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

Full text

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 knowl-
edge, phonological awareness, and RAN); listening comprehension and word
reading uency were tested at the start of Grade 1; and reading comprehen-
sion was measured at the end of Grade 1.
Results: Together with parental education, word reading uency and listen-
ing 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 uency (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 uency were no longer signicant 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 sug-
gested that, in the Lithuanian context, kindergarten vocabulary and letter
knowledge are stronger measures in predicting reading comprehension than
listening comprehension and word reading uency 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 gintautas.silinskas@jyu.fi 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 empha-
sized 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 uency, 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, explain-
ing 40%–80% of the variance (Joshi, 2018), their relative importance in predicting reading compre-
hension 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
uency, 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 perspec-
tive – 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 comprehen-
sion 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 long-
itudinal study followed children and applied age-appropriate measures to investigate reading devel-
opment 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 Indo-
European 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 (feedfor-
ward or spelling-to-sound consistency) but less consistent phoneme – grapheme correspon-
dences (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 instruc-
tions. 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

RAN. RAN was assessed using the standard procedure (Denckla & Rudel, 1976). The children were
presented with five rows with 10 pictures each and were asked to name those pictures as quickly as
possible. The 50 pictures comprised five randomly ordered objects (i.e., the sun, house, chair, mouse,
and tree). Before the actual task, a practice trial was arranged to ensure that each child was familiar
with the objects. The total time in seconds that the child had taken to name all 50 objects was recorded.
The score was the number of objects per second. The test-retest reliability of this measure in our study
(the end of kindergarten [T1]—the end of Grade 1 [T3]) was .727 (p < .001) (Silinskas & Raiziene,
2017–2018).
Beginning of grade 1 (T2)
Listening Comprehension (T2). The listening comprehension test (Gedutienė, 2008) included five
short stories, each followed by two to three questions (Story 1: three questions, Story 2: three
questions, Story 3: two questions, Story 4: three questions, Story 5: two questions). One sample
story is presented in the Appendix A. The test administrator read the stories and asked the questions,
and the child answered the questions aloud. There were 13 questions; each full and correct answer was
awarded two points, and partly correct or less detailed answers were awarded one point.
Word Reading Fluency (T2). An individually administered word reading fluency test based on the
Lukilasse test (6- to 12-year-old children; Häyrinen et al., 1999) and the work of Gedutienė (2008) was
used. The child was presented with 75 real words divided into three columns. The words ranged from
one to four syllables and were written in uppercase letters. The child was instructed to read the words
aloud as quickly as possible without mistakes. The score was based on the number of words read
correctly within a 45-second time frame. The test-retest reliability of this measure in our study (the
beginning of Grade 1 [T2]—the end of Grade 1 [T3]) was .873 (p < .001) (Silinskas & Raiziene, 2017–
2018).
End of grade 1 (T3)
Reading Comprehension (T3). To measure reading comprehension, the story comprehension task
(Gedutienė, 2008) was used. The child was asked to read three short stories aloud. After each story, the
test administrator read questions with multiple-choice answers (only one correct answer each), and
the child answered the questions aloud. The child had access to the story during the questions;
however, the child’s attention was directed to the answer options, which were placed in front of the
child as colorful shapes (squares). The child did not necessarily have to verbally reproduce the answer
after hearing the questions and multiple answers, as they could choose one of the answers by pointing
at the corresponding colorful shape. The first two stories included four questions with three multiple-
answer options each; the third story included five questions with four multiple-answer options each.
Most of the questions required the children to make simple inferences. There was no time limit for
completing the task. One sample story is presented in the Appendix B.
Analysis strategy
To answer our research questions, path models were constructed using the Mplus statistical
package (version 8.8; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Before proceeding with the model specifica-
tions, all variables were standardized. Child gender (dichotomous variable) and parent education
(ordinal variable) acted as control variables and were not standardized. We applied standard
procedure that is implemented in the Mplus statistical package. That is, in the path analyses, all
study variables were treated as continuous. This default specification was not altered because none
of the study variables were nominal with more than two groups, and all three dependent variables
(listening comprehension, word reading fluency, and reading comprehension) were continuous. In
all path models, the control variables (child gender and parental education) were specified to
correlate with the other T1 variables and to predict the T2 and T3 variables. In addition, in all
8G. SILINSKAS ET AL.

