Display options
Cite
Goodwin AP, Petscher Y, Carlisle JF, et al. Exploring the Dimensionality of Morphological Knowledge for Adolescent Readers. J Res Read. 2015;40(1):91-117doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12064.
Goodwin, A. P., Petscher, Y., Carlisle, J. F., & Mitchell, A. M. (2017). Exploring the Dimensionality of Morphological Knowledge for Adolescent Readers. Journal of research in reading, 40(1), 91-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12064
Goodwin, Amanda P, et al. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Morphological Knowledge for Adolescent Readers." Journal of research in reading vol. 40,1 (2017): 91-117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12064
Goodwin AP, Petscher Y, Carlisle JF, Mitchell AM. Exploring the Dimensionality of Morphological Knowledge for Adolescent Readers. J Res Read. 2017 Feb;40(1):91-117. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12064. Epub 2015 Dec 22. PMID: 28239208; PMCID: PMC5321651.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Res Read. 2017 Feb;40(1):91-117. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12064. Epub 2015 Dec 22.

Exploring the Dimensionality of Morphological Knowledge for Adolescent Readers.

Journal of research in reading

Amanda P Goodwin, Yaacov Petscher, Joanne F Carlisle, Alison M Mitchell

Affiliations

  1. Vanderbilt University's Peabody College, Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, University of Michigan.

PMID: 28239208 PMCID: PMC5321651 DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.12064

Abstract

This study examined the dimensionality of morphological knowledge. The performance of 371 seventh- and eighth-graders on seven morphological knowledge tasks was investigated using confirmatory factor analysis. Results suggested that morphological knowledge was best fit by a bifactor model with a general factor of morphological knowledge and seven specific factors, representing tasks that tap different facets of morphological knowledge. Next, structural equation modelling was used to explore links to literacy outcomes. Results indicated the general factor and the specific factor of morphological meaning processing showed significant positive associations with reading comprehension and vocabulary. Also, the specific factor of generating morphologically related words showed significant positive associations with vocabulary, while specific factors of morphological word reading and spelling processing showed small negative relationships to reading comprehension and vocabulary. Findings highlight the complexity of morphological knowledge and suggest the importance of being cognizant of the nature of morphology when designing and interpreting studies.

References

  1. J Learn Disabil. 2014 Jan-Feb;47(1):3-12 - PubMed
  2. Psychometrika. 2013 Oct;78(4):830-55 - PubMed
  3. J Learn Disabil. 2014 Jan-Feb;47(1):22-33 - PubMed
  4. Appl Psycholinguist. 2015 Mar;36(2):245-273 - PubMed
  5. Can J Exp Psychol. 2011 Jun;65(2):133-9 - PubMed
  6. Qual Life Res. 2007;16 Suppl 1:19-31 - PubMed
  7. Psychol Methods. 2001 Dec;6(4):330-51 - PubMed
  8. Psychol Bull. 1990 Mar;107(2):238-46 - PubMed
  9. J Learn Disabil. 2014 Jan-Feb;47(1):34-43 - PubMed
  10. J Psycholinguist Res. 2010 Apr;39(2):141-63 - PubMed
  11. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):529-35 - PubMed
  12. Behav Brain Sci. 2012 Oct;35(5):263-79 - PubMed
  13. Cognition. 1990 Jul;36(1):17-34 - PubMed
  14. Ann Dyslexia. 1996 Jan;46(1):209-40 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support