which became compulsory in 2016, takes place one year before Grade 1 (LR [Republic of Lithuania] Ministry of Education, Science, and Sports, 2014). Kindergarten teachers have significant autonomy in choosing their pedagogical practices – which are confirmed by the school – and considering the individual needs of the children (LR Ministry of Education, Science, and Sports, 2014). The kindergarten curriculum does not set criteria for determining levels of reading skills before school entrance. Rather, kindergarten education is meant to “fill the gap” between children from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, especially the gaps concerning spoken language (Gedutienė, 2020). To this end, speech therapists screen children to identify difficulties in expressive and receptive spoken language and to help them cope before their entrance to Grade 1 (Gedutienė, 2020). It is only in Grade 1 that children are exposed to the systematic teaching of reading at school. During the first semester of Grade 1, listening to spoken language and comprehension of spoken text are emphasized. Children also start Grade 1 by learning letters and letter – sound correspondences, reading longer chains of letters quickly and accurately. Due to the transparency of the Lithuanian orthography (falling toward the transparent end on the opaque – transparent continuum), Lithuanian children become relatively accurate decoders by the end of the first semester of Grade 1 but mostly vary by the speed of reading (Gedutienė, 2008). Toward the end of Grade 1, reading comprehension plays a central role in reading skill development (Republic, 2014). These characteristics of Lithuanian language and instruction in Lithuanian schools dictated the measures and timeline of our longitudinal investigation. Research questions The main aim of our longitudinal study was to examine the SVR model in Lithuanian across the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. To examine whether an extension of SVR is useful in predicting reading comprehension, we also examined the role of key language and early literacy skills in kindergarten as predictors of the components of SVR and asked the following research questions: (1) To what extent do listening comprehension and word reading fluency at the start of Grade 1 predict reading comprehension at the end of Grade 1? We expected to confirm the SVR model (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990), meaning that listening comprehension and word reading fluency would predict reading comprehension among Grade 1 Lithuanian children (Model 1). (2) To what extent do language and early literacy skills (i.e., vocabulary, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, RAN) directly and indirectly predict reading comprehension, listening SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 5 comprehension, and word reading fluency (Kim, 2020a)? We constructed two alternative models: Model 2A and Model 2B. Model 2A: The Hierarchical, Indirect Effects Path Model. Language and early literacy predictors at the end of kindergarten only indirectly predict reading comprehension at the end of Grade 1 through listening comprehension (Florit et al., 2022; LARRC & Chiu & LARRC, 2018; Torppa et al., 2016) and word reading fluency (Catts et al., 2005; Kendeou et al., 2009; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002) at the start of Grade 1. Model 2B: The Direct and Indirect Effects Path Model. Language and early literacy predictors both directly and indirectly (via listening comprehension and word reading fluency) predict reading comprehension (Kim, 2020a). Methods Participants and procedure The data came from the longitudinal data collection “Get involved! Transition to Grade 1” (Silinskas & Raiziene, 2017–2018), which followed Lithuanian children across their transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Jyväskylä (3.5.2017), and the study conforms to the Declaration of Helsinki. Legal guardians of the participating children provided informed written consents, and children gave their assent prior to their inclusion in the study. We initially approached six principals who granted us permission to collect data at their schools. All participating kindergarten classes were situated in the same buildings as the children’s future primary schools, and all the schools were Lithuanian-speaking. Regarding their home language environments, 89.6% of the children spoke only Lithuanian at home, and 6.8% spoke a combination of Lithuanian and Russian or Polish. In particular, 1.8% spoke only Russian at home, and 0.9% spoke only Polish at home, but these children did not differ from the rest in terms of any of the study variables. This language profile of our sample is fairly representative of the overall population of Lithuania, where the minority languages most commonly spoken at home are Polish (6%) and Russian (5%) (Statistics Lithuania, 2014). Moreover, the sample was highly homogeneous with regard to the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of the study participants, which is typical of the school population in Lithuania. In terms of parental education (Statistics Lithuania, 2014), our sample comprised somewhat highly educated parents: 66.4% reported that they had obtained a university degree, 24.1% had completed a college or polytechnic program, 7.1% had completed high school, and only 2.4% had completed a level lower than high school. The children were tested individually at the end of kindergarten (T1, April – May, 2017, n = 