Scientific Studies of Reading

ISSN: 1088-8438 (Print) 1532-799X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hssr20

Childrens Orthographic Knowledge and Their

Word Reading Skill: Testing Bidirectional Relations

Nicole J. Conrad & S. Hlne Deacon

To cite this article: Nicole J. Conrad & S. Hlne Deacon (2016) Childrens Orthographic
Knowledge and Their Word Reading Skill: Testing Bidirectional Relations, Scientific Studies of
Reading, 20:4, 339-347, DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2016.1183128

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1183128

Published online: 26 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 251

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hssr20

Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UL] Date: 11 December 2016, At: 12:11
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING
2016, VOL. 20, NO. 4, 339347
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1183128

Childrens Orthographic Knowledge and Their Word Reading Skill:

Testing Bidirectional Relations
Nicole J. Conrada and S. Hlne Deaconb
a
Saint Marys University; bDalhousie University

ABSTRACT
Prominent models of word reading concur that the development of effi-
cient word reading depends on the establishment of lexical orthographic
representations in memory. In turn, word reading skills are conceptualised
as supporting the development of these orthographic representations. As
such, models of word reading development make clear predictions of
bidirectional relations between lexical orthographic knowledge and word
reading skill. We test these predictions in a longitudinal study of 112
English-speaking children in Grades 2 and 3. At two time points, we
assessed lexical orthographic knowledge and three aspects of word reading
skill: word reading accuracy, word reading efficiency, and phonological
decoding. Consistent with theoretical predictions, we found that earlier
word reading accuracy, word reading efficiency, and phonological decoding
predicted gains in lexical orthographic knowledge. Contrary to theoretical
predictions, lexical orthographic knowledge did not predict gains in any of
our measured word reading skills.

Skilled reading is characterized by rapid and automatic word recognition (Ehri, 2005). Efficient word
reading is closely associated with lexical orthographic representations in memory (Ehri, 2005;
Perfetti, 1992; Share, 2008). Lexical representations contain tightly bound knowledge about the
correct pronunciation (phonology), meaning (semantics), and spelling (orthography) of a given
word (Perfetti, 2007). Dominant models of word reading development make key predictions as to
the relation between the orthographic dimensions of these representations and word reading skill
(Ehri, 2005; Perfetti, 1992; Share, 2008). Here, we evaluate these predictions empirically in a long-
itudinal study of English-speaking children.
Efforts to understand the role of orthographic processing in reading acquisition have been
hindered by a lack of agreement on how orthographic processing is defined and measured (Burt,
2006; Castles & Nation, 2006; Hagiliassis, Pratt, & Johnston, 2006). We view orthographic processing
as an umbrella term, defined as the ability to form, store, and access orthographic representations
(Stanovich & West, 1989, p. 404). This definition encompasses both orthographic learning and
orthographic knowledge. Orthographic learning is the process by which children move from
decoding alphabetically to reading via the fluent recognition of individual words (Castles &
Nation, 2006, p. 152). The outcome of orthographic learning is a fully specified lexical representation
that includes orthographic knowledge (Castles & Nation, 2006; Perfetti, 1992). Orthographic knowl-
edge, in turn, includes both lexical and sublexical orthographic knowledge (Share, 1995).
Respectively, these refer to knowledge of the spelling patterns of specific words (e.g., the letters
C-A-T spell the word cat; Barker, Torgesen, & Wagner, 1992) and of general orthographic regula-
rities within a language, such as letter position frequencies and letter pattern redundancies (e.g., such
as consonant doublets occurring in the middle and not at the ends of words in English; Vellutino,

CONTACT Nicole J. Conrad nicole.conrad@smu.ca Department of Psychology, Saint Marys University, 923 Robie Street,
Halifax, NS, B3C 3H3, Canada.
2016 Society for the Scientific Study of Reading
340 N. J. CONRAD AND S. H. DEACON

