View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Getting at How: Testing Mediating Factors in the Relation between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension in Grade 1

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Getting at How: Testing Mediating Factors in the Relation between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension in Grade 1
Language: English
Authors: Sofia Giazitzidou (ORCID 0000-0002-7892-7653), Kyle Levesque, Hélène Deacon
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. 2025 60(2).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Early Childhood Education
Grade 1
Primary Education
Descriptors: Elementary School Students, Grade 1, Morphology (Languages), Reading Comprehension, Word Recognition, Vocabulary Development, Phonological Awareness, Nonverbal Ability, Socioeconomic Status, Age, Short Term Memory, Correlation, Early Reading, Reading Instruction
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.70007
ISSN: 0034-0553
1936-2722
Abstract: The relation of morphological awareness with reading comprehension is well established. For this advance to inform instruction, the push is now on to understand how morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension. We address this question here by examining potential mechanisms. We do so with children in Grade 1, a time at which it is widely debated as to whether to include morphology instruction. We examine three potential mediating factors through which morphological awareness may contribute to reading comprehension: word reading, vocabulary, and morphological analysis, or the ability to use morphemes to understand morphologically complex words. A total of 336 English-speaking Grade 1 children participated and completed control measures of phonological awareness, nonverbal ability, socioeconomic status, working memory, and age. Initial confirmatory factor analyses showed the separability of morphological awareness, morphological analysis, and vocabulary. Multivariate path analyses revealed two indirect pathways from morphological awareness to reading comprehension: through word reading and through morphological analysis. There were no indirect effects via vocabulary, nor were there direct effects from morphological awareness to reading comprehension beyond the other variables. These findings identify two potential mechanisms by which morphological awareness connects with early reading comprehension. These findings will inform theories of reading development and may influence the development of effective early reading instruction.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1468450
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwELz0ZNbzbwmhzFYxk2sGM3AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHsYmM71gBBv1Jgn3QIBEICBm0u1hRLo4lmdsClwqWntKF7vTmlR_tIkVn97A4Cl4Dq-sBFT4YdD4zs2hzJS3bQnLa_t3jSCXjO0TRs-4pgfIkKLZ5SbvQVND6MhKywiSZHuZ1cvibljt-Uo_yFwW8B18R5mMo0LM02KXhsWGRgSfsPpmU8cS0DlZoIMoqWDkac4fGxdbFkpinXfppk2ErC5uAoW9ZhG-8XerPqd
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184680262;[nrnu]01apr.25;2025Apr25.06:01;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184680262-1">Getting at How: Testing Mediating Factors in the Relation Between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension in Grade 1 </title> <p>The relation of morphological awareness with reading comprehension is well established. For this advance to inform instruction, the push is now on to understand how morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension. We address this question here by examining potential mechanisms. We do so with children in Grade 1, a time at which it is widely debated as to whether to include morphology instruction. We examine three potential mediating factors through which morphological awareness may contribute to reading comprehension: word reading, vocabulary, and morphological analysis, or the ability to use morphemes to understand morphologically complex words. A total of 336 English‐speaking Grade 1 children participated and completed control measures of phonological awareness, nonverbal ability, socioeconomic status, working memory, and age. Initial confirmatory factor analyses showed the separability of morphological awareness, morphological analysis, and vocabulary. Multivariate path analyses revealed two indirect pathways from morphological awareness to reading comprehension: through word reading and through morphological analysis. There were no indirect effects via vocabulary, nor were there direct effects from morphological awareness to reading comprehension beyond the other variables. These findings identify two potential mechanisms by which morphological awareness connects with early reading comprehension. These findings will inform theories of reading development and may influence the development of effective early reading instruction.</p> <p>Keywords: early elementary school years; morphological analysis; morphological awareness; reading comprehension</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01apr25/rrq70007-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70007-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184680262-3">Introduction</hd> <p>Reading comprehension is widely conceptualized as constructing a mental representation of the information in a text (Kintsch [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref1">74</reflink>]; Snow [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref2">116</reflink>]), a dynamic process relying on interaction and involvement with written language. Reading comprehension is also considered to be a multifaceted skill deeply rooted in oral language (Foorman, Koon, et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref3">50</reflink>]). It is now well established that one oral language skill, that of morphological awareness, contributes to skill in reading comprehension (Ruan et al. [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref4">110</reflink>]). Morphological awareness is the ability to recognize and manipulate the smallest meaningful units of language (i.e., morphemes; Carlisle [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>]). Morphological awareness has been shown to relate to reading comprehension in studies of children across multiple grades (Deacon and Kirby [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref6">35</reflink>]; James et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref7">65</reflink>]; Kirby et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref8">76</reflink>]; Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref9">83</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref10">84</reflink>]; Oliveira et al. [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref11">100</reflink>]; Roman et al. [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref12">109</reflink>]; Rastle [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref13">108</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref14">132</reflink>]), including in the early elementary school years (e.g., Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref15">33</reflink>]; Diamanti et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref16">40</reflink>]; Kargiotidis et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref17">66</reflink>]; Kruk and Bergman [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref18">79</reflink>]; Manolitsis et al. [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref19">86</reflink>]; Metsala et al. [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref20">93</reflink>]). These findings have led to the widespread recommendation that teachers should teach children about morphemes to optimize reading comprehension outcomes (Bowers et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]; Carlisle and Goodwin [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]; Common Core States Standards Initiative, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref23">27</reflink>], 27, 29; Galuschka et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref24">52</reflink>]; Nagy et al. [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref25">95</reflink>]; Savage et al. [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref26">113</reflink>]). The remaining questions lie in when and how to do so. Studies of individual differences may offer a resource‐effective way to inform this question. We report on the results of a study of individual differences designed to uncover the mechanisms by which morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension in Grade 1 with an eye to informing both theory and practice.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-4">Theoretical Context for the Relation of Morphological Awareness to Reading Comprehension</hd> <p>Classic and recent theories predict multiple pathways, or effectively mechanisms, by which morphological awareness contributes to the development of reading comprehension: two indirect routes—one via word reading and one via word meaning—and one direct route. A core question lies in the breadth or morphological specificity of these routes. As a case in point, the reading system framework (Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref27">103</reflink>]) puts forward that morphological awareness contributes indirectly to reading comprehension through each of the orthographic system (via word reading) and of the lexicon (via word meaning). In contrast, the morphological pathways framework (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref28">82</reflink>]) delineates these processes as morphology‐specific pathways. In the morphological decoding pathway, morphological awareness facilitates processing of morphemes in the orthographic system which in turn supports accurate word reading (e.g., dividing <emph>dishonest</emph> into <emph>dis + honest</emph> could support its accurate pronunciation) and, in due course, reading comprehension. In the morphological analysis pathway, morphological awareness activates semantic representations in the lexicon by enabling children to understand the meaning of morphologically complex words from constituent morphemes (e.g., using morphemes in <emph>dishonest</emph> to arrive at the meaning "not honest"; Deacon and Levesque [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]), which in turn facilitates reading comprehension. These theories concur that there are two indirect pathways from morphological awareness to reading comprehension—one via word reading and another via word meaning. The debate lies in whether these pathways are general, functioning across a range of words as captured in standardized measures of word reading and vocabulary (Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref30">103</reflink>]), or if they are morphology‐specific, applying most clearly to morphologically complex words (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref31">82</reflink>]). To date, these pathways have been tested empirically primarily in older elementary school‐aged readers (e.g., Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref32">83</reflink>]), leaving their functioning in younger readers open for debate.</p> <p>It is essential to answer this question of the functioning of these pathways in young readers because of larger theoretical discussions as to whether mechanisms in reading comprehension change developmentally. While newer theories (Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref33">103</reflink>]; Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref34">82</reflink>]) delineate the role of morphological awareness in reading comprehension, they do not make developmental predictions as to how this mechanism might shift over time (e.g., Nation [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref35">96</reflink>]). In contrast, the simple view of reading (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref36">62</reflink>]) suggests that the predictors of reading comprehension change through development, with early reading comprehension dominated by strong effects from word reading shifting to later strong effects of oral language, including vocabulary (Protopapas et al. [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref37">106</reflink>]). A large set of studies confirm these predictions (e.g., Clarke et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref38">25</reflink>]; Foorman, Koon, et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref39">50</reflink>]; Kendeou, Savage, et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref40">69</reflink>]; Kendeou, Van den Broek, et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref41">70</reflink>]; Kim [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref42">73</reflink>]; Lervåg et al. [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref43">81</reflink>]; Protopapas et al. [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref44">106</reflink>]; Verhoeven and van Leeuwe [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref45">122</reflink>]), at least as they apply to word reading versus oral language. How these relations might change for morphological awareness in particular is less clear.</p> <p>And yet, we can use these ideas as developmental changes to make predictions as to how the roles of word reading and vocabulary might change as mediators in the relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension. Indeed, extending developmental predictions from the simple view of reading (made originally for decoding and linguistic comprehension; Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref46">62</reflink>]), one could expect word reading to be a stronger mediator than vocabulary in the relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension in early grades. These ideas need to be tested, both for the general pathways predicted by Perfetti and Stafura ([<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref47">103</reflink>]) and the morphology‐specific ones predicted by Levesque et al. ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref48">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>The need to test these theories is driven in part by their influence on educational implications. Indeed, based on these ideas, there are recommendations to teach children about morphemes to two ends: using them to read and understand words (Common Core State Standards Initiative, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref49">27</reflink>], 16, 17, 27, 29). To date, this advice targets children in middle elementary grades. For children in the early elementary school years, there is strong debate as to whether and how classroom teaching should include morphological instruction (Bowers and Bowers [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>]; Wyse and Bradbury [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref52">127</reflink>]). In conducting this research with children in Grade 1, our study is designed to directly inform this discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-5">Evidence to Date on Mechanisms by Which Morphological Awareness Is Related to Reading Compreh...</hd> <p>Including multiple theoretically driven competing skills within the same study is required to test the mechanism(s) by which morphological awareness connects to reading comprehension. Most prior studies have included only one or two mediators (see e.g., Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref53">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref54">37</reflink>]; Goodwin et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref55">55</reflink>]; Kearns [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref56">67</reflink>]; Kieffer and Box [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref57">72</reflink>]; Nagy et al. [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref58">94</reflink>]). To our knowledge, only two studies have contrasted three or four mediators, both with children in the upper elementary school years. One of these was a study of English‐speaking children in Grade 3, in which Levesque et al. ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref59">83</reflink>]) tested four mediators in the relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension. These were the two general pathways described by Perfetti and Stafura ([<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref60">103</reflink>])—that of word reading and vocabulary—and the morphology‐specific pathways of morphological decoding and morphological analysis predicted by Levesque et al. ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref61">82</reflink>]). Data were analyzed with structural equation modeling including controls for phonological awareness and nonverbal ability. Modeling revealed a direct pathway of morphological awareness to reading comprehension and two indirect pathways: one via morphological decoding (that was associated with word reading) and another via morphological analysis. No indirect pathways via vocabulary emerged. Similar results emerged in a cross‐sectional study of three mediators with English‐speaking children in Grades 4 and 5, some of whom spoke a second language (Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref62">132</reflink>]). This study included controls for the understanding of morphologically simple words and age. Structural equation modeling revealed a direct pathway of morphological awareness to reading comprehension and two indirect pathways: one via morphological analysis and another via vocabulary for all children. An indirect pathway emerged via word reading only for the children less fluent in English. Findings from these two studies converge on direct effects of morphological awareness on reading comprehension, as well as indirect effects through morphological analysis, with less consistent evidence for mediation via word reading and vocabulary, at least for the middle and upper elementary school‐aged children.</p> <p>Available studies with children in the early school years have focused on the relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension, with few tests of mediation. Accordingly, several studies show a relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension in early elementary school years after multiple controls (Desrochers et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref63">39</reflink>]; Diamanti et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref64">40</reflink>]; Manolitsis et al. [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref65">87</reflink>]). Some studies show that this relation survives controls for word reading, suggesting direct effects of morphological awareness on reading comprehension. Indeed, in their study of English‐speaking children, Kruk and Bergman ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref66">79</reflink>]) found significant direct effects of Grade 1 morphological awareness on Grade 3 reading comprehension, after controlling for initial abilities in word reading, phonological awareness, and vocabulary. No tests of mediation were reported. To the best of our knowledge, a single study has tested mediators in the relation of morphological awareness with reading comprehension in this age range, focusing on word reading and vocabulary. In their study of Greek‐speaking children in Grade 1, Kargiotidis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref67">66</reflink>]) found two indirect pathways: one via vocabulary and one via word reading (associated with phonological awareness), after controlling for nonverbal ability. The relative size of these pathways was not contrasted. There were no direct effects from morphological awareness on reading comprehension. Taken together, these studies with young readers show mixed results as to whether there are direct effects of morphological awareness on reading comprehension (that survive controls for word reading), with findings of mediation via both word reading and vocabulary emerging in a single study of young Greek readers. We build on this evidence base to examine word reading, vocabulary, and morphological analysis as mediators in the relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension in English‐speaking children.</p> <p>In this study, we focus on morphological analysis as the morphology‐specific mediator based on extensive evidence of young children's skill in morphological analysis (Clark [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref68">24</reflink>]), with less clear evidence of morphological decoding. Indeed, preschool‐aged children have well‐developed morphological analysis skills (e.g., Anglin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>]; Clark [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>]; Donaldson [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref71">41</reflink>]; Gombert [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref72">53</reflink>]), which they demonstrate, for instance, by generating new words based on existing morphemes, such as <emph>flyable</emph>, and by choosing pictures to match the meanings of novel morphologically complex words (e.g., Casalis and Louis‐Alexandre [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref73">20</reflink>]). These findings of morphological analysis in young children extend similar evidence in older children (Grades 3–8; e.g., Anglin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>]; Baumann et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>]; Casalis and Louis‐Alexandre [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref76">20</reflink>]; Crosson and McKeown [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref77">29</reflink>]; Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref78">37</reflink>]; Pacheco and Goodwin [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref79">101</reflink>]). In contrast, there is less evidence of morphological decoding skills in beginning readers, though this appears to be well developed in children in the middle elementary grades (Grade 3+; e.g., Casalis et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref80">19</reflink>]; Carlisle and Stone [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref81">18</reflink>]; Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref82">31</reflink>]; Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref83">37</reflink>]; Kearns [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref84">67</reflink>]; Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref85">83</reflink>]; Nunes et al. [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref86">98</reflink>]). Though morphological structure does appear to influence reading and spelling in younger readers, its effects appear to be much smaller than in older readers (see for a review Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref87">32</reflink>]; Pacton and Deacon [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref88">102</reflink>]; Sandra et al. [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref89">111</reflink>]). Given this strong evidence of morphological analysis and less clear evidence of morphological decoding in young readers, we focus here on morphological analysis as a morphology‐specific pathway by which morphological awareness will support early reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-6">The Present Study</hd> <p>We report here on a cross‐sectional study designed to test general and morphology‐specific pathways by which morphological awareness contributes to reading comprehension in English‐speaking children in Grade 1. We tested three possible mediators in the relation of morphological awareness with reading comprehension: Two are general (word reading and vocabulary) and one morphology‐specific (morphological analysis). Given the strong evidence of morphological analysis in young readers (e.g., Clark [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref90">23</reflink>]), far more so than morphological decoding, we focus here on the former as a morphology‐specific pathway. Our design is cross‐sectional, with a single large group of children in Grade 1, a decision driven in part by the resource‐intensive nature of longitudinal studies and the need to validate measures with this young age range. Of course, data from a single point in time cannot disentangle the directions of effects (Selig and Preacher [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref91">114</reflink>]). Nevertheless, in our hypotheses, we propose directions that are theoretically and empirically driven (Deacon and Levesque [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref92">36</reflink>]; Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref93">83</reflink>]), while keeping in mind the limitations of cross‐sectional data.</p> <p>We make several clear predictions. In terms of mediators, based on the simple view of reading (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref94">62</reflink>]), we expect significant mediation via word reading and not vocabulary in the relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension in young readers. Mediation via morphological analysis is supported by evidence of well‐developed morphological analysis skills in young readers (Anglin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>]; Clark [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref96">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref97">24</reflink>]; Donaldson [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref98">41</reflink>]; Gombert [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>]). As such, we predict that morphological awareness will contribute to reading comprehension through two pathways—one general (i.e., word reading) and one morphology‐specific (i.e., morphological analysis). It is less clear whether we would expect direct effects of morphological awareness on reading comprehension. The best‐controlled studies with young readers show a mixed pattern of results (e.g., Kargiotidis et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref100">66</reflink>]; Kruk and Bergman [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref101">79</reflink>]), though neither controlled for morphological analysis which we implement. We test these predictions with a multiple‐mediation path analysis approach to simultaneously test the competing direct and indirect pathways (via word reading, vocabulary, and morphological analysis) by which morphological awareness could be related to reading comprehension. This modeling approach determines the effect of any given mediator beyond the contributions of the other mediators in the model (Preacher and Hayes [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref102">105</reflink>]).</p> <p>Prior to conducting this mediation modeling, we tested the separability of the core skills at hand. The morphological pathways framework (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref103">82</reflink>]) describes three related, albeit distinguishable, morphological skills: Morphological awareness, morphological decoding, and morphological analysis. Several studies now confirm the separability of these three skills in monolingual speakers of English (Goodwin et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref104">55</reflink>]; Deacon and Levesque [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref105">36</reflink>]) and Norwegian (Kristensen et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref106">78</reflink>]) and English‐language learners with Chinese as a first language (Wang and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref107">123</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref108">132</reflink>]). Here, we test whether morphological awareness and morphological analysis are separable from each other and from vocabulary in Grade 1. The need to do so is amplified by evidence that language skills are less differentiated in younger than in older children (e.g., Foorman, Herrera, et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref109">49</reflink>]; Foorman, Koon, et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref110">50</reflink>]; Lonigan and Milburn [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref111">85</reflink>]; Wang and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref112">123</reflink>]; Tomblin and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref113">120</reflink>]), casting doubt as to whether available findings with Grade 3 apply to younger children. Establishing the separability of skills of interest is a key first step to evaluating their relations to reading comprehension.