This article was downloaded by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria]

On: 25 April 2014, At: 18:11

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Scientific Studies of Reading

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hssr20

Phoneme Awareness,
Visual-Verbal Paired-
Associate Learning, and
Rapid Automatized Naming
as Predictors of Individual
Differences in Reading Ability
a a
Meesha Warmington & Charles Hulme
a
University of York
Published online: 18 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Meesha Warmington & Charles Hulme (2012) Phoneme Awareness,
Visual-Verbal Paired-Associate Learning, and Rapid Automatized Naming as Predictors
of Individual Differences in Reading Ability, Scientific Studies of Reading, 16:1, 45-62,
DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2010.534832

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.534832

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
 indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014
 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING, 16(1), 45–62
Copyright © 2012 Society for the Scientific Study of Reading
ISSN: 1088-8438 print / 1532-799X online
DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2010.534832

Phoneme Awareness, Visual-Verbal

Paired-Associate Learning, and Rapid
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

Automatized Naming as Predictors

of Individual Differences
in Reading Ability
Meesha Warmington and Charles Hulme
University of York

This study examines the concurrent relationships between phoneme awareness,

visual-verbal paired-associate learning, rapid automatized naming (RAN), and read-
ing skills in 7- to 11-year-old children. Path analyses showed that visual-verbal
paired-associate learning and RAN, but not phoneme awareness, were unique pre-
dictors of word recognition, whereas visual-verbal paired-associate learning, RAN,
and phoneme awareness were predictors of nonword reading. These results sug-
gest that visual-verbal paired-associate learning, RAN, and phoneme awareness tap
related but far-from-identical processes and are important predictors of different
aspects of reading skills in children.

Phoneme awareness is one of the strongest predictors of variations in children’s

early reading skills (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994;
Hulme et al., 2002; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, 2004). This finding
has been interpreted to mean that well-specified phonemic representations are
one critical determinant of the ease with which children learn to read (see also
connectionist accounts of reading: Harm & Seidenberg, 1999; Hulme, Quinlan,
Bolt, & Snowling, 1995) and that deficits in phoneme awareness are one cause of
difficulties in learning to read (e.g., Rack, Snowling, & Olsen, 1992; Vellutino,
Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004).

Correspondence should be sent to Meesha Warmington, Department of Psychology, University of

York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdom. E-mail: meesha.warmington@york.ac.uk
 46 WARMINGTON AND HULME

Despite overwhelming evidence to suggest that phoneme awareness is fun-

damental for learning to read, other cognitive skills have also been found to be
critical to the process. Specifically, both visual-verbal paired-associate learning
(PAL) and rapid automatized naming (RAN) have been found to be uniquely
related to reading skills in children (e.g., Felton & Brown, 1990; Hulme, Goetz,
Gooch, Adams, & Snowling, 2007; Lervåg & Hulme, 2009; McBride-Chang &
Manis, 1996; Wimmer, Mayringer, & Landerl, 1998), implying that these skills
may be independent from those measured by phoneme awareness tasks. This
raises the issue of how visual-verbal PAL and RAN relate to each other, and to
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

the process of learning to read. Although significant work has begun to clarify the
relationships between visual-verbal PAL, RAN, and reading, this work has mostly
focused on reading development in transparent orthographies (e.g., Norwegian:
Lervåg, Bråten, & Hulme, 2009; Lervåg & Hulme, 2009; German: Wimmer et al.,
1998). This study examines the relationships between visual-verbal PAL, RAN,
and phoneme awareness as predictors of variations in reading skills in English
speaking children between 7 and 11 years of age.

VISUAL-VERBAL PAL

Significant correlations have been found between visual-verbal PAL and chil-
dren’s reading skills (e.g., Windfuhr & Snowling, 2001) and research has shown
that children with reading difficulties perform poorly on this task (e.g., Mayringer
& Wimmer, 2000; Messbauer & de Jong, 2003; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Spearing
1995; Wimmer et al., 1998). The relationship between reading and PAL has often
been explained in terms of the importance of phonological skills (e.g., Messbauer
& de Jong, 2003; Vellutino et al., 1995). Messbauer and de Jong investigated ver-
bal and nonverbal PAL learning in children with dyslexia and found that these
children were impaired on verbal PAL for both words and nonwords but were
not impaired on a nonverbal PAL task, suggesting a specific phonological learn-
ing difficulty. However, recent research suggests that visual-verbal PAL may tap a
unique cross-modal associative learning mechanism that is specific to the creation
of mappings between visual (orthographic) and phonological stimuli (e.g., Hulme
et al., 2007; Wimmer et al., 1998).
Wimmer et al. (1998) examined visual-verbal PAL in German-speaking chil-
dren with dyslexia and found that these children were impaired on this task
compared to controls. More recently, Hulme et al. (2007) found that visual-verbal
PAL was a unique predictor of single word reading ability after controlling for
phoneme awareness and verbal-verbal PAL. These findings are surprising and
suggest that visual-verbal PAL plays a specific role in learning to read that is
neither simply to do with associative learning (because visual-visual and verbal-
verbal PAL tasks were not unique predictors of reading) nor simply due to the
 PREDICTORS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN READING 47