229, 116 girls), at the beginning of Grade 1 (T2, October – November, 2017, n = 183), and at the end of Grade 1 (T3, April – May, 2018, n = 186). On each occasion, testing took place in the office of the school psychologist who administered the test battery. They all received training on the use of this particular test battery prior to each measurement point. On the first testing occasion, many of the children were approaching seven years of age (M age = 6.79, SD = .47). Forty-six children dropped out of the study between T1 and T2 because they moved away, changed schools, or were absent from the schools for the testing periods. The analyses of the missing data revealed no systematic differences between the children who had dropped out, stayed in the study, or joined the study at any time point (also see Little’s MCAR test results in the Analysis Strategy section). 6G. SILINSKAS ET AL. Measures—child tests (T1, T2, and T3) All the measures used in this study were developed based on those employed in the Finnish First Steps longitudinal study (M.-K. Lerkkanen et al., 2006–2016) and another longitudinal study in Lithuania (Gedutienė, 2008). Table 1 presents the psychometric properties of all the study variables. All psychometric properties, including reliabilities, were based on the present sample. End of kindergarten (T1) Vocabulary. The 30-item shortened version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised (PPVT-R, Form L; Dunn & Dunn, 1981) was used to measure children’s receptive vocabulary in kindergarten. The children were presented with four pictures and asked to point to the picture that correctly represented the word the tester had pronounced. The items for the shortened version were previously used in the Finnish First Steps longitudinal study (M.-K. Lerkkanen et al., 2006– 2016). Phonological Awareness. Two tests were used to measure phonological awareness: (1) initial phoneme identification and (2) initial phoneme deletion (Gedutienė, 2008). In the initial phoneme identification test, the children were read 12 words aloud and were asked to name the first sound of that word. In the initial phoneme deletion test, the children were read 12 words aloud and were asked to say the word without the first sound. Before both tasks, the children were presented with three practice items to ensure that they understood the instructions. The tasks were discontinued after three incorrect answers were given in a row. The scores for both tests were obtained by counting the number of correct items. For the main study analyses, the mean score of the two standardized test scores (z-scores) was calculated. Letter Knowledge. The children named all 32 letters of the Lithuanian orthography, which were arranged randomly into three rows (Gedutienė, 2008; M.-K. Lerkkanen et al., 2006). All letters were uppercase letters. The children named the letters one row at a time, while the other rows were covered. Both letter names and letter sounds were accepted as correct answers. The score was the number of correctly named letters/sounds. Table 1. Descriptives of all study variables, based on the present sample. N M SD Cronbach’s Range Skewness Kurtosis α Potential Actual End of Kindergarten (T1) Vocabulary 229 18.03 3.93 .68 0–30 7–26 −0.46 0.18 Initial phoneme identification 229 9.99 3.04 .91 0–12 0–12 −2.30 4.54 Initial phoneme deletion 229 3.53 4.67 .97 0–12 0–12 0.77 −1.21 Phonological awareness a 229 0.00 0.81 .93 −2.02–1.24 −0.52 0.19 Letter knowledge 229 26.92 7.31 .96 0–32 1–32 −2.07 3.61 RAN (objects per second) 228 0.72 0.17 0.25–1.22 0.19 0.20 Beginning of Grade 1 (T2) Listening comprehension 183 17.00 4.84 .90 0–26 0–25 −0.96 1.24 Word reading fluency 183 15.61 11.52 .97 0–75 0–57 0.99 1.40 End of Grade 1 (T3) Reading comprehension 186 8.49 3.01 .91 0–13 0–13 −1.14 1.08 Control variables Child gender (girl 0, boy 1) 229 ●Girl 116 ●Boy 113 Highest education in a family b 212 4.54 0.75 1–5 −1.82 3.44 Note. T1—end of Kindergarten, T2—beginning of Grade 1, and T3—end of Grade 1. a Phonological awareness is a mean score of two z-scores (initial phoneme identification and initial phoneme deletion). b highest education in a family was scored as follows: 1 = 0–8 years, 2 = 9–10 years, 3 = 11–12 years, 4 = college or polytechnics, 5 = university. SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 7 accuracy skill, and thus Kargiotidis et al’s (2022) study indirectly supports the validity of our findings. It should be noted, however, that letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and word reading fluency were strongly related to each other and the fact that the effect of word reading fluency disappeared after letter knowledge was entered to the model does not mean that word reading fluency would not be an important predictor of reading comprehension. Letter knowledge was merely the strongest measure among the predictors at this early phase of reading acquisition. It is also important to recognize that letter knowledge measure was not current (i.e., was not measured at the same time as reading comprehension) but rather from the previous year. It is expected that children learn all the letters by the end of Grade 1, thus the association between letter knowledge in kindergarten and reading comprehension at the end of Grade 1 highlights also the importance of children’s learning environments, either at home (Silinskas et al., 2021; Silinskas, Sénéchal, et al., 2020; Silinskas, Torppa, et al., 2020; Sénéchal, 2006) or kindergarten (Silinskas et al., 2017). Overall, in