</p> <p>Our measurement builds on and extends prior studies. We used classic measures of morphological awareness and analysis and a novel task designed to offer a fine‐grained test of separability. We measured morphological awareness with two widely used oral tasks: The Sentence Completion (Carlisle [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref114">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref115">14</reflink>]) and the Word Analogy Task (Kirby et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref116">76</reflink>]). These capture the broad metalinguistic nature of morphological awareness (Roman et al. [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref117">109</reflink>]). As a measure of morphological analysis, children completed a Picture task adapted from Nunes and Bryant ([<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref118">97</reflink>]), in which they chose which drawing best depicts a morphologically complex nonword (e.g., <emph>smiliest</emph>) made up of a real base word (e.g., <emph>smile</emph>) with an affix (e.g., ‐<emph>y</emph> and ‐<emph>est</emph>). Another task assessed both morphological awareness and analysis with the very same words, in a dynamic assessment approach, that we thought would be appropriate for younger children. In this Definition task (adapted from Anglin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref119">2</reflink>]), children are asked to identify morphemes in and to define morphologically complex words (e.g., <emph>effortless</emph>); skill in identifying morphemes reflects morphological awareness and in defining words referring to the meanings of both the roots and affixes reflects morphological analysis. As such, for each word, we obtained scores for both morphological awareness and analysis (see Table 1); should these scores load on distinctive factors, we have strong evidence of the distinction between morphological awareness and analysis.</p> <p>1 TABLE Description of the tasks used for each morphological construct.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Description of the task</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Morphological awareness</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Word analogy</td><td align="center">Making morphological transformations in words by analogy</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sentence completion</td><td align="center">Producing a morphologically related form to complete sentence</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition—awareness</td><td align="center">Identifying the two morphemes in a morphologically complex word</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Morphological analysis</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition—analysis</td><td align="center">Defining the two morphemes in a morphologically complex word</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Picture task</td><td align="center">Choosing the drawing that best depicts the meaning of a morphologically complex non‐word</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Word reading, reading comprehension, and vocabulary were measured with standardized tests, all reliable and valid measures of these constructs in this age range (Dunn and Dunn [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref120">42</reflink>]; Woodcock [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref121">126</reflink>]). Children completed controls for nonverbal ability, phonological awareness, working memory, and age, and parents reported on socioeconomic status. All these variables have demonstrated associations with reading comprehension (e.g., Foorman et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref122">51</reflink>]; Kargiotidis et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref123">66</reflink>]; Kieffer [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref124">71</reflink>]; Kirby et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref125">76</reflink>]; Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref126">83</reflink>]; Nagy et al. [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref127">94</reflink>]). Controlling for these enables us to isolate effects specific to morphological skills.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184680262-8">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 336 children (182 boys, 154 girls) were recruited in Grade 1 from 18 primary schools in Eastern North America. The children's mean age was 6 years 8 months (SD = 3.70 months) at the time of testing. All children were enrolled in classes with a standard English curriculum where literacy instruction generally integrates both whole‐language and phonics instruction. Based on parent‐report, 86% of children spoke English as their first language and 80% reported English to be their only language; none were reported to have been diagnosed with learning or language impairments. According to parents' reports, the following languages are used as first languages by the participating children: 86% English, 2.4% Arabic, 1.2% Chinese, 1.2% Korean, 0.9% Russian, 0.9% Hindi, 0.9% Mandarin, and a range of 0.3%–0.6% spoke other languages.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref128">1</reflink>] On average, households in the catchment areas for the schools are in the middle to upper‐middle SES class (Statistics Canada [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref129">118</reflink>]). The participants' mean scores on standardized assessments of reading comprehension, word reading, vocabulary, phonological awareness, and nonverbal ability were in the average range (see Table 2). This pattern suggests that our sample was relatively representative of typically developing English‐speaking children.</p> <p>2 TABLE Descriptive statistics for study measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Measure (max raw score)</th><th align="center">Range</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> raw score (SD)</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> standard score (SD)</th><th align="center">Skewness</th><th align="center">Kurtosis</th><th align="center">Reliability</th><th align="center">Factor loading</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Sentence completion (24)</td><td align="center">1–23</td><td align="center">11.38 (4.54)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center">−0.65</td><td align="center">0.88<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Word analogy (14)</td><td align="center">0–13</td><td align="center">4.10 (2.92)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.64</td><td align="center">−0.07</td><td align="center">0.81<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0.70</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition—awareness (12)</td><td align="center">0–12</td><td align="center">5.34 (3.20)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">−0.88</td><td align="center">0.73<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">66</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Picture task (25)</td><td align="center">2–23</td><td align="center">12.23 (4.46)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">−0.74</td><td align="center">0.77<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Definition—analysis (30)</td><td align="center">0–26</td><td align="center">11.02 (5.90)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.15</td><td align="center">−0.50</td><td align="center">0.60<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="center">0.74</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocabulary (240)</td><td align="center">73–192</td><td align="center">136.28 (18.29)</td><td align="center">105.64 (15.21)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">−0.11</td><td align="center">0.65</td><td align="center">0.97<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center">0.99</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Phonological awareness (17)</td><td align="center">0–16</td><td align="center">10.90 (2.99)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">−0.94</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center">0.81<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Non‐verbal ability (30)</td><td align="center">0–20</td><td align="center">8.75 (3.64)</td><td align="center">48.36 (7.43)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="center">0.24</td><td align="center">0.25</td><td align="center">0.89<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Socioeconomic status (66)</td><td align="center">8–66</td><td align="center">46.29 (11.83)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Word identification (46)</td><td align="center">0–33</td><td align="center">15.39 (6.40)</td><td align="center">104.18 (14.32)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">0.12</td><td align="center">−0.29</td><td align="center">0.95<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center">0.97</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sight word efficiency (108)</td><td align="center">0–72</td><td align="center">34.60 (17.02)</td><td align="center">102.81 (16.76)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center">−0.77</td><td align="center">0.93<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center">0.93</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Phonemic decoding efficiency (66)</td><td align="center">0–55</td><td align="center">12.24 (9.62)</td><td align="center">95.29 (15.06)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">1.14</td><td align="center">1.56</td><td align="center">0.86<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center">0.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading comprehension (38)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">9.67 (4.37)</td><td align="center">98.53 (13.48)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="center">−0.05</td><td align="center">−0.32</td><td align="center">0.93<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Working memory (16)</td><td align="center">0–8</td><td align="center">5.02 (1.55)</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">−1.29</td><td align="center">2.64</td><td align="center">0.74<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="center" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: <emph>M</emph>, mean; SD, standard deviation.</p> <ulist> <item>2 a Reliability from manual.</item> <item>3 b Cronbach's alpha reliability.</item> <item>4 c Standardized score with a mean of 100 (SD = 15).</item> <item>5 d Standardized score with a mean of 50 (SD = 10).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184680262-9">Materials</hd> <p>Standardized and experimental tasks were administered. Standardized tasks were administered and scored per their respective manual instructions. All measures had acceptable reliability (> 0.74; Kline [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref130">77</reflink>]; see Table 2).</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-10">Reading Comprehension</hd> <p>We assessed passage comprehension with the subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests 3rd Edition (WRMT‐3; Woodcock [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref131">126</reflink>]). For this subtest, participants silently read a series of 38 sentences, for which they are asked to provide a missing word (cloze task). Testing stopped when participants incorrectly answered six consecutive items.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-11">Morphological Tasks</hd> <p>We used four orally administered tasks to measure morphological skills. The picture task measured morphological analysis. The definition task measured morphological analysis; the definition task resulted in a score for each of morphological analysis and morphological awareness, and then a final two tasks (i.e., word analogy and sentence completion) assessed morphological awareness alone.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-12">Morphological Analysis: Picture Task</hd> <p>In the picture task (adapted from Nunes and Bryant [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref132">97</reflink>]), participants were asked to choose the picture among four (one correct picture and three distractors) that best described an orally presented pseudoword. Each pseudoword was made up of a real base word, combined with a real suffix, prefix, or both (e.g., <emph>nonwoody</emph>). All affixes were among the most common in the English language (Blevins [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref133">4</reflink>]; Honig et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref134">61</reflink>]). Each affix was attached in a way that followed etymological rules based on the concise Oxford dictionary of English etymology (Hoad [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref135">59</reflink>]). To facilitate the illustration of the pseudowords, most were paired with an anchor word, such as <emph>cottage</emph>, which was then included in the appropriate pictures.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref136">2</reflink>]</p> <p>Among the four pictures, the correct picture captured the meaning of all morphemes in the target pseudoword, that is, the base and affix(es); for example, for a nonwoody cottage, this would be a cottage without any wood. A first distractor depicted a similar meaning but did not quite capture the entire meaning, such as a cottage half made of wood. A second distractor included the anchor in the case of the cottage but captured even less of the correct meaning, such as a cottage mostly of wood. A final distractor depicted the opposite meaning of the target pseudoword, such as a cottage made completely of wood. As such, just the correct picture captured the meaning of all of the morphemes in <emph>nonwoody</emph>. There were 25 items. Participants' raw score was the total number of correct responses after administering all the items.