Scanlon, & Tanzman, 1994). Both lexical and sublexical orthographic knowledge are correlated with
each of word reading accuracy (e.g., Connors, Loveall, Moore, Hume, & Maddox, 2011; Conrad,
Harris, & Williams, 2013; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990; Cunningham, Stanovich, & West, 1994;
Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986), word reading efficiency (e.g., Barker et al., 1992; Katzir et al., 2006),
and phonological decoding (e.g., Berninger, Cartwright, Yates, Swanson, & Abbott, 1994; Katzir
et al., 2006). However, theoretical accounts of reading acquisition speculate that lexical and sub-
lexical orthographic knowledge may each be differentially related to developing reading skill (e.g.,
Castles & Nation, 2006; Ehri, 2005), supporting the separation of these constructs in empirical
investigations. Models of reading development make the clearest predictions about lexical ortho-
graphic knowledge, which is our focus here.
Models of word reading development suggest that previously established lexical orthographic
representations support fast and accurate word reading (Ehri, 2005; Perfetti, 1992; Share, 2008),
which we and others refer to as word reading efficiency (e.g., Eason, Sabatini, Goldberg, Bruce, &
Cutting, 2013). Perfetti (1992) argued that with increasing experience, both quality and quantity of
lexical representations improve. Because lexical orthographic knowledge is one component of the
lexical representation, it has been assumed that lexical orthographic knowledge plays a causal role in
reading development (cf. Burt, 2006).
Theoretical accounts of reading development also suggest that children acquire lexical ortho-
graphic knowledge as a result of reading experiences (Ehri, 2005; Perfetti, 1992, 2007; Share, 2004),
such that early reading skill should predict gains in orthographic knowledge. For example, according
to Perfetti (2007), the source of lexical quality variation must arise through literacy and language
experiences . . . which include learning to decode, reading and writing (p. 380). Share (2004) stated
that only decoding enables the child to develop the word-specific orthographic knowledge necessary
for skilled reading (p. 268). Models concur that phonological decoding, in addition to word reading
accuracy and efficiency, support the development of the lexical orthographic knowledge contained
within the lexical representations.
Past research reveals concurrent relations between lexical orthographic knowledge and each of
word reading accuracy, word reading efficiency, and phonological decoding, independent of pho-
nological awareness (e.g., Barker et al., 1992; Conrad et al., 2013; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990;
Katzir et al., 2006). These findings point to a relation but do not specify its temporal order. Cross-lag
analyses of longitudinal data controlling for autoregressive effects would provide a conservative test
of the temporal order of relations (Gollob & Reichardt, 1987; Kenny, 1975). For example, analyses
with autoregressive controls can evaluate whether lexical orthographic knowledge determines gains
in word reading accuracy and/or whether word reading accuracy supports gains in lexical ortho-
graphic knowledge. Such analyses would test key predictions of models of word reading and need to
be conducted across multiple measures of word reading skill. Intriguingly, the few studies using such
analyses have conflicting results.
The findings of two studies using this analytic approach identified a contribution of orthographic
knowledge to gains in word reading accuracy. Both of these studies used composite measures of
orthographic knowledge, with at least one but not all measures tapping lexical orthographic knowl-
edge. Wagner and Barker (1994) reported that orthographic knowledge predicted gains in word
reading accuracy between Grades 1 and 2. In this study, orthographic knowledge was measured by
lexical orthographic knowledge, concepts of print and letter knowledge. Cunningham, Perry, and
Stanovich (2001) found similar results; orthographic knowledge at Grade 2 predicted word reading
accuracy in Grade 3, beyond controls for Grade 2 phonological decoding. In this study, orthographic
knowledge was measured by lexical orthographic knowledge, knowledge of letter-patterns, and word
spelling.
In contrast, two other studies found no relationship between early orthographic knowledge and
gains in word reading skills by young English readers. Both of these studies specifically measured
lexical orthographic knowledge without creating composite scores. Georgiou, Parrila, and
Papadopoulos (2008) found no significant prediction from lexical orthographic knowledge of gains
 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 341