role of verbal codes in PAL (because verbal-verbal PAL was a less powerful pre-
dictor of reading than visual-verbal PAL). Hulme et al. concluded that learning to
read depends on a unique cross-modal associative learning process in addition to
well-specified phonological representations (as indexed by phoneme awareness).
In this view the quality of phonemic representations (as measured by phoneme
awareness tasks) facilitates making generalizations about the mappings between
orthographic and phonological units required to read words and nonwords (e.g.,
Griffiths & Snowling, 2002). In addition, a unique cross-modal learning mecha-
nism (as measured by visual-verbal PAL) is involved in the learning of mappings
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

between orthographic and phonological units, which is important for establishing

word recognition units. The orthographic units involved in this mapping process
may involve either lexical units (i.e., arrays of letters that identify words) or sub-
lexical units (letters or subword letter clusters). It is beyond the scope of this
article to examine the contributions of lexical versus sublexical orthographic pro-
cessing to reading and reading development (see Hagiliassis, Pratt, & Johnston,
2006). However, we believe that the learning of mappings between orthography
and phonology is critical for learning to read and likely operates at numerous
levels, including the process of learning letter-sound correspondences and the
learning of mappings at the level of single letters, letter groups, and whole words
when acquiring a word recognition system.

RAN

RAN is another task that involves the retrieval of associations between visual
symbols and phonological codes (names). In RAN tasks a child is simply asked to
name aloud, as rapidly as possible, a sequence of objects, colors, digits, or letters.
RAN has long been known to be a correlate of reading ability (e.g., Bowers, 1995;
Denckla & Rudel, 1976; McBride-Chang & Manis, 1996); however, it is less
clear what processes are responsible for this relationship. Traditionally, RAN has
been viewed as a measure of phonological processing because it requires access
to phonological codes in memory (e.g., Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). However,
several studies have shown that even after the effects of phoneme awareness,
and a number of other phonological abilities, have been controlled, RAN still
accounts for unique variance in reading skills (e.g., Bowers, 1995; Lervåg et
al., 2009; McBride-Chang & Manis, 1996). This suggests that the relationship
between reading and RAN arises because, like visual-verbal PAL, RAN mea-
sures some aspect of a system dealing with the mappings between orthography
and phonology (e.g., Manis, Seidenberg, & Doi, 1999). Alternatively, Wolf and
Bowers (1999) argued that RAN measures the speed of activation of orthographic
and phonological units and that naming speed deficits may thereby disrupt the
creation of associations between these units (see also Wimmer et al., 1998).
 48 WARMINGTON AND HULME

Recently, Lervåg and Hulme (2009) reported the results of a 3-year longi-
tudinal study of reading development in Norwegian children. They found that
variations in nonalphabetic RAN, measured in young children before they had
learned to read, predicted later variations in the rate of growth in reading fluency
over the first 2 years of formal reading instruction. In this study, the influ-
ences of intelligence, letter knowledge, and phoneme awareness were controlled.
Lervåg and Hulme suggested that RAN taps the integrity/efficiency of the left-
hemisphere brain circuits involved in object recognition/naming and that these
brain circuits are recruited to function as a critical component of the child’s devel-
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

oping visual word recognition system. In another article, examining data from
the same cohort of children, Lervåg et al. (2009) found that RAN, letter knowl-
edge, and phoneme awareness were longitudinal predictors of variations in early
reading skills, whereas visual-verbal PAL, short-term memory, and measures of
intelligence were not. Evidence from this study therefore suggests that the role
of visual-verbal PAL and RAN are not equivalent measures of the integrity of
the visual-verbal cross-modal mapping mechanism that is involved in learning to
read.
If visual-verbal PAL and RAN were both simply assessing a common cross-
modal mechanism (in the case of PAL the creation of mappings between visual
stimuli and the phonological codes for their names; in the case of RAN the
speeded retrieval of such previously learned associations) we would expect these
measures to correlate highly and to account for common variance in reading
skills. However, Lervåg et al. (2009) found that the correlation between a latent
visual-verbal PAL factor and a latent nonalphanumeric RAN factor was only
.32, indicating that these measures have only roughly 10% variance in common.
Furthermore, in this study RAN, but not visual-verbal PAL, was a longitudinal
predictor of the growth of early reading skills in Norwegian children. Finally, in
this study RAN was also only moderately correlated (r = .45) with a phoneme
awareness latent variable.