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-13">Morphological Analysis and Awareness: Definition Task</hd> <p>In the definition task (adapted from Anglin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref137">2</reflink>]; Carlisle and Fleming [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref138">16</reflink>]; Nunes et al. [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref139">99</reflink>]), participants were asked to define morphologically complex target words and to identify their smaller word parts (i.e., base and suffix). This task was given entirely orally, as were all responses. The six target words were all two‐morpheme‐derived words that were low in surface frequency (e.g., <emph>treelet</emph>; U ≤ 5 words per million in text; Zeno et al. [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref140">131</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref141">3</reflink>] Most of these derived words had a base morpheme of high frequency (<emph>M</emph><subs><emph>U</emph></subs> = 51.63 (44.83), min<subs><emph>U</emph></subs> = 0.79), including at the Grade 1 level[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref142">4</reflink>] (Zeno et al. [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref143">131</reflink>]). The derivational suffixes (e.g., −<emph>let</emph> in <emph>treelet</emph>) were all among the 20 most commonly occurring affixes in the English language (Blevins [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref144">4</reflink>]). In the task, children were first asked what the target word meant, followed by whether it had any smaller parts. This task included dynamic assessment (following on Larson and Nippold [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref145">80</reflink>]; Wolter and Pike [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref146">125</reflink>]) in two ways. If the children defined the word by using the base form (e.g., using <emph>guard</emph> in defining <emph>guardian</emph>), they were asked to define the base (e.g., <emph>guard</emph>). In this way, the child was asked to define the base of the word in a way that did not use the base itself. Further, if children did not define both word parts in their initial description of the word, children were then provided with these word parts and given another opportunity to define the word. This task provides two scores: One score for morphological analysis for defining each of the morphemes and another for morphological awareness for identifying both the base and the suffix. We review scoring for each of these below.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-14">Scoring for Morphological Analysis</hd> <p>Children's orally provided definitions were scored based on whether they described the meaning of the base and/or affix. For example, for the target word <emph>guardian</emph>, acceptable definitions for the base word included <emph>defend, protect, shield, secure, keeps you safe, looks after you</emph>, and for the suffix included <emph>person, individual, someone who does, man/woman (he/she), like a soldier who...</emph>. Scoring considered the dynamic nature of assessment. One point was given for defining each of the morphemes correctly (for a total of two), with an additional point added for each morpheme if this was done without being provided with the word parts (for a total of another two point). A further point was given for a first definition of the base that did not include the base word itself. As such, children who accurately defined each morpheme in the target word without any prompts received a total of five points. As such, each of the six words was scored out of a total of 5 for a maximum score of 30 on this portion of the task.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-15">Scoring for Morphological Awareness</hd> <p>Scoring for morphological awareness comes from identifying the base and/or the suffix. Taking our example of <emph>guardian</emph> from above, the correct responses for the component morphemes were <emph>guard</emph> and <emph>‐ian</emph>. Children who accurately identified both the base and the suffix in the target word received a total of 2 points for a maximum score of 12 for the task.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-16">Morphological Awareness: Sentence Completion</hd> <p>In the sentence completion task (adapted from Carlisle [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref147">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref148">14</reflink>]), participants were asked to change a target item to complete a sentence missing a word at the end (e.g., <emph>Driver. Children are too young to__</emph>_[<emph>drive</emph>]). There were 24 items: Half compose and half decompose. For compose items, participants used a base word to generate a derived word (e.g., <emph>protect</emph> to <emph>protection</emph>). For decompose items, participants provided a base form from a derived word (e.g., <emph>popularity</emph> to <emph>popular</emph>). Further, the compose and decompose items included an equal number of items with (e.g., <emph>revise</emph> to <emph>revision</emph>) and without phonological changes (e.g., <emph>accept</emph> to <emph>acceptance</emph>) and All items were of derivational transformations. The raw score is the total number of correct responses after administering all the items.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-17">Morphological Awareness: Word Analogy</hd> <p>In the word analogy task (adapted from Kirby et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref149">76</reflink>]), participants heard a pair of morphologically related words (A:B), followed by the first word of a second pair (C). Participants were asked to complete the missing word in the second pair (D) following the pattern from the first pair (e.g., <emph>fall</emph>: <emph>fell</emph>:: <emph>talk</emph>: [<emph>talked</emph>]). There were 14 test items, with an equal number of inflected (e.g., <emph>dog: dogs</emph>:: <emph>child</emph>: [<emph>children</emph>]) and derived sets (e.g., <emph>hope: hopeful:: sun</emph>: [<emph>sunny</emph>]). Roughly half of the items included phonological changes (e.g., <emph>wide</emph>: <emph>width</emph>::<emph>deep</emph>: [<emph>depth</emph>]) to ensure that the task could not be completed based on a phonological analogy alone. Participants' raw score is the total number of correct responses after administering all the items.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-18">Word Reading</hd> <p>We measured word reading with three subtests: Word Identification of the WRMT‐3 (Woodcock [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref150">126</reflink>]) and Sight Word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtests of the Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE‐2; Torgesen et al. [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref151">121</reflink>]). In the word identification subtest, participants were asked to read a set of single real words out loud that were presented in order of increasing difficulty (e.g., <emph>milk, green, house</emph>). Testing stopped when participants incorrectly answered four consecutive items. In the sight word and the phonemic decoding efficiency subtests, children read sets of 104 real words (e.g., <emph>bat, plates, forest</emph>) and 63 pronounceable nonwords (e.g., <emph>daf, shloo, straler</emph>), respectively, as quickly and accurately as possible within 45 s. Items are presented in order of increasing difficulty. The score is the number read correctly within this time limit.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-19">Phonological Awareness</hd> <p>We assessed phonological awareness with the Blending and Deletion subtests of the WRMT‐3 (Woodcock [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref152">126</reflink>]). In these subtests, participants heard up to individual words presented orally one at time by the experimenter. In the blending subtest, participants were asked to combine orally presented syllables to identify a word (e.g., "Listen /bay/.../bee/. Tell me what these word makes [baby]"). In the deletion subtest, participants were asked to repeat each target word and then repeat the word without a specific phoneme (e.g., "Say <emph>stale</emph>. Now say <emph>stale</emph> without saying /t/". "Tell me what these word makes [baby]"). The blending subtest was comprised of 9 items and the deletion subtest of 8 items. Both tasks included practice items and testing was discontinued after four consecutive errors. To provide a comprehensive metric, we created a single score for phonological awareness by combining the total for the blending and deletion subtests, that we used in all analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-20">Vocabulary</hd> <p>We measured vocabulary with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Form A (PPVT‐IV; Dunn and Dunn [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref153">42</reflink>]). For this test of receptive vocabulary, participants heard a word spoken by the experimenter, and then they indicated which of the four pictures best depicted the spoken word. The start point was based on age, as described in the manual. Testing stopped after six consecutive errors.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-21">Socioeconomic Status</hd> <p>We measured participants' household SES with the Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status (Hollingshead [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref154">60</reflink>]). The Hollingshead ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref155">60</reflink>]) index is highly correlated with other SES measures (Cirino et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref156">22</reflink>]). The child's primary guardian reported the occupation and education of the child's guardians in a questionnaire. Education was coded on a 1‐ to 7‐point scale, and occupation was coded on a 1‐ to 9‐point scale. The status score was calculated by multiplying the education score by a weight of 3 and the occupation score by a weight of 5. The sum of the weighted scores for education and occupation represents household SES. The computed SES score can range from 8 to 66, with higher scores representing higher SES (Hollingshead [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref157">60</reflink>]). If the child had one working parent or lived in a single‐parent household, the single Hollingshead score was used to represent household SES. If the child had two guardians, the average of each guardian's computed social status scores was used to represent the child's household SES (Hollingshead [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref158">60</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-22">Working Memory</hd> <p>We measured working memory using the Backwards Digit Span task from Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC‐IV). In this subtest, participants were asked to listen to a series of numbers and repeat the series in backwards order. The length of each sequence of numbers increased as the participant responded correctly. This measure was comprised of 8 items, with a discontinue rule of one incorrect response.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-23">Nonverbal Ability</hd> <p>We measured nonverbal ability with the Matrix Reasoning subtest of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (Wechsler [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref159">124</reflink>]). In this standardized task, participants were presented with a series of incomplete visual patterns of increasing difficulty and asked to select the missing piece from five possible options. Testing discontinued when participants made four consecutive errors.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-24">Procedure</hd> <p>This study was approved by institutional and school board research ethics committees. Written consent for study participation was obtained from parents prior to the study; assent was obtained from each participant at every testing session. Testing took place in schools between February and May. Trained research assistants conducted individual and group testing sessions in a quiet location in the participants' school. Most tests were completed individually, exception for the morphological analysis and reading comprehension measures, which were completed in a group setting. Testing occurred across one or more sessions based on the participants' interest and the school's schedule. We administered the tasks in the following order: Matrix reasoning, blending and deletion tasks, picture task, sight word efficiency and phonemic decoding efficiency, working memory, passage comprehension, sentence completion, definition task, word identification, vocabulary, and word analogy. Participants received a small token of appreciation (e.g., pencil, stickers) each time they participated in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-25">Analytic Plan</hd> <p>For data analysis, we used raw scores and we employed full‐information maximum likelihood with robust standard errors to handle the amount of missing data (Enders [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref160">43</reflink>]) and also to guard against bias stemming from nonnormality and nonindependence of observations (Finney and DiStefano [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref161">45</reflink>]). In keeping with prior studies, we used raw scores instead of z‐scores or normed data for a variety of reasons. First, raw data make it easier to interpret path coefficients and variances in meaningful terms. Unstandardized regression coefficients are better when the scales of all variables are meaningful rather than arbitrary (Kline [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref162">77</reflink>]). Also, handling missing data requires raw data (Enders [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref163">43</reflink>]) and maximum likelihood estimation requires data that follows a multivariate normal distribution, a criterion that the use of standardized data violates (Brown [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref164">9</reflink>]). To test whether morphological awareness, morphological analysis, and vocabulary are distinct skills, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the hypothesized measurement model and contrast it with theoretically viable alternatives. We used the resulting factors to examine the mediator(s) by which morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension by conducting structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesized model for the relations of interest and contrast it with alternatives. Controls for nonverbal ability, phonological awareness, SES, and age were included. We regressed each variable on each tested endogenous (morphological awareness, morphological analysis, word reading skills, and vocabulary) and exogenous (reading comprehension) latent factor and we correlated each control variable with each other (i.e., phonological awareness, non‐verbal ability, age, and SES). We accounted for covariances among the predictors improving model fit (Kline [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref165">77</reflink>]). Drawing covariance between the mediating factors of word reading skills, morphological analysis, and vocabulary is a key factor to consider since our mediating factors are conceptually related. As such, they might capture overlapping processes and their residuals might be related (Hayes [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref166">57</reflink>]). Also, ignoring the relations between errors might result in biased estimates and affect the indirect effects (Preacher and Hayes [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref167">105</reflink>]). As shown in Figure 1, a multiple‐mediation path was used as a reference point to examine mechanisms in the relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension. This full model (i.e., all paths included) presents morphological awareness as having a direct effect on reading comprehension and an indirect effect via word reading, vocabulary, and morphological analysis. Mplus employs the Sobel test to calculate indirect effects and the Delta method to calculate standard errors of the indirect effects.