models, listening comprehension and word reading fluency residuals were specified to correlate.
To answer our first research question, we predicted reading comprehension at the end of Grade 1
(T3) by listening comprehension and word reading fluency at the start of Grade 1 (T2). To answer
our second research question, we tested the two models. Model 2A assumed hierarchical associa-
tions; that is, that the effects of language and early literacy skills in kindergarten on reading
comprehension are indirect via listening comprehension and word reading fluency. In model 2A,
reading comprehension at T3 was set to be predicted by listening comprehension and word
reading fluency at T2; listening comprehension was set to be predicted by vocabulary and
phonological awareness at the end of kindergarten (T1); and word reading fluency was set to be
predicted by phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and RAN (T1). All T1 language and early
literacy predictors were specified to correlate with each other. In model 2A, we estimated the
indirect effects of vocabulary and phonological awareness on reading comprehension via listening
comprehension; we also estimated the indirect effects of phonological awareness, letter knowledge,
and RAN on reading comprehension via word reading fluency. To test model 2B, the above-
described model (2A) was modified by adding the direct paths from all language and early literacy
skills (vocabulary, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and RAN) to reading comprehension
at T3.
We calculated intraclass correlations (ICCs), which ranged from .016 (p > .05) to .185 (p < .001)
across all study variables. As the variation of some variables was partially related to children’s class
membership, we used the COMPLEX option of Mplus, which accounts for the nested structure of the
data. Teacher/classroom ID in Grade 1 was used as a clustering variable; we had 25 clusters, with an
average cluster size of 9.16. Little’s missing completely at random (MCAR) test was used to investigate
the type of missingness; the results of the test (χ
2
[60] = 46.091, p = .907) suggested that the data were
MCAR. As a result, we estimated the models using full information maximum likelihood (FIML)
estimation with robust standard errors, which is considered robust to non-normality and uses all
available information to estimate the model (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Model fit was evaluated
using a combination of the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The CFI values above .90, and
RMSEA and SRMR values below .10 indicated a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
This study was not preregistered. The study materials, data, and analysis code are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of all measures (number of valid cases, means, standard
deviations, reliabilities, potential and actual range, skewness, and kurtosis) based on the current
sample. Table 2 presents the correlations between all study variables.
Table 2. Correlations of all study variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Vocabulary (T1) 1
2 Phonological awareness (T1) .438*** 1
3 Letter knowledge (T1) .343*** .663*** 1
4 RAN (T1) .342*** .435*** .315*** 1
5 Listening comprehension (T2) .529*** .513*** .532*** .416*** 1
6 Word reading fluency (T2) .263*** .609*** .582*** .444*** .349*** 1
7 Reading comprehension (T3) .552*** .518*** .608*** .392*** .573*** .458*** 1
8 Child gender (girl 0, boy 1) −.135* −.152* −.207** −.047 −.224** −.199** −.166* 1
9 Parental education .262*** .360*** .387*** .249*** .512*** .330*** .475*** −.061 1
Note. T1—end of Kindergarten, T2—beginning of Grade 1, and T3—end of Grade 1.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 9