between Grades 1 and 2 in phonological decoding, word reading efficiency, or text reading fluency.
Similarly, Deacon, Benere, and Castles (2012) found no significant prediction from lexical ortho-
graphic knowledge of gains in word reading accuracy between Grades 1 and 3. In these two studies,
there was no statistically detectable role for lexical orthographic knowledge in determining gains in
word reading skill, whether this is word reading accuracy, word reading efficiency, or phonological
decoding.
In our view there are two methodological domains that could help in understanding the
divergence in findings between the two sets of studies. Attention to these details is important,
given the long-standing assumption that lexical orthographic knowledge is involved in the develop-
ment of skilled word reading (cf. Burt, 2006). First, we think that we need to hone in on measures
specifically of lexical orthographic processing. Certainly, the use of composite measures is a
methodological strength when all tasks measure the same construct; that said, such combined scores
cannot test predictions from precise aspects of constructs. For example, neither Wagner and Barker
(1994) nor Cunningham et al. (2001) isolated the contribution of lexical orthographic knowledge
from other aspects measured; as such they do not answer the theoretically driven questions we raise
here. A further concern comes from the inclusion of tasks in the composite score that might not
evaluate orthographic knowledge. As a case in point, Wagner and Barker (1994) included letter-
knowledge in their composite measure of orthographic knowledge; certainly, this is a known
predictor of word reading, but it is not typically considered to be a part of orthographic knowledge
(Share, Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984). Its inclusion in an orthographic knowledge composite
score leaves us wondering which factors are responsible for the prediction of gains in word reading
observed in Wagner and Barkers (1994) study. To avoid these concerns, we focused specifically on
lexical orthographic knowledge. Second, we need to extend the types of reading skill evaluated.
Deacon et al. (2012) showed that, across Grades 1 to 3, childrens early reading accuracy made a
unique contribution to gains in lexical orthographic knowledge. These relations were not investi-
gated for either phonological decoding or word reading efficiency, central components of models of
reading development.
The present study investigated the temporal order of the relationship between lexical ortho-
graphic knowledge and key aspects of word reading skill. We conducted a longitudinal study
tracking a group of children, half in Grade 2 and half in Grade 3, across an academic year, with
testing in the autumn and spring. Children are thought to rely on orthographic strategies in their
reading during this period (Ehri, 1995). At each time point, children completed measures of word
reading accuracy and efficiency, phonological decoding, and lexical orthographic knowledge.
Consistent with prior research, we measured lexical orthographic knowledge with an orthographic
choice task (e.g., rainrane; Olson, Forsberg, Wise, & Rack, 1994), tapping a representative sample
of childrens lexical orthographic knowledge. We included phonological awareness as a control,
given its known relation to word reading skill (Ehri et al., 2001). Nonverbal reasoning was included
as a control for general cognitive ability.
The current study extends previous work in several important ways. First, Deacon and colleagues
(2012) explored the bidirectional relations of orthographic knowledge and word reading accuracy.
They noted the importance of exploring these relations with other reading outcomes, including word
reading efficiency. Georgiou and colleagues (2008) included other reading outcomes, such as word
reading efficiency and phonological decoding, but explored this relation in one direction only. To
test theoretical predictions, we need to explore these relations in both directions. For example, Share
(1995) argued that phonological decoding underlies the development of representations of individual
words orthographic patterns. Others (e.g., Burt, 2006; Castles & Nation, 2006) have argued that
lexical orthographic knowledge is an indicator of reading achievement, rather than an independent
contributor. The current study addresses the gaps in past empirical findings by exploring the
bidirectional relation between lexical orthographic knowledge and all three reading outcomes,
word reading accuracy, word reading efficiency, and phonological decoding.
342 N. J. CONRAD AND S. H. DEACON

Method
Participants
One hundred fourteen English-speaking children in Grades 2 and 3 participated. Children were
recruited from a rural region in Eastern Canada, where basic literacy instruction begins in
kindergarten. Testing occurred in the autumn (Time 1) and spring (Time 2). Two children were
absent from data collection at Time 2, leaving a sample of 112 children included in analyses.
Children were evenly distributed between Grades 2 and 3, with a mean age at Time 1 of 7 years
6 months (SD = 3.7 months; 34 female) and 8 years 8 months (SD = 4.0 months, 27 female),
respectively.

Measures
All standardised measures were given according to manual instructions, details of which, for the sake
of brevity, are not reviewed here. Reliability coefficients for all measures were above .79.
Phonological awareness was assessed at Time 1 using the Elision subtest of Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Processing (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). Children repeat a word spoken by the
tester and then repeat the word again after removing a specified phoneme (e.g., say cup without the /k/).
Nonverbal ability was assessed at Time 2 with the Matrix Reasoning subtest of Wechsler
Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (Wechsler, 1999). In each item, children select a pattern that fits
within a larger pattern.
Word reading accuracy was assessed at Times 1 and 2 with Word Identification from Woodcock
Reading Mastery Test (Woodcock, 1998). Children read words that become increasingly difficult.
Word reading efficiency and phonological decoding were assessed at Times 1 and 2 with Sight
Word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding subtests, respectively, of Test of Word Reading Efficiency
(TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999). The number of words read correctly in 45 s was
our word reading efficiency measure, and the number of nonwords read correctly in 45 s was the
phonological decoding measure.
Lexical orthographic knowledge was assessed at Times 1 and 2 with a 22-item1 orthographic
choice task based on Olson et al. (1994). Each word pair contained the correct spelling of a word and
a nonword homophone (e.g., rainrane). Children indicated which alternative is spelled correctly.