THE ROLE OF VISUAL-VERBAL PAL AND RAN IN READING

The studies reviewed demonstrate that visual-verbal PAL and RAN are correlates
of individual differences in reading skills, which are independent of phoneme
awareness. In addition, the evidence shows that the mechanisms underlying
visual-verbal PAL and RAN, though related, tap partially separate aspects of
learning to read. Visual-verbal PAL arguably taps a unique cross-modal learning
mechanism that is also involved in learning the mappings between orthographic
and phonological units when learning to read. In this view, visual-verbal PAL taps
variations in the efficiency with which novel associations can be created in mem-
ory between visual inputs and their names. On the other hand, RAN appears to tap
 PREDICTORS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN READING 49

the speed of retrieval of such associations once they have been successful stored
in memory. Because RAN tasks are quintessential examples of overlearned tasks
(retrieving the names of highly familiar objects), putting this together, we can con-
sider the possibly overlapping roles of visual-verbal PAL and RAN in learning to
read.
During the early stages of learning to read, two critical tasks are for the child
to learn letter-sound correspondences and to acquire an early “sight vocabulary,”
which involves learning the relationships between printed words and their corre-
sponding pronunciations. Arguably, both of these processes draw upon a child’s
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

capacity for visual-verbal PAL, and variations in the efficiency of this learning
process will determine the ease with which the child is able to learn letter sounds
and a sight vocabulary.
Conversely, RAN appears to tap the speed of retrieval of overlearned asso-
ciations from memory. Further work is needed to clarify why and how the rate
of acquiring such associations, as opposed to the speed with which they can be
retrieved once they are established, plays differential roles in learning to read.
However, it may be that speed of retrieval, as assessed by RAN tasks, represents
some sort of information-processing “bottleneck” for developing an efficient word
recognition system. In this view, some children might create accurate mappings
between visual representations of words and their pronunciations and meanings
but suffer from slow retrieval of such associations that impede efficient reading.

OVERVIEW OF PRESENT STUDY

The present study examines the relative importance of visual-verbal PAL, RAN,
and phoneme awareness as predictors of individual differences in reading devel-
opment in children aged between 7 years 8 months and 11 years 10 months. Based
on the evidence just reviewed, we predict that visual-verbal PAL and RAN will
both be (partially) independent predictors of reading skills.

METHOD

Participants
Seventy-nine children (43 girls, 36 boys), with a mean chronological age of
9 years 10 months (range = 7 years 8 months to 11 years 10 months), from three
primary schools in York participated in the experiment. Only 1 child was younger
than 8 years of age. All children were native speakers of English.
 50 WARMINGTON AND HULME

Design and Materials

Visual-Verbal PAL
In this task eight spoken nonwords were paired with novel visual and auditory ref-
erents: visual objects and novel definitions. The children were told that they would
have to learn the nonword names for a set of unfamiliar objects and that they
would also be told the meaning for each nonword. Each nonword was presented
by the experimenter along with its corresponding pictured object and definition
for approximately 5 s. Each child was presented with all eight nonwords and their
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

corresponding referents in a learning trial. Immediately following this initial trial

the child was presented with the pictured objects and asked to provide only the
names of the objects (i.e., the nonwords). The pictured objects were presented one
at a time and were randomized for each child. If the child was unable to name the
object when presented, he or she was given corrective feedback. This procedure
was repeated (i.e., auditory presentation of nonwords and their corresponding ref-
erents followed by object naming) for 10 learning trials or until the child learned
the items to criterion, that is, the child named each item correctly on two consecu-
tive trials. Presentation order of the stimuli was counterbalanced for each trial for
each child.

Nonwords. The nonword stimuli used consisted of eight consonant–vowel–

consonant nonwords taken from Roodenrys and Hinton (2002). Roodenrys and
Hinton selected their nonword stimuli on neighborhood density (i.e., dense vs.
sparse neighborhoods); however, in the present study no significant effect of
neighborhood density on visual-verbal PAL were found, t(78) = .45, p = .65,
d = .04, and this variable is not considered further here. Each nonword was
recorded by a female British speaker.

Novel objects and definitions. Each nonword was paired with an unfamil-
iar pictured object (see Appendix A) and a spoken definition (e.g., This is a guz;
it’s a lemon juicer; see Appendix B). Each child was presented with the same
stimuli, that is, each nonword was always paired with the same visual and audi-
tory referents. Each pictured object was printed in color on a laminated white
card, 13 × 17 cm. Prior to the experiment 10 undergraduate students rated the
familiarity of the pictured objects on a scale of 1 (not familiar) to 4 (very famil-
iar). Familiarity ratings for the novel objects were low (M = 1.33, SD = .03; see
Appendix A). Ratings were also obtained for the likelihood that the definitions
were appropriate matches for the pictured objects on a scale of 1 (not appropri-
ate) to 4 (very appropriate), with a mean appropriateness rating of 2.25 (SD = .78;
see Appendix B).
 PREDICTORS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN READING 51

Reading, Phonological, and Cognitive Measures

Single word reading. The Wechsler Objective Reading Dimensions
(WORD; Wechsler, 1993) was used as a standardized untimed measure of single
word reading.

Regular and irregular word reading. Thirty regular (e.g., take, free, mar-
ket) and 30 irregular words (e.g., come, sure, island) taken from Castles and
Coltheart (1993) were presented to be read aloud. The words on each list were
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

matched for frequency, imageability, grammatical class, and number of letters.

Nonword reading. Thirty monosyllabic and disyllabic nonwords (e.g., gop,

teg, nad) varying in orthographic complexity taken from Castles and Coltheart
(1993) were used.