The path model predicting reading comprehension by listening comprehension and word
reading uency
To answer our first research question, we estimated a path model (Model 1; Figure 1) in which reading
comprehension at the end of Grade 1 (T3) was predicted based on listening comprehension and word
reading fluency at the beginning of Grade 1 (T2), after controlling for child gender and parental
education. A well-fitting model was obtained: CFI = .998, RMSEA = .046, SRMR = .021. In this model,
the residual correlation between listening comprehension and word reading fluency was r = .208, p
= .003. The results showed that reading comprehension (R
2
= 43.2%) was significantly predicted by
listening comprehension (β = .380, p < .001) and word reading fluency (β = .259, p < .001). To test
whether the strength of these two paths was similar, we fixed them to be the same and compared the
model against the freely estimated model using the Satorra-Bentler procedure (Satorra & Bentler,
2010). A non-significant test, Δχ
2
(1) = .621, p = .430, indicated that the strength of the paths was
similar.
The direct and indirect eects path model
To answer the second research question, we first tested the hierarchical, indirect effects path model
(Model 2A; not depicted). We estimated the indirect effects of language and early literacy predictors in
kindergarten (T1) on reading comprehension at the end of Grade 1 (T3) via listening comprehension
and word reading fluency at the beginning of Grade 1 (T2). The model fit was CFI = .854, RMSEA
= .187, SRMR = .055, with only SRMR suggesting a good-enough fit to the data. This model explained
43.6% of reading comprehension, 46.5% of listening comprehension, and 45.9% of word reading
fluency.
To answer the second research question, we also tested the direct and indirect effects path
model (Model 2B; Figure 2). In this model, we specified and estimated the direct paths
between language and early literacy predictors in kindergarten (T1) and reading comprehen-
sion at the end of Grade 1 (T3). We also estimated the indirect effects of language and early
Figure 1. Development of reading skills across transition to grade 1 (model 1). Note. T1—end of Kindergarten, T2—beginning of
Grade 1, and T3—end of Grade 1.
10 G. SILINSKAS ET AL.

literacy predictors on reading comprehension via listening comprehension and word reading
fluency at the beginning of Grade 1 (T2). The model fit was CFI = .960, RMSEA = .149, SRMR
= .027, with CFI and SRMR suggesting a good fit to the data. This model explained 58.9% of
reading comprehension, 46.6% of listening comprehension, and 45.7% of word reading
fluency.
The difference in the model fits of both models 2A and 2B was calculated using the Satorra-Bentler
procedure (Satorra & Bentler, 2010). A significant test was obtained, Δχ
2
(4) = 46.162, p < .001,
indicating that model 2B was significantly better than model 2A. Consequently, we report and
interpret the results of the model 2B (Figure 2).
The results of the 2B model showed that reading comprehension was no longer significantly
predicted by listening comprehension (β = .079, p = .413) and word reading fluency (β = .083, p
= .172), but it was significantly predicted by vocabulary (β = .318, p < .001) and letter knowledge (β
= .365, p < .001). Listening comprehension was predicted by vocabulary (β = .309, p < .001) and
phonological awareness (β = .237, p < .001), and word reading fluency was predicted by phonological
awareness (β = .279, p < .001), letter knowledge (β = .293, p = .003), and RAN (β = .225, p < .001). The
listening comprehension and word reading fluency residuals were specified to correlate, but the
coefficient was insignificant (r = −.114, p = .120).
None of the indirect paths were significant in model 2B. First, the results of the specific indirect
paths showed that listening comprehension no longer mediated the path from vocabulary to reading
comprehension (β = .024, p = .408; 95% CI [−.033–.082]) or from phonological awareness to reading
comprehension (β = .019, p = .422; 95% CI [−.027–.064]). Second, word reading fluency did not
mediate paths from phonological awareness to reading comprehension (β = .023, p = .173; 95% CI
[−.010–.056]), from letter knowledge to reading comprehension (β = .024, p = .195; 95% CI
[−.012–.061]), or from RAN to reading comprehension (β = .019, p = .260; 95% CI [−.014–.051]).
Figure 2. Development of reading skills across transition to grade 1 (model 2B). Note. T1—end of Kindergarten, T2—beginning of
Grade 1, and T3—end of Grade 1. Only significant associations at p < .05 are shown. Concurrent associations between T1 variables
and control variables (child gender and parental education) were estimated, but not depicted. Significant concurrent associations
were as follows: vocabulary correlated with phonological awareness (r = .440, p < .001), letter knowledge (r = .346, p < .001), RAN (r
= .343, p < .001), and parental education (r = .270, p < .001). Phonological awareness correlated with letter knowledge (r = .665, p <
.001), RAN (r = .436, p < .001), child gender (r = –.151, p = .013), and parental education (r = .350, p < .001). Letter knowledge
correlated with RAN (r = .317, p < .001), child gender (r = –.207, p = .002), and parental education (r = .386, p < .001). RAN correlated
with parental education (r = .246, p < .001). Listening comprehension and word reading fluency residuals were not correlated (r
= –.114, p = .120).
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 11