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01apr25/rrq70007-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70007-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Μultiple mediation path model with all variables and paths included." /> </p> <p></p> <p>To address the possibility of multicollinearity, given that the endogenous variables (morphological awareness, morphological analysis, and vocabulary) in the tested model are considered interdependent, we run a series of variance inflation factor (VIF) tests. The VIF test is widely used across social sciences to determine whether multicollinearity exists (Akinwande et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref168">1</reflink>]; Craney and Surles [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref169">28</reflink>]; Marcoulides and Raykov [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref170">89</reflink>]; Shrestha [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref171">115</reflink>]; Thompson et al. [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref172">119</reflink>]). According to Shrestha ([<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref173">115</reflink>]), values of VIF between 1.81 and 5.00 indicate the absence of multicollinearity. In a series of VIF tests that we run to examine the relations between all the endogenous variables, we found that our VIF values of 1.38–2.12 were within the acceptable range. We evaluated model fit based on the Chi‐square statistical test, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean residual (SRMR). A nonsignificant Chi‐square signals a good model fit, although this statistical test is often biased to be significant with large sample sizes (Kline [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref174">77</reflink>]). CFI and TLI values greater than or equal to 0.95 and RMSEA and SRMR estimates less than 0.06 are indicative of good model fit (Browne and Cudeck [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref175">10</reflink>]; Hu and Bentler [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref176">63</reflink>]; Kline [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref177">77</reflink>]). We used bias‐corrected (bc) bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals to evaluate the statistical significance of the direct and indirect effects of interest, for which other significance tests can be biased (Preacher and Hayes [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref178">105</reflink>]). Finally, we compared the goodness‐of‐fit across competing theoretical (nested) models using the Satorra–Bentler scaled Chi‐square difference test (Bryant and Satorra [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref179">11</reflink>]). Across all analyses, our modeling decisions consider the fit statistics described above and guidance from theory and prior research. We present the results of each research question separately.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-27">Results</hd> <p>Descriptive information, including task reliabilities and normed scores for standardized assessments, is presented in Table 2. The SPSS package (Version 29) (IBM Corp [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref180">64</reflink>]) was used for descriptive statistics and correlations. Standard scores across all standard measures show that participants were performing within acceptable ranges for their age. In addition, inspection of the data for univariate and multivariate outliers, skewness, and kurtosis (Field [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref181">44</reflink>]) showed no indication of data nonnormality. Table 3 presents the correlations between the observed variables; correlations between latent factors are presented in Figure 2. Correlations between tasks of morphological awareness and morphological analysis were around 0.50, and between the latent factors were even higher, inspiring our careful checks as to their separability.</p> <p>3 TABLE Correlations between all study measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Measures</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">8</th><th align="center">9</th><th align="center">10</th><th align="center">11</th><th align="center">12</th><th align="center">13</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. Sentence completion</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Word analogy</td><td align="center">0.56<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Definition—awareness</td><td align="center">0.56<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Picture task</td><td align="center">0.61<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.48<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.41<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Definition—analysis</td><td align="center">0.56<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Vocabulary</td><td align="center">0.62<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.48<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.48<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.65<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Phonological awareness</td><td align="center">0.52<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.46<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.34<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Nonverbal ability</td><td align="center">0.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.26<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9. Socioeconomic status</td><td align="center">0.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.17<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">0.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">0.23</td><td align="center">0.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.11<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10. Word identification</td><td align="center">0.52<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.54<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.34<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">11. Sight word efficiency</td><td align="center">0.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.49<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.41<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.38<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.57<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.89<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">12. Phonemic decoding efficiency</td><td align="center">0.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.47<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.51<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.83<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.80<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">13. Reading comprehension</td><td align="center">0.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.52<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.49<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.49<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.49<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.81<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.81<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.64<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">14. Working memory</td><td align="center">0.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.38<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.34<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">0.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>7 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01apr25/rrq70007-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70007-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 The five‐factor measurement model for the latent variables proposed in the study. All correlations are significant, p < 0.001." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184680262-29">Are Morphological Awareness, Morphological Analysis, and Vocabulary Separable Skills in Grade...</hd> <p>We test the distinctiveness of morphological awareness and analysis with these classic and novel tasks, as well as strictly with classic tasks, as a robustness check for this distinction. To test the separability of morphological awareness, morphological analysis, and vocabulary, CFA was employed to fit the hypothesized measurement model and compare it with theoretically alternative models. Latent variables were created for morphological awareness, morphological analysis, vocabulary, word reading, and reading comprehension (see in Figure 1).[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref182">5</reflink>] The indicators for the latent variables are presented in Figure 2 and their factor loadings in Table 2. The vocabulary latent variable and the reading comprehension latent variable were created by calculating a disturbance value from each variance and reliability estimate and extracting the disturbance from the variable (Kline [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref183">77</reflink>] and following on Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref184">83</reflink>]). This approach made each vocabulary and reading comprehension a single‐indicator latent factor (Kline [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref185">77</reflink>]), making them more on par with the other latent variables in the model. This guarded against a statistical power imbalance between latent and observed mediator variables (see also Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref186">83</reflink>]). A correlation between the error terms of the two sets of scores from the definition task (i.e., awareness and analysis measures) was set to acknowledge the fact that the use of the same set of items (Yang and Green [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref187">129</reflink>]) might account for shared error variance influencing both measures (Green and Hershberger [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref188">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our proposed five‐factor model (Figure 2) demonstrated a good fit to the data, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref189">27</reflink>) = 35.95, <emph>p</emph> < 0.12, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.02. To confirm the appropriateness of this five‐factor measurement model, we contrasted its fit with alternative theoretically plausible measurement models. Table 4 describes the combinations of two‐ and four‐factor measurement models that were compared with our five‐factor model along with the results of the Satorra‐Bentler scaled chi‐square difference tests. For instance, CFA 3 in Table 4 examined whether morphological awareness and morphological analysis were part of a larger morphology construct and not measurably distinct for children in Grade 1. In all comparisons and as shown in Table 4, Satorra‐Bentler scaled Chi‐square difference tests show that the five‐factor measurement model provided a significantly better fit to the data. It was the best‐fitting model across a range of indices, providing that the measures used in the study are best captured by the five distinct latent constructs: Morphological awareness, morphological analysis, vocabulary, word reading, and reading comprehension. Establishing the distinctiveness of these skills is an important first step in testing the unique relations between these factors and reading comprehension in Grade 1.</p> <p>4 TABLE List of four‐, three‐, and two‐factor models that were considered to determine the most appropriate measurement model and to demonstrate the distinctiveness of the latent variables used in this study.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Factor 1</th><th align="center">Factor 2</th><th align="center">Factor 3</th><th align="center">Factor 4</th><th align="center">Factor 5</th><th align="center"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup> test<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /> Δ<italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup> (df)</th><th align="center">Model fit indices</th></tr><tr><th align="center">CFI</th><th align="center">TLI</th><th align="center">RMSEA</th><th align="center">SRMR</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">CFA 1: Five‐factor model</td><td align="center">M awareness</td><td align="center">M analysis</td><td align="center">Vocabulary</td><td align="center">Word reading</td><td align="center">RC</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CFA 2: Four‐factor model</td><td align="center">M awareness</td><td align="center">M analysis</td><td align="center">Vocabulary</td><td align="center">RCWord reading</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">161.