Reading fluency. The Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE;

Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999), a standardized timed measure of read-
ing fluency containing two subtests—Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (speeded
nonword reading) and Sight Word Efficiency (speeded reading of familiar
words)—was used.

Phoneme deletion. This task (McDougall, Hulme, Ellis, & Monk, 1994)
required the child to listen to a nonword and delete a specified phoneme to pro-
duce a word (e.g., What is jarl without the /l/ sound?). The test included 3
practice items and 12 test items. If the child made fewer than three errors on
these items, he or she was given three more difficult extension items.

RAN. A RAN task adapted from Wimmer (1996) was used in which children
had to name an array of letters and digits from left to right as quickly and accu-
rately as possible. Each task began with a practice trial that allowed the children
to become familiar with the items and to ensure that they understood the instruc-
tions. All trials were timed using a stopwatch. The number of errors made was
also noted.
For Digit Naming the practice trial consisted of 10 digits (8, 6, 5, 2, 3, 9, 4, 8,
1, 7) printed on A4 paper and laminated, in 36-point Arial font. For the test trial,
48 items were presented in random order, with each digit appearing at least once.
The test trial was printed in the same font as the practice trial on A4 paper.
For Letter Naming the practice trial consisted of 10 letters (w, j, s, m, i, e, q, h,
l, f ) printed on A4 paper and laminated, in lowercase 36-point Arial font. Forty-
eight letters (representing 25 letters from the alphabet) were used. The letters were
presented in random order, with each letter appearing at least once. The test trial
was printed in the same font as the practice trial on A4 paper.
 52 WARMINGTON AND HULME

General cognitive ability. IQ was assessed using the Wechsler Abbreviated

Scale of Intelligence (Wechsler, 1999) Vocabulary and Block Design subtests.

Procedure
Children were tested individually across three sessions each lasting approximately
30 min. Literacy, phonological, and cognitive skills were assessed in Sessions 1
and 2, and the visual-verbal PAL was administered in Session 3. Children were
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

tested in a quiet part of the school.

RESULTS

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and reliabilities for all measures. The chil-
dren’s scores on the standardized reading measures (i.e., WORD and TOWRE)
show that they are reading at age-appropriate levels. As expected, the children
read regular words and nonwords better than irregular words. However, it must
be noted that the children were performing at ceiling on regular word reading.
Accuracy on the RAN tasks was high. Traditionally, RAN scores are based on
total time taken to name a set of objects, letters, or digits. However, for the present
study we derived RAN rate scores for letters and digits (number of items named
correctly divided by time in seconds). The children’s IQ was within the average
range. The principal measure taken on the visual-verbal PAL task was the number
of correct responses given across all 10 learning trials. Where children reached
criterion before 10 trials, the remaining trials were credited as correct.

Correlational Analyses
Table 2 shows the correlations between measures, with simple correlations above
the diagonal and partial correlations controlling for age below the diagonal. The
simple correlations show that all the reading measures are strongly correlated with
each other. The RAN measures correlated strongly and significantly with one
another. The reading measures correlated moderately to strongly with phoneme
deletion, with the lowest correlation between phoneme deletion and irregular
word reading and the highest between phoneme deletion and nonword reading. In
addition, all reading measures correlated moderately with the visual-verbal PAL
measures. RAN also correlated moderately with reading ability. RAN and visual-
verbal PAL correlated moderately and significantly with one another. The partial
correlations, controlling for age, are slightly lower but show essentially the same
pattern as the simple correlations.
 PREDICTORS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN READING 53

TABLE 1
Means (Standard Deviations and Range) and Reliabilities for All Measures

Reliability
M SD Range Coefficient

WORD (standard score) 110.00 10.16 85–135 .95a

WORD (raw score) 43.15 5.15 28–52
TOWRE (standard score) 115.35 13.79 84–149 .95b
SWE 111.24 10.75 83–136 .97b
PDE 114.34 13.43 84–145 .90b
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

TOWRE (raw score) 113.77 21.45 51–157

SWE 72.21 11.25 33–95
PDE 41.56 11.09 17–63
Regular word reading (Max = 30) 28.94 1.61 22–30 .61c
Irregular word reading (Max = 30) 19.13 3.12 11–26 .76c
Nonword reading (Max = 30) 25.54 3.96 11–30 .81c
Phoneme deletion (Max = 18) 14.05 2.58 7–18 .70c
RAN accuracy (Max = 48)
Digits 47.92 .31 46–48 .22c
Letters 47.62 .95 41–48 .61c
RAN rate (word/sec) .80d
Digits 2.43 .54 1.38–3.78
Letters 1.71 .49 .62–3.09
Visual-verbal PAL (Max = 80) 47.31 14.81 8–74 .84c
IQ 108.61 15.89 71–140 .93a
Vocabulary (T score) 54.54 8.99 25–70 .89a
Block design (T score) 54.76 11.73 26–80 .90a
IQ (raw score) 64.54 19.94 24–120
Vocabulary (raw score) 38.61 7.65 18–52
Block design (raw score) 25.94 14.39 5–71

Note. N = 79. WORD = Wechsler Objective Reading Dimensions; TOWRE = Test of

Word Reading Efficiency; SWE = Sight Word Efficiency; PDE = Phonemic Decoding Efficiency;
RAN = rapid automatized naming; PAL = paired-associate learning.
a Split-half reliability. b Test–retest reliability. c Cronbach’s alpha. d Alternate form reliability.