Procedure
Each testing time included two individual sessions on different days. At Time 1, children completed
Word Identification and TOWRE (first session), and phonological awareness and lexical ortho-
graphic knowledge tasks (second session). At Time 2, children completed Word Identification,
TOWRE, and orthographic knowledge task (first session), and Matrix Reasoning (second session).

Results
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for all measures. Standard scores in the average range suggest
that this is a typically developing sample.
Prior to correlational and linear regression analyses, the data were examined for missing values
and normality, both for the group as a whole and for each grade separately. Missing data (27 single
1
An additional 14 items were added to the end of the task at Time 2 to reduce the possibility of ceiling effects. We report here on
results only for items consistent across the two periods so that results are more parallel with those for the word reading
measures, which had a consistent number of items at the two time points. We confirmed the pattern of results with this larger
set of items at Time 2, and results are precisely the same as those reported on here.
 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 343

Table 1. Means and standard deviations on all measures by grade at Time 1 and Time 2.
Time 1 Time 2
Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 2 Grade 3
Word reading accuracy raw score 46.86 (12.12) 56.02 (11.70) 51.16 (13.13) 59.66 (11.62)
Woodcock Word ID SSa 108.37 (9.87) 102.62 (10.68) 106.37 (10.20) 103.23 (10.81)
Word reading efficiency raw score 47.23 (16.18) 57.05 (12.71) 53.68 (15.04) 60.98 (12.65)
TOWRE SWE SSa 107.04 (13.18) 104.21 (13.12) 107.27 (13.77) 106.36 (13.48)
Phonological decoding raw score 15.48 (11.23) 21.16 (12.60) 16.75 (10.90) 23.82 (13.90)
TOWRE PD SSa 97.52 (13.61) 96.57 (14.59) 95.66 (13.02) 97.57 (17.31)
Nonverbal ability raw score N/A N/A 12.80 (5.91) 13.88 (7.08)
Matrix reasoning age equivalent N/A N/A 7.66 (1.82) 8.32 (2.58)
Phonological awareness raw score 9.46 (4.31) 10.48 (4.54) N/A N/A
Phoneme elision SSb 9.80 (2.81) 9.07 (2.72) N/A N/A
Lexical OK raw score 18.25 (3.78) 19.96 (3.01) 20.03 (2.49) 20.66 (2.45)
Standard score (SS) with mean = 100, SD = 15. bStandard score with mean = 10, SD = 3.
a

item data points) accounted for less than .001% of all data points, and values were estimated through
mean replacement (following Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). There were three univariate outliers.
Scores for phonological awareness, Time 1 and Time 2 TOWRE word reading, and Time 2 Word
ID required square root transformations. Scores for both Time 1 and Time 2 orthographic choice
required log transformations. Transformations (following Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) brought out-
liers to within normal range, with the exception of one score that required winsorization. There was
one possible multivariate outlier. This outlier was within acceptable limits on Cooks distance and
had no undue influence on the regression equation (Allison, Primavera, & Louis, 1993). Accordingly,
we retained all data to ensure representativeness of the sample. The analyses reported here were
conducted with raw scores; the same pattern emerged with transformed scores.
Pearson correlations are reported by grade among all variables in Table 2. Critically, lexical
orthographic knowledge was significantly correlated with word reading accuracy, word reading
efficiency, and phonological decoding for all children at both Times 1 and 2. Patterns of relation-
ships were similar across the two grades, as confirmed with a nonsignificant Boxs M (F = .011,
p = .918). The correlation matrix suggests possible multicollinearity. However, all tolerance values
were above .2 and all VIF below 5, each below standard thresholds for multicollinearity problems
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
We addressed our research questions with hierarchical linear regression analyses with variables
entered in an a priori sequence. Our first regression analyses examined whether lexical orthographic
knowledge predicted gains in each of our word reading measures. As such, we report on three
analyses, with word reading efficiency and accuracy, and phonological decoding, respectively. We