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /> (4)</td><td align="center">0.92</td><td align="center">0.88</td><td align="center">0.13</td><td align="center">0.15</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CFA 3: Four‐factor model</td><td align="center">M awarenessM analysis</td><td align="center">Vocabulary</td><td align="center">Word reading</td><td align="center">RC</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">42.87<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /> (4)</td><td align="center">0.98</td><td align="center">0.96</td><td align="center">0.07</td><td align="center">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CFA 4: Four‐factor model</td><td align="center">M awarenessVocabulary</td><td align="center">M analysis</td><td align="center">Word reading</td><td align="center">RC</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">32.77<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /> (3)</td><td align="center">0.98</td><td align="center">0.97</td><td align="center">0.06</td><td align="center">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CFA 4: Four‐factor model</td><td align="center">M analysisVocabulary</td><td align="center">M awareness</td><td align="center">Word reading</td><td align="center">RC</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">129.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /> (4)</td><td align="center">0.94</td><td align="center">0.91</td><td align="center">0.11</td><td align="center">0.17</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CFA 4: Three‐factor model</td><td align="center">M awarenessM analysisVocabulary</td><td align="center">Word reading</td><td align="center">RC</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">54.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /> (6)</td><td align="center">0.97</td><td align="center">0.96</td><td align="center">0.07</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CFA 5: Two‐factor model</td><td align="center">M awarenessM analysisVocabulary</td><td align="center">RCWord reading</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">167.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /> (7)</td><td align="center">0.92</td><td align="center">0.89</td><td align="center">0.09</td><td align="center">0.12</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 Abbreviations: M, morphological; RC, reading comprehension.</item> <item>9 a Models using Satorra–Bentler scaled Chi‐square difference test.</item> <item>10 b <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. A significant <emph>p</emph>‐value indicates a significant reduction in fit compared with CFA 1.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184680262-30">What Skills Mediate the Relation of Morphological Awareness With Reading Comprehension in Ear...</hd> <p>To test mediators in the relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension, we used SEM analyses, following a theoretically driven model‐testing strategy in which we added or removed one path at a time and evaluated changes in fit across nested models (Kline [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref190">77</reflink>]). We tested theoretically plausible alternatives multiple—mediating models with—the goal of identifying the most parsimonious and well‐fitting one. Again, as in the CFA models, there was a correlation between the error terms of the two sets of scores from the definition task (i.e., awareness and analysis measures). We removed working memory from the final analysis for the sake of model parsimony since it did not show any significant effect on any variable in the final model (Kline [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref191">77</reflink>]). The tested models, presented in Figure 3, illustrate the sequential process followed to examine the direct and indirect contributions of morphological awareness to reading comprehension in Grade 1 via three potential factors.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01apr25/rrq70007-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70007-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Sequence of nested models tested to evaluate the direct and indirect contributions of morphological awareness to reading comprehension (controls of nonverbal ability, phonological awareness, socioeconomic status, age are included, as shown in Figure 1)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>As we said, we tested a series of theoretically driven models that each evaluated the relations between morphological awareness and reading comprehension, including the presence of mediators. We began by fitting the data to Model 1A; this model captures our prediction that morphological awareness is indirectly associated with reading comprehension via word reading, morphological analysis, and vocabulary, with no direct contribution from morphological awareness itself. This model contains all the possible indirect pathways in one model. Although Model 1A provided good fit to the data (χ<sups>2</sups>: 96.89, df: 48, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, CFI: 0.98, TLI: 0.96, RMSEA: 0.06, SRMR: 0.03), additional theoretically viable models were compared to identify the best‐fitting model.</p> <p>We then tested Models 1B, 1C, and 1D, each of which was nested within Model 1A. For each nested model, we tested a prior alternate predictions to best explain our data. We systematically removed a single path at a time, one at a time removing each of the paths linking morphological awareness to each of word reading, morphological analysis, and vocabulary, respectively. By doing this, we retained estimates of the direct contribution of word reading, morphological analysis, and vocabulary to reading comprehension, testing the mediating paths between morphological awareness and reading comprehension via the other two factors. We did so to determine if these paths added substantial meaning to our data. We compared each of the nested models to Model 1A by using the Satorra–Bentler Chi‐square difference test. In this test, a significant Chi‐square value suggests a meaningful reduction in model fit, highlighting that the removed pathway is important to best explain the data (Satorra and Bentler [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref192">112</reflink>]).</p> <p>In Model 1B, we removed the path from morphological awareness to word reading. By doing so, we tested the indirect contribution of morphological awareness to reading comprehension via morphological analysis and vocabulary. The Sattora–Bentler scaled difference test indicated that Model 1A had a significantly better fit to the data than Model 1B (Sattora‐Bentler Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 43.26, Δdf = 1, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). As such, the results of the Sattora–Bentler scaled difference test suggest that removing the path from morphological awareness to word reading significantly reduces model fit, highlighting that this path plays an important role in the model. For this reason, we are justified in retaining it in the final model.</p> <p>In Model 1C, we removed the path from morphological awareness to morphological analysis. By doing so, we tested the indirect contribution of morphological awareness to reading comprehension via word reading and vocabulary. The Sattora–Bentler scaled difference test indicated that Model 1A still had a significantly better fit to the data than Model 1C (Sattora–Bentler Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 117.06, Δdf = 1, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), suggesting that the path from morphological awareness to morphological analysis plays a significant role in the model. So, we retained this path in the final model and Model 1A as the best fitted model.</p> <p>Finally, in Model 1D, we removed the path from morphological awareness to vocabulary. By doing so, we tested the indirect contribution of morphological awareness to reading comprehension via word reading and morphological analysis. Once again, the Sattora–Bentler scaled difference test indicated that Model 1A had a significantly better fit to the data than Model 1D (Sattora–Bentler Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 116.58, Δdf = 1, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), highlighting that the path from morphological awareness to vocabulary plays an important role in the model. So, again, we retained this path in the final model and Model 1A as the best fitted model.</p> <p>As a final step in our model‐building process, we added a direct path between morphological awareness and reading comprehension (see Model 1E in Figure 3). This model captures our prediction that morphological awareness is directly and indirectly associated with reading comprehension via word reading, morphological analysis, and vocabulary. First, we contrasted this full model (Model 1E) to Model 1A. The Sattora–Bentler scaled difference test indicated that adding the path from morphological awareness to reading comprehension did not significantly improve fit (Sattora–Bentler Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.07, Δdf = 1, <emph>p</emph> = 0.60), implying that this path does not add substantial meaning to the data. This means that morphological awareness does not contribute directly to reading comprehension in Grade 1. So, Model 1A was retained as the most parsimonious model. Morphological awareness showed a large effect on vocabulary (<emph>β</emph> = 0.94, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). However, vocabulary did not explain unique variance in reading comprehension after accounting for the indirect effects and the controls. To improve model parsimony, the direct effect of vocabulary on reading comprehension was not included in the final model, as it can add unnecessary complexity without meaningful contribution to the model fit. This approach contributes to simplify the model and focus on variables that significantly contribute to the outcome (Kline [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref193">77</reflink>]); this modification results in Model 1F.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-32">Interpreting the Final Model</hd> <p>Model 1F (see Figure 4) revealed a fully mediated relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension. Standardized coefficients (<emph>β</emph>) for the paths are shown in Figure 4, with the magnitude of effects interpreted using Cohen's ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref194">26</reflink>]; ~0.10 is small, ~0.30 is moderate, > 0.50 is large) classification. Morphological awareness had a significantly moderate to large effect on word reading (<emph>β</emph> = 0.53, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). In addition, word reading contributed a large effect to reading comprehension (<emph>β</emph> = 0.76, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). We refer to this indirect path as the <emph>word reading pathway</emph>, and it corresponded to a significant moderate indirect effect (<emph>β</emph> = 0.40, BC bootstrap 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.28, 0.51]). Morphological awareness also had a strong effect on morphological analysis (<emph>β</emph> = 0.98, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and this in turn had a moderate effect on reading comprehension (<emph>β</emph> = 0.32, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). This indirect path, which we refer to as the <emph>morphological analysis pathway</emph>, provided a significant moderate indirect effect (<emph>β</emph> = 0.31, BC bootstrap 95% (CI) [0.21, 0.40]). In all comparisons and as given in Table 5, Satorra–Bentler scaled Chi‐square difference tests show that Model 1F provided a significantly better fit to the data. It was the best‐fitting model across a range of indices. To sum up, our results[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref195">6</reflink>] support a fully mediated relation of morphological awareness with reading comprehension through two pathways, the morphological reading pathway via word reading and the morphological analysis pathway via morphological analysis, after controlling for the effects of phonological awareness, nonverbal ability, SES, and age.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01apr25/rrq70007-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70007-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Final model with standardized coefficients included. Final model with the standardized coefficients included. Lines represent significant effects. Controls are regressed on all tested variables. Nonverbal ability to morphological awareness (β = 0.20**), word reading (β = −0.00), morphological analysis (β = 0.09), vocabulary (β = −0.02), and reading comprehension (β = −0.03). Phonological awareness to morphological awareness (β = 0.58**), word reading (β = 0.25**), morphological analysis (β = −0.22**), vocabulary (β = −0.22*), and reading comprehension (β = −0.01). Socioeconomic status to morphological awareness (β = 0.12*), word reading (β = 0.02), morphological analysis (β = −0.08), vocabulary (β = 0.01), and reading comprehension (β = 0.01). Age to morphological awareness (β = 0.17**), word reading (β = −0.44**), morphological analysis (β = 0.10*), vocabulary (β = 0.07), and reading comprehension (β = 0.24**). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001." /> </p> <p></p> <p>5 TABLE List of structural equation models that were considered to determine the most appropriate measurement model.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>‐test<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /> Δ<italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup> (df)</th><th align="center">Model fit indices</th></tr><tr><th align="center">CFI</th><th align="center">TLI</th><th align="center">RMSEA</th><th align="center">SRMR</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Model 1A</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">0.98</td><td align="center">0.97</td><td align="center">0.06</td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Model 1B</td><td align="center">43.26<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /> (1)</td><td align="center">0.96</td><td align="center">0.94</td><td align="center">0.07</td><td align="center">0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Model 1C</td><td align="center">117.06<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /> (1)</td><td align="center">0.93</td><td align="center">0.89</td><td align="center">0.10</td><td align="center">0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Model 1D</td><td align="center">116.