Predictors of Individual Differences in Reading Ability

To evaluate the contributions of visual-verbal PAL, RAN, and phoneme dele-
tion as predictors of individual differences in reading ability, a series of path
analyses were conducted. Structural equation modeling with maximum likeli-
hood estimation was used to explore the relations between the different variables.
Given the high correlations between the different reading measures we began by
deriving a composite reading measure by summing the z scores from all mea-
sures of word reading ability (WORD, irregular and regular word reading, and
TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency). A RAN composite score was also derived. Prior
to analyses, all relevant variables were residualized for age; therefore, the models
 Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

54

TABLE 2
Correlations Between Reading, Phoneme Awareness, RAN, Cognitive, and PAL Measures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. WORD (Raw) .72∗∗ .66∗∗ .70∗∗ .75∗∗ .79∗∗ .58∗∗ .63∗∗ .67∗∗ .56∗∗ .52∗∗
2. Regular Words .70∗∗ .60∗∗ .64∗∗ .67∗∗ .71∗∗ .42∗∗ .39∗∗ .57∗∗ .60∗∗ .40∗∗
3. Irregular Words .59∗∗ .56∗∗ .46∗∗ .75∗∗ .67∗∗ .27∗ .51∗∗ .66∗∗ .47∗∗ .41∗∗
WARMINGTON AND HULME

4. Nonwords .66∗∗ .61∗∗ .38∗∗ .56∗∗ .72∗∗ .62∗∗ .51∗∗ .53∗∗ .54∗∗ .40∗∗
5. TOWRE SWE (Raw) .69∗∗ .64∗∗ .69∗∗ .48∗∗ .84∗∗ .39∗∗ .73∗∗ .83∗∗ .57∗∗ .42∗∗
6. TOWRE PDE (Raw) .76∗∗ .68∗∗ .61∗∗ .68∗∗ .82∗∗ .58∗∗ .74∗∗ .78∗∗ .62∗∗ .34∗∗
7. Phoneme Deletion .56∗∗ .40∗∗ .22∗ .61∗∗ .36∗∗ .56∗∗ .54∗∗ .40∗∗ .50∗∗ .41∗∗
8. RAN Digit Rate .55∗∗ .31∗∗ .40∗∗ .43∗∗ .65∗∗ .69∗∗ .53∗∗ .80∗∗ .48∗∗ .29∗∗
9. RAN Letter Rate .60∗∗ .52∗∗ .57∗∗ .45∗∗ .77∗∗ .75∗∗ .38∗∗ .74∗∗ .51∗∗ .34∗∗
10. Visual-verbal PAL .55∗∗ .59∗∗ .45∗∗ .53∗∗ .59∗∗ .62∗∗ .48∗∗ .47∗∗ .51∗∗ .40∗∗
11. IQ (Raw) .43∗∗ .33∗∗ .30∗∗ .41∗∗ .26∗ .22 .38∗∗ .12 .16 .38∗∗

Note. Simple correlations above the diagonal, partial correlations controlling for age below the diagonal. RAN = rapid automatized naming;
PAL = paired-associate learning; WORD = Wechsler Objective Reading Dimensions; TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficiency; SWE = Sight
Word Efficiency; PDE = Phonemic Decoding Efficiency.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
 PREDICTORS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN READING 55

presented examined age-independent relations between the different measures.

To begin with, a saturated model was fitted to the data with all possible correla-
tions between the predictor variables (i.e., phoneme deletion, RAN, visual-verbal
PAL, and IQ) and with all possible paths from these variables to word read-
ing. Nonsignificant correlations and paths were then dropped iteratively from the
model, examining changes in fit, until a simplified model was obtained in which
all remaining paths and covariances between predictors were statistically signifi-
cant. The resulting simplified model for the composite measure of word reading is
shown in Figure 1A. The model provides a good fit to the data. RAN, visual-verbal
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

PAL, and IQ were significant predictors of variations in reading, accounting for

61% of the variance in reading ability. In this analysis phoneme awareness is not
a significant predictor of reading ability (path weight in initial model was .01,
p = .88) and dropping this variable as a predictor had no significant effect on the
fit of the model.