Discussion
The present study used longitudinal data to investigate the SVR model in Lithuanian ortho-
graphy. The focus of the study was on early reading skill development, that is, across the
transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. Thus, the role of language and early literacy skills
prior to formal reading instruction was also investigated. Research on the antecedents and
developmental mechanisms through which children become good at reading comprehension is
evidently needed, as these mechanisms can facilitate the early identification of children with
reading difficulties. In particular, evidence coming from different orthographies is needed to
allow greater generalizability across orthographies. On the one hand, our results supported the
SVR model in a transparent Lithuanian orthography among children at the very start of their
reading instruction in Grade 1. On the other hand, the addition of language and early literacy
skills to the model revealed the utility of these kindergarten predictors. They directly predicted
listening comprehension and word reading fluency, and once direct effects were allowed,
vocabulary and letter knowledge also predicted reading comprehension over and above listening
comprehension and word reading fluency. In fact, after the inclusion of the direct effects from
kindergarten language and early literacy skills, the Grade 1 listening comprehension and word
reading fluency measures were no longer significant predictors of reading comprehension. These
direct and indirect predictive relations underline the utility of expanding SVR when aiming to
understand the basis of reading comprehension, which is, in that sense, in line with the DIER
model (Kim, 2017, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Among early learners in Lithuania, vocabulary and
letter knowledge seem to be even more robust predictors of reading comprehension than
listening comprehension and word reading fluency.
The SVR in transparent Lithuanian orthography
Our first research question asked about the extent to which listening comprehension and word reading
fluency at the start of Grade 1 predicted reading comprehension at the end of Grade 1. Overall, the
results from the first model provided empirical evidence for the SVR model (Gough & Tunmer, 1986;
Hoover & Gough, 1990) in a transparent Lithuanian orthography in that both linguistic comprehen-
sion and word reading fluency were significant components. Our listening comprehension and
decoding measures explained 43.2% of story comprehension variance, which is in line with many
previous studies that have typically explained 40%–80% of the variance (Joshi, 2018). Importantly, the
results suggest that the SVR model is applicable in explaining children’s reading comprehension as
early as Grade 1 in Lithuanian, a transparent orthography. Previous studies in transparent orthogra-
phies have reported similar results among Grade 1–2 children (e.g., Manolitsis et al., 2011; Silinskas,
Torppa, et al., 2020; Torppa et al., 2016).
It has been suggested that SVR predictions may vary according to the transparency of the
orthography and children’s age (or stage of reading development) (Florit & Cain, 2011; Torppa
et al., 2016). At first glance, our results appear to contradict the conclusions from Florit and Cain’s
(2011) meta-analysis, which suggests that in transparent orthographies, listening comprehension is
a stronger predictor of reading comprehension than decoding (the opposite is true in opaque
orthographies). However, one needs to be cautious about the exact timeline of the studies, that is,
the age and stage of children’s reading acquisition. It is possible that the relative importance of
listening comprehension (versus decoding) will increase soon after Grade 1 also in Lithuanian when
children become more fluent decoders. That is, the contribution of decoding to reading comprehen-
sion is likely to decline quickly in transparent orthographies (Florit & Cain, 2011), and soon after
Grade 1, linguistic comprehension becomes a major player in story comprehension (Torppa et al.,
2016). Had we measured the SVR components for a longer period of time, we could have found
a similar trend of decreasing the role of decoding. This remains a target for future research in
Lithuanian.
12 G. SILINSKAS ET AL.