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /> (1)</td><td align="center">0.93</td><td align="center">0.89</td><td align="center">0.10</td><td align="center">0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Model 1E</td><td align="center">0.07 (1)</td><td align="center">0.98</td><td align="center">0.96</td><td align="center">0.06</td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Model 1F</td><td align="center">0.79 (1)</td><td align="center">0.98</td><td align="center">0.97</td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>11 a Models using Satorra–Bentler scaled Chi‐square difference test.</item> <item>12 b <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. A significant <emph>p</emph>‐value indicates a significant reduction in fit compared with Model 1A.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184680262-34">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanism(s) by which morphological awareness is related to early reading comprehension. Both classic and recent models of reading comprehension (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref196">62</reflink>]; Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref197">82</reflink>]; Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref198">103</reflink>]) predict two plausible indirect pathways from morphological awareness to reading comprehension: One via word reading and another via word meaning. These models conflict as to whether these pathways are general (i.e., word reading and vocabulary; Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref199">62</reflink>]; Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref200">103</reflink>]) or morphology‐specific (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref201">82</reflink>]). Building on studies exploring these pathways, children in the mid to upper elementary school years (e.g., Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref202">83</reflink>]; Deacon and Levesque [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref203">36</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref204">132</reflink>]), we sought to explore them in children in early elementary school. Specifically, we tested whether word reading, vocabulary, and/or morphological analysis mediated the relations between morphological awareness and reading comprehension in a study of 337 English‐speaking children in Grade 1. We first confirmed the separability of morphological awareness, morphological analysis, and vocabulary as distinct skills in Grade 1 by running separate CFA models and conducting multi‐collinearity checks. We then tested the mechanism(s) by which morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension, contrasting the mediators of word reading, vocabulary (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref205">62</reflink>]), and morphological analysis (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref206">83</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref207">82</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref208">132</reflink>]). Following the testing of a series of theoretically plausible models, each controlling for nonverbal ability, phonological awareness, socioeconomic status, and age, the most parsimonious and best‐fitting model that emerged was one with word reading and morphological analysis pathways of similar magnitudes in the relation between morphological awareness and reading comprehension. There were no indirect effects via vocabulary or direct effects of morphological awareness to reading comprehension after the mediators and controls. We discuss each of these findings in turn.</p> <p>Our first finding demonstrates that morphological awareness, morphological analysis, and vocabulary are distinguishable, albeit highly interrelated, skills. Across different measurement models, we established morphological awareness and morphological analysis as related but separate factors; other analyses confirmed the absence of multicollinearity concerns, despite moderate to high correlations. The fact that this modeling of morphological awareness and analysis includes scores from different questions about the very same set of items provides strong evidence of the distinctiveness of these related constructs in this age range. Together, these findings support the multidimensionality of morphology, as predicted by the Morphological Pathways Framework (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref209">82</reflink>]). Certainly, this work clearly extends the existing evidence base of the separability of morphological awareness and morphological analysis from each other and vocabulary with more experienced readers (Kristensen et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref210">78</reflink>]; Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref211">83</reflink>]; Deacon and Levesque [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref212">36</reflink>]; Wang and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref213">123</reflink>]; Tomblin and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref214">120</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref215">132</reflink>]; but see Massonnié et al. [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref216">90</reflink>]; Spencer et al. [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref217">117</reflink>]) to younger readers. This evidence of distinctiveness within morphological skills in young children is striking, given that classic and recent studies have shown the increasing differentiation of language skills with age (e.g., Foorman, Koon, et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref218">50</reflink>]; Lonigan and Milburn [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref219">85</reflink>]; Tomblin and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref220">120</reflink>]). Indeed, our findings provide empirical support that morphological awareness and analysis are related but distinctive abilities in young readers (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref221">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>In terms of mediators, our modeling revealed two key mechanisms by which morphological awareness is related to early reading comprehension: Word reading and morphological analysis, with no indirect effects via vocabulary or direct effects from morphological awareness. Taking our findings together studies of more experienced readers, there might be developmental continuity in pathways connecting morphological awareness to reading comprehension. Word reading and morphological analysis consistently emerge as mechanisms connecting morphological awareness to reading comprehension in studies of children in Grades 1, 3, and 5 (our study here; Kargiotidis et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref222">66</reflink>]; Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref223">83</reflink>][<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref224">7</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref225">132</reflink>]). Indeed, morphological analysis skills have been widely advocated as a mechanism even for young kids as to how they build new words (Bowers et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref226">7</reflink>]; Carlisle and Goodwin [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref227">17</reflink>]; Common Core State Standards Initiative, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref228">27</reflink>] 16–17, 27, 29; Galuschka et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref229">52</reflink>]; Nagy et al. [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref230">95</reflink>]), and here we show their relevance to reading comprehension. Vocabulary emerges less consistently as a mediator across studies; it is a significant mediator in some prior studies (Kargiotidis et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref231">66</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref232">132</reflink>]) and not in others, both in our own study and that of Levesque et al. ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref233">83</reflink>]). Diverging findings could be related to the other measures included. It seems that when both morphological analysis and vocabulary are included as mediators (as is the case in our study in contrast to Kargiotidis et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref234">66</reflink>]), morphological analysis emerges as the significant mediator. Indeed, studies with upper elementary grades also show only morphological analysis as a significant mediator when both morphological analysis and oral vocabulary are included (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref235">83</reflink>]; see also Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref236">132</reflink>] for contributions of morphological analysis when reading vocabulary is controlled). In younger readers, it seems then that morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension indirectly via word reading and via word meaning, with the latter reflecting morphological analysis skills in this age range. These interpretations need further testing.</p> <p>In keeping with the main assumptions of the morphological pathways framework (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref237">82</reflink>]), we also tested a direct pathway from morphological awareness to reading comprehension; this did not emerge as significant in our analyses. The absence of a significant pathway is consistent with Kargiotidis et al.'s study ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref238">66</reflink>]) with Greek‐speaking children, the one other prior study with children in Grade 1. This direct effect did emerge in Kruk and Bergman's ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref239">79</reflink>]) study of effects of morphological awareness at Grade 1 on reading comprehension at Grade 3. Notably, Kruk and Bergman ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref240">79</reflink>]) included some (e.g., vocabulary and word reading), but not all of the same controls, most notably not morphological analysis. As we highlighted earlier, preschool‐aged children are remarkably skilled in using morphemes to generate and understand words (e.g., Anglin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref241">2</reflink>]; Clark [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref242">24</reflink>]; Donaldson [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref243">41</reflink>]; Gombert [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref244">53</reflink>]), and so effects of this well‐developed skill may dwarf those from the relatively underdeveloped morphological awareness skill in this age range. Direct effects from morphological awareness on reading comprehension might emerge when morphological awareness is more established, such as in the upper elementary school grades (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref245">83</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref246">132</reflink>]). Empirical evidence to date then supports developmental continuity in word reading and morphological analysis as mediators with the direct effect of morphological awareness on reading comprehension potentially emerging in the later elementary school years. As we noted earlier, we suspect that this pattern is related the relative strength of the morphological awareness versus analysis skills; testing this speculation in a longitudinal study will be important.</p> <p>In terms of theory, our findings update the morphological pathways framework (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref247">82</reflink>]) by testing its predictions in earlier elementary grades. In keeping with the main predictions of Levesque et al. ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref248">82</reflink>]), we found two indirect pathways in early grades, reflecting word reading and word meaning processes, with the latter as one that is morphology‐specific. These findings are parallel to those in the upper elementary grades (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref249">83</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref250">132</reflink>]). Contrary to the predictions of the morphological pathways framework (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref251">82</reflink>]), the direct pathway linking the linguistic system to comprehension processes is one that emerges only in the upper elementary grades (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref252">83</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref253">84</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref254">132</reflink>]). Consistently across the earlier and upper elementary school grades, morphological awareness appears to affect reading comprehension via specific mechanisms (i.e., word reading and morphological analysis). Thus, across reading development, we envision morphological awareness functioning as a broader activator of the mechanisms represented by the word reading and the morphological analysis pathways, facilitating in turn reading comprehension processes. In the upper elementary school grades, these indirect paths are still at work, with the addition of a direct pathway; at this point, the direct pathway of morphological awareness to comprehension processes might reflect its centrality in the linguistic system (Carlisle and Goodwin [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref255">17</reflink>]; Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref256">83</reflink>]; Perfetti et al. [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref257">104</reflink>]). In younger readers, the direct pathway may be subsumed by these morphology‐specific pathways in younger readers, particularly with morphological analysis skills more developed in comparison to morphological awareness skills in younger readers. These ideas emerge in part from combining findings across separate studies; clearly there is value in a unified longitudinal study.