A
Phoneme Deletion .39
.43
RAN .49
.43 .47 Reading
.31 .30
Visual-Verbal PAL
.30 .20
IQ

B
Phoneme Deletion .36
.43 .33
RAN .38
.43 .47 Nonword Reading
.31 .27
Visual-Verbal PAL
.30
IQ

FIGURE 1 Two path analysis models predicting composite reading ability (A) and composite non-
word reading ability (B) from cognitive variables. Note. Fit indices are as follows: (A) χ 2 (2, N = 79)
= 1.72, p = .42, CFI = 1.00, NFI = .988, RMSEA = .000 (90% CI = .000–.214); (B) χ 2 (2, N = 79)
= 2.80, p = .25, CFI = .994, NFI = .982, RMSEA = .072 (90% CI = .000–.248). Solid arrows repre-
sent statistically significant predictive relationships. Nonsignificant predictive relationships have been
dropped from the simplified model. The arrow above the dependent variable represents the error vari-
ance, that is, the proportion of variance not accounted for by the predictors in the model. RAN = rapid
automatized naming; PAL = paired-associate learning; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed
fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval.
 56 WARMINGTON AND HULME

From the correlations presented earlier, it is clear that nonword reading shows
some independence from measures of word reading. We therefore constructed
a separate path model for nonword reading as an outcome variable. We derived
a composite nonword reading measure by summing the z scores from nonword
reading and TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency. Figure 1B shows the simpli-
fied model for the composite nonword reading measure. The model gives a good
fit to the data and accounts for approximately 64% of the variance in nonword
reading. It is notable that phoneme deletion as well as RAN and visual-verbal
PAL are significant predictors of nonword reading ability. In this analysis IQ is
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

not a significant predictor (path weight in initial model was .08, p = .29) and
dropping this variable as a predictor had no significant effect on the fit of the
model.
We were also interested in examining the predictors of reading accuracy and
reading speed. We therefore constructed separate path models for reading accu-
racy and reading speed as outcome variables. We derived a composite reading
accuracy measure by summing the z scores from all reading accuracy measures
(WORD, irregular and regular word reading, and nonword reading).
Figure 2A shows the simplified model for composite reading accuracy.
Overall, this model gives a good fit to the data and accounts for approximately
55% of the variance in composite reading accuracy. RAN, visual-verbal PAL, and
IQ are significant predictors. In this analysis phoneme deletion is not a signifi-
cant predictor (path weight in initial model was .03, p = .75), and dropping this
variable as a predictor had no significant effect on the fit of the model.
Figure 2B shows the simplified model for a composite reading speed mea-
sure (derived from the TOWRE). Overall, this model gives a good fit to the data
and accounts for approximately 71% of the variance in composite reading speed.
RAN and visual-verbal PAL are significant predictors. In this analysis phoneme
deletion and IQ are not significant predictors of reading ability (path weights in
the initial model were .03, p = .67 and .14, p = .20, respectively) and dropping
these variables as a predictors had no significant effect on the fit of the model.

DISCUSSION

In this study visual-verbal PAL, RAN and phoneme awareness were independent
predictors of different aspects of reading skill in English-speaking children, who
were beyond the initial stages of learning to read (ages 7–11 years). Specifically,
the results showed that RAN was the strongest correlate of reading ability, par-
ticularly reading fluency, and phoneme deletion was the strongest correlate of
nonword reading. Visual-verbal PAL and RAN, but not phoneme awareness,
contributed independent variance to word reading, reading accuracy, and read-
ing speed. On the other hand, phoneme awareness, RAN, and visual-verbal PAL
 PREDICTORS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN READING 57

A
Phoneme Deletion .45
.43
RAN .41
.43 .47 Reading Accuracy
.31 .31
Visual-Verbal PAL
.30 .23
IQ
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

B
Phoneme Deletion .29

.43
RAN .65
.43 .47 Reading Speed
.31 .30
Visual-Verbal PAL
.30
IQ

FIGURE 2 Two path analysis models predicting composite reading accuracy (A) and composite
speeded reading (B) from cognitive variables. Fit indices are as follows: (A) χ 2 (2, N = 79) = 1.79,
p = .41, CFI = 1.00, NFI = .987, RMSEA = .000 (90% CI = .000–.217); (B) χ 2 (2, N = 79) =
2.51, p = .47, CFI = 1.00, NFI = .985, RMSEA = .000 (90% CI = .000–.179). Solid arrows repre-
sent statistically significant predictive relationships. Nonsignificant predictive relationships have been
dropped from the simplified model. The arrow above the dependent variable represents the error vari-
ance, that is, the proportion of variance not accounted for by the predictors in the model. RAN = rapid
automatized naming; PAL = paired-associate learning; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed
fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval.

were unique predictors of nonword reading. These findings have a number of

theoretical implications for models of reading development.
The current findings are consistent with the framework outlined in the
introduction. They provide further support for the argument that variations in
cross-modal associative learning (as measured by visual-verbal PAL) place con-
straints on the development of word recognition skills in children. Arguably, this
pattern fits well with connectionist models of learning to read (e.g., Harm &
Seidenberg, 1999; Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, & Patterson, 1996; Seidenberg
& McClelland, 1989) in which learning occurs by incremental changes in the
strength of associations between orthographic input units and phonological output
units. Furthermore, the fact that visual-verbal PAL explained unique variance in
nonword reading is consistent with connectionist accounts in which nonwords are
read by generalizing knowledge about known words to novel words. The results
are also consistent with Ehri’s (1995, 1999) phase model of reading in which
 58 WARMINGTON AND HULME