line with previous theories (SVR, Gough & Tunmer, 1986; DIER, Kim, 2017, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c), the current study suggests that children’s language and early literacy skills play an important role in their further development of reading comprehension. The findings thus emphasize the importance of kindergarten education in developing children’s future reading skills. In particular, children who score lower in vocabulary, letter knowledge, phonological awareness, or RAN might be at a higher risk of developing difficulties in decoding, listening comprehension, and, ultimately, reading comprehension. Consequently, kindergarten education in Lithuania could pay special attention to developing language and early literacy skills and thus monitor and provide early help to children to ensure that they do not fall behind their peers in Grade 1 reading development. Limitations The present study has some limitations. First, our study, although longitudinal, can indicate tentative relations and does not imply causality. Second, although our study was longitudinal, all the constructs were measured once; that is, no autoregressors were included. To examine mediations using longitudinal data, autoregressors need to be included. This was not the case in the present study but needs to be taken into consideration in the future studies. Third, our study followed children across the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1 and was unable to examine the developmental dynamics between SVR components and their language and early literacy predictors in the longer run. Future studies should implement additional usage of the same measures (enabling autoregressor effects). Fourth, the sample comprised somewhat highly educated parents. Although the home learning environment or parental literacy-related beliefs and activities were not the focus of this study, one needs to be careful when generalizing our results among children of lower-educated parents. Fifth, many of our measures were assessed by single tests and sometimes had somewhat low reliabilities and skewed distributions. To this end, we used an MLR estimator that took non-normality into account. However, to decrease measurement error, more than one test per construct should be used in future studies. Finally, although the SVR offered a parsimonious and comprehensive way of thinking about reading outcomes and their precursors, some competing views need to be acknowledged. The present study benefited from taking the DIER model into account when exploring the kindergarten predictors of reading comprehension. However, other theoretical approaches were not considered. For instance, the complete view of reading (CVR; Francis et al., 2018; see a commentary on this framework by Hoover & Tunmer, 2018) and the extended complete view of reading (ECVR; Snow, 2018) pay attention to the variation in readers (e.g., level of reading skills), features of reading tasks/texts, and reading strategies. Another framework – the active view of reading (AVR; Duke & Cartwright, 2021; see also a response by Hoover & Tunmer, 2022) – calls for acknowledgment of active, self-regulatory processes that affect reading development. Although the original SVR authors (Hoover & Tunmer, 2018, 2022) view these alternatives as complementary models that focus on different aspects of reading, these two models provide a promising framework for deepening our understanding about reading even further. Developing and testing these frameworks remains a challenge for future research. 14 G. SILINSKAS ET AL. Conclusion In sum, our findings generally supported the SVR model in transparent Lithuanian orthography among Grade 1 students. That is, listening comprehension and word reading fluency longitudinally predicted reading comprehension in Grade 1. However, the findings also emphasized the role of language and early literacy skills in kindergarten, such as vocabulary, letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and RAN. In fact, they were stronger predictors of reading comprehension than listening comprehension and word reading fluency. Therefore, in practice, vocabulary and letter knowledge likely work better in the early identification of children at risk for developing early reading comprehension problems, at least in the Lithuanian context. Our study makes some important contributions to the literature. First, while the model of the SVR has been extensively examined in English (Florit & Cain, 2011; J. R. Kirby & Savage, 2008; Joshi, 2018; Stuart et al., 2008), less is known about how it generalizes in the context of transparent orthographies. No previous studies of the SVR have been conducted in Lithuanian. While the model has been examined in a few transparent orthographies, such as Finnish (Torppa et al., 2016), German (Landerl & Wimmer, 2003), Greek (Kendeou et al., 2013), and Italian (Florit et al., 2022), transparent orthographies differ by the degree of transparency, syllabic structure, the language they represent and other aspects of language, and their educational and cultural environments. That is, it is difficult to quantify the degree of transparency of individual writing systems (Babayiğit, 2022). Thus, for greater generalizability across orthographies, the SVR model needs to be tested in different orthographies. Second, the current study is longitudinal; that is, data were collected three times during the important transition from kindergarten to systematic formal reading instruction commencing in Grade 1. By doing so, we were able to expand our viewpoint beyond SVR and detect the direct connections between the language and early literacy predictors and the components of the SVR. In particular, as suggested by the DIER theory, we estimated the direct and indirect pathways from language and early literacy skills in kindergarten to the goal – reading comprehension – at the end of Grade 1. Doing so allowed us to find the powerful role of vocabulary and letter knowledge in kindergarten in reading comprehension in Grade 1. Taken together, this knowledge can help in the early identification of children at risk for reading difficulties, and consequently enable timely and effective support in early reading development. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This work was supported by the grants of the Academy of Finland to Gintautas Silinskas (grant numbers #296082, #331525, #336148, #358041).The research contribution of Minna Torppa is part of the CRITICAL project funded by the Strategic Research Council (SRC) established within the Academy of Finland (Grants No. 335625 and No. 335727). ORCID Gintautas Silinskas http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5116-6877 Ethics approval statement The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Jyväskylä (3.5.2017), and the study conforms to the Declaration of Helsinki. Legal guardians of the participating children provided informed written consents, and children gave their assent prior to their inclusion in the study. SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 15 References Altani, A., Protopapas, A., Katopodi, K., & Georgiou, G. K. (2020). Tracking the serial advantage in the naming rate of multiple over isolated stimulus displays. Reading & Writing, 33(2), 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09962-7 Arab-Moghaddam, N., & Sénéchal, M. (2001). Orthographic and phonological skills in reading and spelling in Persian/ English bilinguals. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(2), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01650250042000320 Aro, M., & Wimmer, H. (2003). Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(4), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000316 Babayiğit, S. (2022). Does a truly symmetrically transparent orthography exist? Spelling is more difficult than reading even in an orthography considered highly transparent for both reading and spelling. Reading & Writing, 35(10), 2453–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10259-5 Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0022-0663.96.1.31 Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 49(2), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.125 Catts, H. W., Hogan, T., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In W. H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Erlbaum. Chiu, Y. D., & LARRC. (2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 289–303. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0741932518762055 Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934 Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5 de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(1), 51–77. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0601_03 Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976). Rapid ‘automatized’ naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14(4), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(76)90075-0 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 Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test–revised. American Guidance Service. 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 Florit, E., Roch, M., Dicataldo, R., & Levorato, M. C. (2022). The simple view of reading in Italian beginner readers: Converging evidence and open debates on the role of the main components. Learning & Individual Differences, 93, 101961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101961 Francis, D. J., Kulesz, P. A., & Benoit, J. S. (2018). Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers and across texts: The complete view of reading (CVRi). Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518772904 Gedutienė, R. (2008). Emerging literacy and family factors in the transition from kindergarten to primary school [Besiformuojančio raštingumo komponentų ir šeimos veiksnių sąveika pereinant iš priešmokyklinio į mokyklinį amžių]. [Doctoral dissertation, Vilnius University]. Gedutienė, R. (2020). Research of reading and writing in Lithuania: Past, present and future. In R. A. Alves, T. Limpo, & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading–writing connections (pp. 223–234). Springer. Georgiou, G., Parrila, R., & Papadopoulos, T. (2008). Predictors of word decoding and reading fluency across languages varying in orthographic consistency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-0663.100.3.566 Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 7 (1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104 Häyrinen, T., Serenius-Sirve, S., & Korkman, M. (1999). Reading, writing and calculating test battery for primary schools, grades 1–6 [Lukilasse. Lukemisen, Kirjoittamisen Ja Laskemisen Seulontatestistö Peruskoulun ala-Asteen Luokille, 1–6]. Psykologien Kustannus Oy. Hogan, T. P., Adlof, S. M., & Alonzo, C. (2014). On the importance of listening comprehension. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(3), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2014.904441 Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading & 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 16 G. SILINSKAS ET AL. Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2022). The primacy of science in communicating advances in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.446 Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Huo, M. R., Koh, P., Cheng, Y., Marinova-Todd, S. H., & Chen, X. (2021). The simple view of reading in French second language learners. Learning & Individual Differences, 92, 102082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102082 Joshi, R. M. (2018). Simple view of reading (SVR) in different orthographies: Seeing the forest with the trees. In T. Lachmann & T. Weiss (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia, literacy studies (Vol. 16, pp. 65–74). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-90805-2_4 Joshi, R. M., Tao, S., Aaron, P. G., & Quiroz, B. (2012). Cognitive componential model of reading applied to different orthographies. Journal of Learning Difficulties, 45(5), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432690 Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437 Kargiotidis, A., Mouzaki, A., Kagiampaki, E., Marinakis, G., Vervelaki, A. M., Boufachrentin, N., & Manolitsis, G. (2022). Modeling the effects of oral language skills on early reading development in an orthographically consistent language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 27(3), 272–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2156347 Kendeou, P., Papadopoulos, T. C., & Kotzapoulou, M. (2013). Evidence for the early emergence of the simple view of reading in a transparent orthography. Reading & Writing, 26(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9361-z Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & van den Broek, P. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185408X369020 Kim, Y.-S. G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking component skills of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 310–333. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10888438.2017.1291643 Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020a). Hierarchical and dynamic relations of language and cognitive skills to reading comprehension: Testing the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER). Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000407 Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020b). Simple but not simplistic: The simple view of reading unpacked and expanded. The Reading League Journal, 1(2), 15–34. Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020c). Toward integrative reading science: The direct and indirect effects model of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(6), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420908239 Kirby, J. R., Georgiou, G. K., Martinussen, R., & Parrila, R. (2010). Naming speed and reading: From prediction to instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.3.4 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 Labanienė, K., Gedutienė, R., & Gintilienė, G. (2019). Pirmokų skaitymo ir rašymo sunkumų numatymas taikant disleksijos rizikos klausimyną (DRK) priešmokykliniame amžiuje. Specialusis Ugdymas, 1(39), 49–68. https://doi. org/10.21277/se.v1i39.427 Landerl, K., Freudenthaler, H. H., Heene, M., De Jong, P. F., Desrochers, A., Manolitsis, G., Parrila, R., & Georgiou, G. K. (2019). Phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming as longitudinal predictors of reading in five alphabetic orthographies with varying degrees of consistency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(3), 220–234. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10888438.2018.1510936 Landerl, K., & Wimmer, H. (2008). Development of word reading fluency and spelling in a consistent orthography: An 8-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.150 Lepola, J., Lynch, J., Kiuru, N., Laakkonen, E., & Niemi, P. (2016). Early oral language comprehension, task orientation, and foundational reading skills as predictors of grade 3 reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.145 Lerkkanen, M.-K., Niemi, P., Poikkeus, A.-M., Poskiparta, M., Siekkinen, M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2006–2016). The first steps study [Alkuportaat]. Universities of Jyväskylä. Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Ketonen, R. (2006). ARMI—Luku-ja kirjoitustaidon arviointi-materiaali 1. luokalle [ARMI—A tool for assessing reading and writing skills in Grade 1]. WSOY. LR Ministry of Education, Science and Sports. (2014). Curriculum of pre-primary education [Priešmokyklinio ugdymo Bendroji Programa]. Retrieved January 29, 2020, from https://www.smm.lt/web/lt/smm-svietimas/svietimaspriesmokyklinis-ugdymas Manolitsis, G., Georgiou, G., & Parrila, R. (2011). Revisiting the home literacy model of reading development in an orthographically consistent language. Learning & Instruction, 21(4), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc. 2010.06.005 Manolitsis, G., Georgiou, G., Stephenson, K., & Parrila, R. (2009). Beginning to read across languages varying in orthographic consistency: Comparing the effects of non-cognitive and cognitive predictors. Learning & Instruction, 19(6), 466–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.003 Muthén, L. K. M., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén. SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 17 Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554 Ouellette, G., & Beers, A. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story. Reading & Writing, 23(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9159-1 Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press. Pinto, G., Bigozzi, L., Tarchi, C., Gamannossi, B. A., & Canneti, L. (2015). Cross-lag analysis of longitudinal associations between primary school students’ writing and reading skills. Reading & Writing, 28(8), 1233–1255. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11145-015-9569-9 Protopapas, A., Altani, A., & Georgiou, G. K. (2013). Development of serial processing in reading and rapid naming. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(4), 914–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.08.004 Puolakanaho, A., Ahonen, T., Aro, M., Eklund, K., Leppänen, P. H. T., Poikkeus, A. M., Tolvanen, A., Torppa, M., & Lyytinen, H. (2007). Very early phonological and language skills: Estimating individual risk of reading disability. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(9), 923–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01763.x Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y Savage, R. S., & Frederickson, N. (2005). Evidence of a highly specific relationship between rapid automatic naming of digits and text reading speed. Brain and Language, 93, 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.09.005 Sénéchal, M. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Parent involvement in kindergarten is differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and reading for pleasure. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reading, 10(1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1001_4 Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859 Silinskas, G., Aunola, K., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Raiziene, S. (2021). Parental teaching of reading and spelling across the transition from kindergarten to grade 1. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 610870. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.610870 Silinskas, G., Pakarinen, E., Lerkkanen, M. K., Poikkeus, A. M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2017). Classroom interaction and literacy activities in kindergarten: Longitudinal links to grade 1 readers at risk and not at risk of reading difficulties. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.09.002 Silinskas, G., & Raiziene, S. (2017–2018). Get involved! transition to grade 1. University of Jyväskylä. Silinskas, G., Sénéchal, M., Torppa, M., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2020). Home literacy activities and children’s reading skills, independent reading, and interest in literacy activities from kindergarten to grade 2. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01508 Silinskas, G., Torppa, M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2020). The home literacy model in a highly transparent orthography. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(1), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1642213 Silverman, R., Speece, D. L., Harring, J. R., & Ritchey, K. (2013). Fluency has a role in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(2), 108–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.618153 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 Statistics Lithuania. (2014). Statistical Databases. Retrieved January 29, 2020 from https://www.stat.gov.lt/en Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934–947. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934 Stuart, M., Stainthorp, R., & Snowling, M. (2008). Literacy as a complex activity: Deconstructing the simple view of reading. Literacy, 42(2), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00490.x Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 383–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-9817.2009.01401.x 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 Torppa, M., Poikkeus, A. M., Laakso, M. L., Tolvanen, E., Leskinen, A., Leppänen, P. H. T., Puolakanaho, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2007a). Modeling the early paths of phonological awareness and factors supporting its development in children with and without familial risk for dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(2), 73–103. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10888430709336554 Torppa, M., Tolvanen, A., Poikkeus, A. M., Eklund, K., Lerkkanen, M. K., Leskinen, E., & Lyytinen, H. (2007b). Reading development subtypes and their early characteristics. Annals of Dyslexia, 57(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881007-0003-0 18 G. SILINSKAS ET AL. APPENDIX A Listening Comprehension Today was Vilius’ birthday. All of the children played hide and seek. Candles were lit on the boy’s birthday cake. He made a wish and blew out all nine candles. Everyone clapped and sang “Happy Birthday” (1) What is the boy’s name? (2) How old is Vilius? (3) What did the children play? APPENDIX B Reading Comprehension Rasa’s wish Rasa woke up very early. She quickly washed up and put on her school dress. After that, she hurriedly ate breakfast – oat porridge and cocoa. Rasa said goodbye to her mother, “Today is going to be a very interesting day. I hope I see a bear.” 1. Rasa does not want: □ to be late □ to rush □ to get ready 2. Rasa feels: □ sleepy □ sick □ happy 3. Rasa will go: □ to the doctor □ to the library □ to the zoo 4. What time does the action take place? □ in the morning □ during lunch □ at night SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 19