Table 2. Pearson correlations among all variables at Time 1 and Time 2 for children in Grade 2 (below diagonal) and Grade 3
(above diagonal).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Nonverbal ability .09 .27 .32 .20 .21 .22 .23 .12 .26
2. PA .14 .45 .67 .74 .19 .45 .58 .72 .08
3. Time 1 WRE .30 .40 .84 .77 .54 .86 .81 .76 .58
4. Time 1 WRA .27 .42 .93 .85 .49 .82 .91 .87 .51
5. Time 1 PD .23 .59 .84 .85 .41 .71 .78 .92 .39
6. Time 1 LOK .22 .27 .72 .74 .55 .61 .52 .39 .80
7. Time 2 WRE .29 .35 .92 .86 .76 .64 .80 .80 .67
8. Time 2 WRA .21 .28 .87 .88 .75 .59 .85 .81 .59
9. Time 2 PD .23 .41 .79 .80 .87 .56 .77 .72 .40
10. Time 2 LOK .16 .28 .75 .75 .54 .81 .75 .74 .56
Note. Correlation values of .50 or more are p < .001, .32 to .49 are p < .01, and .25 to .31 are p < .05. WRE = word reading
efficiency; WRA = word reading accuracy; PD = phonological decoding; PA = phonological awareness; LOK = lexical orthographic
knowledge.
344 N. J. CONRAD AND S. H. DEACON

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analyses of the prediction of Time 2 Word Reading Efficiency (WRE), Word Reading Accuracy (WRA)
and Phonological Decoding (PD) by Time 1 (T1) Lexical Orthographic Knowledge (LOK) after controlling for age, Nonverbal Ability
(NVA), Phonological Awareness (PA), and T1 Word Reading Skill (WRE, WRA, or PD).
Time 2 WRE Time 2 WRA Time 2 PD
Step Predictor R2 Predictor R2 Predictor R2
1 Age .06 .14*** Age .01 .17*** Age .04 .10**
NVA .00 NVA .05 NVA .04
2 PA .02 .12*** PA .10 .14*** PA .03 .30***
3 T1 WRE .87*** .55*** T1 WRA .99*** .52*** T1 PD .90*** .43***
3 T1 LOK .18 .00 T1 LOK .05 .00 T1 LOK .07 .00
Note. All reported beta weights are from the final step of the regression model.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4. Hierarchical regression analyses of the prediction of Time 2 Lexical Orthographic Knowledge (LOK) by Time 1 (T1) Word
Reading Efficiency (WRE), Word Reading Accuracy (WRA), and Phonological Decoding (PD), after controlling for age, Nonverbal
Ability (NVA), Phonological Awareness (PA), and T1 LOK.
Time 2 LOK
Step Predictor R2 Predictor R2 Predictor R2
1 Age .13 .07* Age .14 .07* Age .08 .07*
NVA .02 NVA .01 NVA .04
2 PA .10 .02 PA .15 .02 PA .11 .02
3 T1 LOK .66*** .56*** T1 LOK .66*** .56*** T1 LOK .76*** .56***
4 T1 WRE .37*** .04*** T1 WRA .35*** .04*** T1 PD .19 .01*
Note. All reported beta weights are from the final step of the regression model.
*p < .05. *** p < .001.

conducted cross-lag hierarchical regression analyses in which age, nonverbal ability, and phonolo-
gical awareness were entered at Steps 1 and 2; the Time 1 outcome variable was entered in Step 3;
and the predictor variable was entered at Step 4. As shown in Table 3, lexical orthographic knowl-
edge did not make a significant unique contribution to any of the outcome reading measures, after
controlling age, nonverbal ability, phonological awareness, and the respective earlier measure of
word reading skill.
Next we examined whether each of our word reading measures (word reading efficiency and
accuracy, and phonological decoding) predicted gains in lexical orthographic knowledge (see
Table 4). These cross-lag hierarchical regression analyses included age, nonverbal ability, and
phonological awareness at Steps 1 and 2; the Time 1 outcome variable at Step 3; and the predictor
variable at Step 4. In all three analyses, early measures of word reading skill made a significant
unique contribution to later lexical orthographic knowledge (1%4%) after controlling for age,
nonverbal reasoning, phonological awareness, and earlier levels of lexical orthographic knowledge
(together accounting for 64%67% of the variance).
Given the inclusion of two grade levels, we confirmed our results with linear regression analyses
with an interaction term with grade (dummy coded) as the final step (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).
At this final step, all R2 change values were 0 and nonsignificant. Accordingly, the pattern of
relationships described here is consistent for the children in Grade 2 and those in Grade 3.