automatization in reading is achieved via a learning mechanism, which consol-

idates the connections between orthographic and phonological units. We would
speculate that the associative learning mechanisms involved in learning the names
for novel objects may be the same as those involved in learning to map letter
strings onto their pronunciations.
We found that RAN was the strongest predictor of individual differences in
word reading. This is consistent with the many previous studies that have found
that RAN is a robust correlate of reading ability. RAN can be seen as a task that
taps the integrity of left-hemisphere naming circuits recruited to form the basis of
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

a visual word recognition system (e.g., Lervåg & Hulme, 2009). More specifically,
RAN taps the speed with which already well-learned names can be retrieved from
a strong retrieval cue (the visually presented object). The role of RAN in read-
ing may therefore reflect the role of neural networks that were once originally
dedicated to object naming (see Wolf & Kennedy, 2003) but now form the basis
of the child’s reading system (see Dehaene, 2005). To some extent, such object
naming can be seen as directly analogous to the requirement for rapid retrieval
of phonological and semantic codes from printed word forms that is required in
fluent reading. In this light, the high correlations between measures of RAN and
reading fluency found here are perhaps not surprising.
However, this explanation cannot without further elaboration account for the
fact that RAN uniquely predicted nonword reading. It would seem necessary to
argue that this association is mediated by the role of lexical knowledge in non-
word reading, as embodied in connectionist models of word recognition that see
nonword naming as reflecting a process of automatic generalization from known
words. In this view, the efficiency of a left-hemisphere naming circuit (as tapped
by RAN) places constraints on the ability to name nonwords as well as words.
In adults reading involves activation in a circuit of at least three left-hemisphere
brain regions that are also heavily involved in naming objects as well. In this left
hemisphere “naming circuit,” the mid-fusiform area seems to play a role in word
identification, the anterior fusiform a role in amodal semantic processing, and
the superior temporal cortex a role in articulation (see Price & McCrory, 2005).
Some have suggested that the mid-fusiform area contains a “visual word form
area” (e.g., Cohen et al., 2000; Cohen et al., 2002) and, arguably, activation of the
networks in this visual word form area region that are concerned with uniquely
identifying known words will also play a critical role in helping a reader generate
the pronunciation for a nonword that may resemble many known words.
It remains a critical task to disentangle the relationship between visual-verbal
PAL and RAN. It appears from the data presented here that visual-verbal PAL and
RAN must involve some common, as well as distinct, processes (the correlations
reported between RAN and visual verbal PAL range from .39 to .49).
Although phoneme deletion was a strong correlate of reading ability in this
study, it was not a unique predictor of word-reading ability after the effects of
 PREDICTORS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN READING 59

RAN, PAL, and IQ were accounted for. In contrast, phoneme deletion was a
unique predictor of nonword reading. The pattern for word reading suggests that
variations in phoneme awareness are becoming less strongly associated with indi-
vidual differences in word reading in the age range (7–11 years) studied here
compared to the younger children in previous comparable studies (e.g., Lervåg
& Hulme, 2009). This relative decline in the importance of phoneme awareness
skills in later reading in relation to the relative importance of other cognitive fac-
tors, particularly RAN, likely reflects changes in relative importance of highly
automatized word recognition processes (whose development is predicted well
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

by RAN) compared to more effortful word recognition procedures that may be

prominent in younger children, and which may depend directly upon phonological
manipulation skills such as phoneme blending. The finding that phoneme deletion
continues to be a unique predictor of nonword reading in this study arguably is in
line with this suggestion.
In summary, this article adds to the growing evidence that RAN and visual-
verbal PAL are both important predictors of variations in reading ability. We
argue that visual-verbal PAL and RAN tap related but far from identical pro-
cesses. Specifically, visual-verbal PAL involves most prominently the creation of
representations for novel phonological forms and the associations of such nascent
phonological codes with the visual forms with which they are paired. It is likely
that the process of creating new phonological representations for nonwords is
another process that independently relates to the process of learning to read, as
such learning in all likelihood depends upon the quality and integrity of preexist-
ing phonological codes in memory. RAN, in contrast, taps the speed of retrieval
of names and might be seen as directly analogous to the task of retrieving the
phonological and semantic codes associated with familiar printed words. In line
with the arguments put forward by Lervåg and Hulme (2009), we have suggested
that RAN taps the integrity/efficiency of left-hemisphere object naming mecha-
nisms, and those mechanisms are recruited to form the basis of the child’s visual
word recognition system.