Language and early literacy skills predicting listening comprehension, word reading uency,
and reading comprehension
Our second research question asked about the extent to which language and early literacy skills at the
end of kindergarten (e.g., vocabulary, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and RAN) predict
listening comprehension, word reading fluency, and reading comprehension. We tested two models:
model 2A, where language and early literacy skills in kindergarten predicted reading comprehension
indirectly via listening comprehension and word reading fluency, and model 2B, where language and
early literacy skills in kindergarten directly and indirectly predicted reading comprehension.
The Model 2A (The Hierarchical, Indirect Effects Path Model) did not fit our data well, thus we
interpret the results of the Model 2B (The Direct and Indirect Effects Path Model).
In the Model 2B, all indirect effects were insignificant, as were the direct effects from listening
comprehension and word reading fluency. However, the direct effects from vocabulary and letter knowl-
edge in kindergarten to reading comprehension in Grade 1 were significant. First, vocabulary directly
predicted reading comprehension, taking over the significant prediction from listening comprehension to
reading comprehension in Model 1 without the kindergarten predictors. The direct links between
vocabulary and reading comprehension have been reported also in many previous studies (Florit &
Cain, 2011; Sénéchal, 2006; Torppa, Poikkeus, et al., 2007a, 2007b). Even some SVR studies have measured
linguistic comprehension by vocabulary tasks (e.g., Huo et al., 2021), and some SVR studies have found
vocabulary to be a more powerful contributor to reading comprehension than listening comprehension
(e.g., G. Ouellette & Beers, 2010). One reason for the stronger effect of vocabulary than listening
comprehension on reading comprehension can be that listening comprehension is a complex skill to
assess. For example, G. Ouellette and Beers (2010) suggested that vocabulary may represent oral language
skills better than current assessment tools of listening comprehension where performance often depends on
memory (G. Ouellette & Beers, 2010). Another reason may relate to the differences in the sampling of
linguistic content in the vocabulary versus listening comprehension tasks. Vocabulary tasks typically
include words from different categories and difficulty levels while a short paragraph with narrower
vocabulary typically represents the stimuli in the listening comprehension task. In designing this study,
we followed the recommendations of the original SVR authors (Hoover & Tunmer, 2018, 2022), suggesting
that if the reading comprehension measure is measured at a text comprehension level, then the listening
comprehension measure also needs to be measured at a text comprehension level. That is, one of the key
aspects of the SVR is that the measurement of listening comprehension and reading comprehension should
be equivalent (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Kim, 2020a). However, it should be noted
that equivalence of measurement is not limited to format or linguistic grain size (e.g., word, sentence or
passage), but instead should consider various aspects, such as linguistic demands, demands on background
knowledge and inference (e.g., Kim, 2020a) which we did not control. For example, if reading comprehen-
sion measures include substantially greater vocabulary demand than do listening comprehension measures,
then, vocabulary will have a direct relation to reading comprehension over and above listening compre-
hension. In other words, measurement of constructs influences results (Kim, 2020).
Second, letter knowledge directly predicted reading comprehension, likely taking over the pre-
viously significant prediction from word reading fluency to reading comprehension. A direct associa-
tion between letter knowledge and reading comprehension has been shown previously (Sénéchal,
2006). Because letter knowledge can be considered an early decoding skill, its relation to reading
comprehension is unsurprising. However, unexpected was the finding that once the kindergarten
letter knowledge was set to predict reading comprehension, the direct effect of word reading fluency
and, at the same time, the indirect effect of letter knowledge through word reading fluency became
insignificant. It appears that at this early phase of reading development in Lithuanian, early emergence
of letter knowledge is still a more important predictor of reading comprehension than word reading
fluency. Recent study in a similar consistent orthography (Greek) showed that word reading fluency
did not have a direct effect on reading comprehension by the end of Grade 1, when word reading
accuracy was in the model (Kargiotidis et al., 2022). Letter knowledge is closely related to reading
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 13

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 environ-
ments, 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 atten-
tion 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 long-
itudinal 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 frame-
work – 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 complemen-
tary 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 orthogra-
phy 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/svietimas-
priesmokyklinis-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/s11881-
007-0003-0
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