Discussion
The current study tested key predictions of models of reading development as to the temporal order
of the relation between lexical orthographic knowledge and each of word reading efficiency, word
reading accuracy, and phonological decoding. In a longitudinal study of children in Grades 2 and 3,
lexical orthographic knowledge did not make a statistically detectable contribution to gains on any of
our measures of word reading skill. In sharp contrast, each of word reading efficiency, word reading
accuracy, and phonological decoding made unique contributions to gains in lexical orthographic
 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 345

knowledge, after controlling for phonological awareness and nonverbal ability. These results suggest
that lexical orthographic knowledge is accumulated through reading experience and that, at least as
measured here and with this age group, it does not have a measurable contribution to gains in word
reading skill.
Several implications are evident. First, our findings that lexical orthographic knowledge does
not predict gains in word reading skill, as measured by word reading accuracy, word reading
efficiency, and phonological decoding, confirm and extend those of prior studies (Deacon et al.,
2012; Georgiou et al., 2008). Prior studies were in need of replication across a wide range of
reading measures in large part because these findings are at odds with the long-standing
assumption that orthographic processing skill, as measured by an orthographic choice task,
plays a causal role in reading acquisition. Our findings are consistent with an emerging view
that lexical orthographic choice tasks, such as that used here, measure a repository of current
knowledge (e.g., Share, 2008), rather than capturing all aspects of a broad orthographic proces-
sing skill.
Second, our findings indicate that a variety of childrens word reading skills predict gains in
lexical orthographic knowledge. Our findings extend those of Deacon et al. (2012), indicating a role
for each of word reading accuracy and efficiency and phonological decoding in predicting gains in
lexical orthographic knowledge. These findings suggest that word reading experience generally,
rather than phonological decoding in particular (Ehri, 2005; Share, 2008), is the mechanism by
which lexical orthographic representations are established.
These findings have implications for the conceptualisation of orthographic processing. In our study,
we were specifically interested in relations between word reading skill and the size of the store of lexical
orthographic knowledge, as captured here and in many other studies by an orthographic choice task.
Our findings suggest that this broader store of lexical orthographic knowledge is likely acquired
through reading; we speculate that this store of knowledge might be the product of orthographic
learning, or the ability to establish word-specific representations in memory (Share, 2008). In our view,
orthographic learning, rather than lexical orthographic knowledge, might be the key orthographic skill
involved in determining gains in skilled word reading acquisition (see Castles & Nation, 2006; Deacon
et al., 2012). Further, these processes might, as suggested by the self-teaching hypothesis (Share, 2008)
be established on a word-by-word basis (see also Nation, Angells, & Castles, 2007).
We need to bear in mind methodological limitations. First, we tracked children from both
Grades 2 and 3, with no evidence of differential patterns across these two grades. It is possible
that orthographic knowledge does contribute to word reading skill at other points in devel-
opment, particularly at the outset of reading acquisition. Second, we explored gains over only 1
academic year; this short time frame might have contributed to the strong autoregressor effects
in the current study. It is possible that different results would emerge across a wider age range;
that said, our results parallel those of Deacon et al. (2012), which included a much longer time
frame. Third, our inclusion of a single measure of lexical orthographic knowledge might have
limited validity and increased the effects of measurement error (see Hagiliassis et al., 2006).
Last, we think that it would be important to extend these investigations to gains in other
reading outcomes, including reading speed for specific words contained within ones lexical
orthographic knowledge repository and the reading of connected text. For example, it is
plausible that we might find relations between orthographic knowledge of specific words and
of gains in reading skill for those same words. Future studies should address these possibilities.
In summary, our study indicates that current measures of lexical orthographic knowledge
might not capture childrens ability to form orthographic representations, at least not in a
manner that reliably predicts acquisition of efficient word reading. Our results also show that
these lexical orthographic representations are gained through childrens reading, as captured by
word reading efficiency and accuracy and phonological decoding. Together, these results encou-
rage us to reconsider how we conceptualize the relation between orthographic knowledge and
word reading skills.
346 N. J. CONRAD AND S. H. DEACON

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Nicole Webb, Tammy Lamb, Talisa Edmunds, Jacqueline Marie, and Annie Laroche for help with
data collection, and our supporting school board, principals, teachers, parents, and children who participated.