REFERENCES

Bowers, P. G. (1995). Tracing symbol naming speed’s unique contributions to reading disabilities over
time. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 189–216.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (1993). Varieties of developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 47, 149–180.
Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Lehericy, S., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Henaff, M., & Michel, F.
(2000). The visual word form area: Spatial and temporal characterizations of an initial stage of
reading in normal subjects and posterior split-brain patients. Brain, 123, 291–307.
Cohen, L., Lehericy, S., Chochon, F., Lemer, C., Rivard, S., & Dehaene, S. (2002). Language-specific
tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the visual word form area. Brain, 125, 1054–1069.
 60 WARMINGTON AND HULME

Dehaene, S. (2005). Evolution of human cortical circuits for reading and arithmetic: The neuronal
recycling hypothesis. In S. Dehaene, J. R. Duhamel, M. D. Hauser, & G. Rizzolatti (Eds.), From
monkey brain to human brain: A Fyssen Foundation symposium (pp. 133–157). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976). Naming and object-drawings by dyslexic and other learning
disabled children. Brain and Language, 3, 1–15.
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read by sight. Journal of Research in Reading,
18, 116–125.
Ehri, L. C. (1999). Phases of development in learning to read words. In J. Oakhill & R. Beard (Eds.),
Reading development and the teaching of reading: A psychological perspective (pp. 79–108).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

Felton, R., & Brown, I.S. (1990). Phonological processes as predictors of specific reading skills in
children at risk for reading failure. Reading and Writing, an Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 39–59.
Griffiths, Y. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2002). Predictors of exception word and nonword reading in
dyslexic children: The severity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 34–43.
Hagiliassis, N., Pratt, C., & Johnston, M. (2006). Orthographic and phonological processes in reading.
Reading and Writing, 19, 235–263.
Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights
from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106, 491–528.
Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrat-
ing the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child
Development, 65, 41–57.
Hulme, C., Goetz, K., Gooch, D., Adams, J., & Snowling, M. J. (2007). Paired-associate learning,
phoneme awareness, and learning to read. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 150–166.
Hulme, C., Hatcher, P. J., Nation, K., Brown, A., Adams, J. W., & Stuart, G. (2002). Small but pow-
erful: Phoneme awareness is a better predictor of early reading skill than onset-rime awareness.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 2–28.
Hulme, C., Quinlan, P., Bolt, G., & Snowling, M. (1995). Building phonological knowledge into a
connectionist model of the development of word naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10,
387–391.
Lervåg, A., Bråten, I., & Hulme, C. (2009). The cognitive and linguistic foundations of early read-
ing development: A Norwegian latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 45,
764–781.
Lervåg, A., & Hulme, C. (2009). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) taps a mechanism that places
constraints on the development of early reading fluency. Psychological Sciences, 20, 1040–1048.
Manis, F., Seidenberg, M. S., & Doi, L. (1999). See Dick RAN: Rapid naming and the longitudinal
prediction of reading subskills in first and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 129–157.
Mayringer, H., & Wimmer, H. (2000). Pseudoname learning by German-speaking children with
dyslexia: Evidence for a phonological learning deficit. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
75, 116–133.
McBride-Chang, C., & Manis, F. R. (1996). Structural invariance in the associations of naming speed,
phonological awareness, and verbal reasoning in good and poor readers: A test of the double deficit
hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 8, 323–339.
McDougall, S., Hulme, C., Ellis, A., & Monk, A. (1994). Learning to read: The role of short-term
memory and phonological skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 112–133.
Messbauer, V. C., & de Jong, P. F. (2003). Words, nonwords, and visual paired associate learning in
Dutch dyslexic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 84, 77–96.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes and language skills
as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental
Psychology, 40, 665–681.
 PREDICTORS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN READING 61

Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and
impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review,
103, 56–115.
Price, C. J., & McCrory, E. (2005). Functional brain imaging studies of skilled reading and devel-
opmental dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook
(pp. 473–496). Hong Kong: Blackwell.
Rack, J. P., Snowling, M. J., & Olson, R. K. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental
dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 29–53.
Roodenrys, S., & Hinton, M. (2002). Sublexical or lexical effects on serial recall of nonwords? Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 29–33.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX:
PRO-ED.
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability
(dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychiatry, 45, 2–40.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Spearing, D. (1995). Semantic and phonological coding in poor
and normal readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 76–123.
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in
the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
Wechsler, D. (1993). Wechsler objective reading dimensions. London, UK: The Psychological
Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Wimmer, H. (1996). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: Evidence from children
learning to read German. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 80–90.
Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Poor reading: A deficit in skill-automatization or
a phonological deficit? Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 321–340.
Windfuhr, K. L., & Snowling, M. J. (2001). The relationship between paired associate learning and
phonological skills in normally developing readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80,
160–173.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for developmental dyslexias. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.
Wolf, M., & Kennedy, R. (2003). How the origins of written language instruct us to teach: A response
to Steven Strauss. Educational Researcher, 32, 26–30.
 62 WARMINGTON AND HULME

APPENDIX A

Mean Familiarity Ratings for Novel Objects

Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 18:11 25 April 2014

Guz - 1.2 Hurp - 1.2 Koid - 1.1 Lurse - 2

Boip - 1.2 Murb - 1.6 Nov - 1.1 Pooge - 1.3

APPENDIX B

TABLE B1
Mean Appropriateness Ratings for Novel Object and Definition Pairings

Item Definition Definition & Object Matching Rating

Guz A lemon juicer 2.1

Hurp A precious jewel 2.3
Koid Used to make sculptures 1.8
Lurse A poisonous flower 2.9
Boip A utensil used by chefs 1.4
Murb A poisonous insect 3.6
Nov A machine used in chocolate factories 2.6
Pooge A ball used for water sports 1.3