Funding
This research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the
first author (435-2012-1653) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to the second
author (NSERC RGPN 293300-2013).

References
Allison, D. B., Primavera, B. S., & Louis, H. (1993). Some of the most common questions asked of statistical
consultants: Our favorite responses and recommended readings. Journal of Group Psychotherapy Psychodrama &
Sociometry, 46, 83109.
Barker, T. A., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). The role of orthographic processing skills on five different
reading tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 334345. doi:10.2307/747673
Berninger, V. W., Cartwright, A. C., Yates, C. M., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. D. (1994). Developmental skills related
to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6,
161196. doi:10.1007/BF01026911
Burt, J. S. (2006). What is orthographic processing skill and how does it relate to word identification in reading?
Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 400417. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00315.x
Castles, A., & Nation, K. (2006). How does orthographic learning happen? In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to
ideas: Challenges and controversies about word recognition and reading (pp. 151179). London, UK: Psychology
Press.
Connors, F. A., Loveall, S. J., Moore, M. S., Hume, L. E., & Maddox, C. D. (2011). An individual differences analysis of
the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 402410. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.009
Conrad, N. J., Harris, N., & Williams, J. (2013). Individual differences in childrens literacy development: The
contribution of orthographic knowledge. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 12231239.
doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9415-2
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2001). Converging evidence for the concept of orthographic
processing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 549568. doi:10.1023/A:1011100226798
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skill in children: A
quick measure of reading experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 733740. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.733
Cunningham, A. E., Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1994). Literacy environment and the development of childrens
cognitive skills. In E. M. H. Assink (Ed.), Literacy acquisition and social context (pp. 7090). Oxford, England:
Prentice Hall.
Deacon, S. H., Benere, J., & Castles, A. (2012). Chicken or egg? Untangling the relationship between orthographic
processing skill and reading accuracy. Cognition, 122, 110117. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.09.003
Eason, S. H., Sabatini, J., Goldberg, L., Bruce, K., & Cutting, L. E. (2013). Examining the relationship between word
reading efficiency and oral reading rate in predicting comprehension among different types of readers. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 17, 199223. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.652722
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 116125.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.1995.tb00077.x
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167188.
doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic
awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the national reading panels meta-analysis.
Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250287. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
Georgiou, G. K., Parrila, R., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2008). Predictors of word decoding and reading fluency across languages
varying in orthographic consistency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 566580. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.566
Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in causal models. Child Development, 58, 8092.
doi:10.2307/1130293
Hagiliassis, N., Pratt, C., & Johnston, M. (2006). Orthographic and phonological processes in reading. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 235263. doi:10.1007/s11145-005-4123-9
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and
second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243255. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243
 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 347

Katzir, T., Kim, Y., Wolf, M., OBrien, B., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., & Morris, R. (2006). Reading fluency: The whole is
more than the parts. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 5182. doi:10.1007/s11881-006-0003-5
Kenny, D. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 887903.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.82.6.887
Nation, K., Angells, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read
English: Effects of exposure, durability, and context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 7184.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.06.004
Olson, R., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., & Rack, J. (1994). Measurement of word recognition, orthographic, and phonological
skills. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement
issues (pp. 243277). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman
(Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357383.
doi:10.1080/10888430701530730
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151218.
doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2
Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self-teaching.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 267298. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.001
Share, D. L. (2008). Orthographic learning, phonological recoding, and self-teaching. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in
child development and behavior (pp. 3182). Amsterdam, the Netherlands Elsevier Academic Print.
Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences in reading acquisition.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 13091324. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1309
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24,
402433. doi:10.2307/747605
Tabachnick, B. C., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1994). Components of reading ability: Issues and problems in
operationalising word identification, phonological coding and orthographic coding. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of
reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 279329). Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Wagner, R. K., & Barker, T. A. (1994). The development of orthographic processing ability. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.),
The varieties of orthographic knowledge I: Theoretical and developmental issues (pp. 243276). Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX:
PRO-ED.
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.
Woodcock, R. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery TestsRevised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.