</p> <p>We note that these findings run counter to predictions of the Simple View of Reading (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref258">62</reflink>]): that early reading comprehension will be driven by strong effects from word reading, with oral language emerging later as a predictor (e.g., Kendeou, Van den Broek, et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref259">70</reflink>]; Verhoeven and van Leeuwe [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref260">122</reflink>]). Of course, we are extending these already to speculate as to how they apply to morphological awareness, a variable omitted from the simple view. And yet we think that these ideas are worth exploring. Indeed, we found that word reading appears to be a mechanism by which morphological awareness connects to early reading comprehension (Kendeou, Van den Broek, et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref261">70</reflink>]; Protopapas et al. [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref262">106</reflink>]). However, our finding of the morphological analysis pathway suggests that in young readers, morphological analysis connects the linguistic system to the lexicon and on to early reading comprehension (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref263">82</reflink>]). As such, we show that aspects of word reading and oral language, specifically in terms of morphological analysis, can support early reading comprehension. These findings push us to consider frameworks that identify the influence of individual components of oral language.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-35">Educational Implications</hd> <p>Our findings of word reading and morphological analysis as mechanisms underlying the relation of morphological awareness with reading comprehension in this study of individual differences have the potential for educational implications. Indeed, the identification of word reading and morphological analysis as mediators in the relation of morphological awareness with reading comprehension allude to these as components of early reading interventions that are likely to be effective. Certainly, word reading is already a core focus of instruction. Turning to morphological analysis, intervention studies provide empirical support of its effectiveness by involving an active inquiry‐based approach (Bowers et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref264">7</reflink>]; Bowers and Kirby [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref265">8</reflink>]; Kirby and Bowers [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref266">75</reflink>]; Savage et al. [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref267">113</reflink>]; Zeh [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref268">130</reflink>]). Working out the meanings of words via component morphemes harkens back to Anglin's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref269">2</reflink>]) classic idea about morphological problem‐solving. In a recent randomized control trial, Savage et al. ([<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref270">113</reflink>]) demonstrated the effectiveness of instruction in morphological analysis on reading comprehension for children in Grade 3 with low levels of morphological awareness (and also word reading), in comparison to morphological decoding and untaught comparison groups. These findings align with meta‐analytic evidence that instruction in morphology is particularly effective for poorer readers (Bowers et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref271">7</reflink>]; Goodwin and Ahn [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref272">54</reflink>]). Resources for how to do so are largely focused on older readers (e.g., Manyak et al. [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref273">88</reflink>]), and yet, we speculate that morphological analysis instruction would be useful in early reading instruction. Some ideas for how to implement morphological analysis with young children come from the Florida Center for Reading Research ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref274">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref275">48</reflink>]), with their "Build a word" and "Root a word" activities. These suggestions need further empirical inquiry; we are not aware of studies testing effectiveness of instruction in morphological analysis in this age range. That said, given that most words in children's texts are multisyllabic and/or multimorphemic, even at the onset of schooling (Fitzgerald et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref276">46</reflink>]; Hiebert and Tortorelli [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref277">58</reflink>]), such instruction could be powerful in launching children toward successful reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-36">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Our findings need to be interpreted within the context in which they emerged: With typically developing English‐speaking children in Grade 1. First, we chose this timeframe given the evidence of both morphological awareness and morphological analysis in this age range (Anglin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref278">2</reflink>]; Carlisle [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref279">15</reflink>]; Clark [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref280">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref281">24</reflink>]; Donaldson [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref282">41</reflink>]; Gombert [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref283">53</reflink>]), as well as the need to read morphologically complex words at this point in reading development (e.g., Hiebert and Tortorelli [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref284">58</reflink>]). Relations might differ at other grades. These relations might also differ for children who struggle with word reading versus reading comprehension (e.g., Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref285">38</reflink>]). We also note that the extent to which morphology was taught in the classroom is not documented, and that children are clustered in classrooms. Second, relations might differ in other languages. In exploring the robustness of our findings, we replicated our results with only English‐speaking children, suggesting that our findings are applicable to English‐speaking children, as well as to more diverse classrooms. Turning to other languages, certainly, morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension in other languages, including those represented with phonologically transparent orthographies (e.g., Cheng et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref286">21</reflink>]; Diamanti et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref287">40</reflink>]; Manolitsis et al. [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref288">86</reflink>]; Oliveira et al. [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref289">100</reflink>]; Xie et al. [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref290">128</reflink>]). And yet, the mechanisms by which morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension might differ based on the language or writing system.</p> <p>As with any study, measurement can be improved. We were motivated to include multiple measures of morphological constructs to both test their separability and measure them comprehensively. In identifying measures, we chose a dynamic assessment measure, with the idea that it could be particularly informative with younger children, although its inclusion does make our measurement less comparable to studies with older children (e.g., Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref291">83</reflink>]). We were keen to see if this measure could offer a particularly precise way to disentangle morphological awareness and analysis, and this bore out in the analyses. These two constructs emerged as separable based on different questions asked about the same set of words, providing strong evidence of their separability. And yet all results from this study need to be interpreted with an eye to the fact that we did not measure morphological decoding. This decision was informed by our challenges in identifying morphologically complex words that Grade 1 children could reliably read,[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref292">8</reflink>] and yet, future research could explore alternative measures such as priming (e.g., Rabin and Deacon [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref293">107</reflink>]) and/or spelling (e.g., Deacon and Bryant [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref294">30</reflink>]). Including such a measure might shift the pattern of results; given the long‐standing evidence of the involvement of word reading in early reading comprehension, word reading skill might be more involved were it to also capture morphological decoding. And, of course, it would be worth testing the separability of these morphological skills in Grade 1, building on Levesque et al. ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref295">82</reflink>]). In terms of other measures, we included a single standardized measure of each of vocabulary and reading comprehension because of time constraints; other indicators of both skills could be included in future studies. For vocabulary, extending beyond a receptive picture‐based measure could be useful; this format is similar to one of our measures of morphological analysis, but unlike our other morphological measures. For reading comprehension, we used the close‐based task of passage comprehension; expanding to multiple measures of this key construct would be essential, as would considering the relative extent to which these draw on oral language versus word reading skills (e.g., Keenan et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref296">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, we acknowledge that this is a cross‐sectional study and we cannot conclude on causal relations. However, the directions of effects in our multiple‐mediation models are theoretically and empirically driven (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref297">83</reflink>]). Important next steps remain in evaluating these relations as they play out over time (Deacon and Levesque [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref298">36</reflink>]; Maxwell and Cole [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref299">91</reflink>]; Maxwell et al. [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref300">92</reflink>]; Selig and Preacher [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref301">114</reflink>]).</p> <p>To summarize, we report here on a study of the mechanisms by which morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension in English‐speaking children in Grade 1. Two pathways of similar magnitude emerged in structural equation modeling of this relation: One via word reading and another via morphological analysis, with no indirect effects via vocabulary or direct effects of morphological awareness on reading comprehension beyond the mediators and controls. These findings, together with those of earlier studies, suggest developmental continuity in word reading and morphological analysis as pathways by which morphological awareness contributes to reading comprehension across the elementary school years. Additionally, these findings, when combined with others, suggest that direct effects of morphological awareness on reading comprehension might emerge later in the elementary school years. Together, these studies invite the testing of interventions with young readers specifically focused on morphological skills to improve reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-37">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of Dalhousie University. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their inclusion in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-38">Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-39">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0184680262-40">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.</p> <ref id="AN0184680262-41"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref128" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Afrikan, Albanian, Amharic, Bengali, Bosnian, Gujarati, Italian, Karaya, Kurdish, Malayalam, Romanian, Spanish, Swahili/Liswahili, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref69" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Except for <emph>cycle</emph>, which has a high frequency related form of <emph>bicycle</emph>, and <emph>eat</emph> which has high frequency relatives of <emph>eaten</emph> and <emph>eating</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref75" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> These six items (i.e., <emph>frightful</emph>, <emph>guardian</emph>, <emph>speechless</emph>, <emph>leader</emph>, <emph>effortless</emph>, and <emph>inflatable</emph>) were chosen from a larger set that were piloted tested with children in this age range and were achievable for children to orally provide descriptions for, both in terms of definitions and morpheme identification. The original items piloted also included <emph>frightful</emph>, <emph>disposable</emph>, <emph>quickly</emph>, <emph>breakable</emph>, and <emph>guesser</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref133" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> This was the case for most bases, except for two bases that piloting revealed children in this age range found easy to define. These were <emph>effort</emph> and <emph>inflate</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref50" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> To examine separability even more tightly, we conducted additional CFA models testing only the linguistic skills (i.e., morphological awareness, morphological analysis, and vocabulary). The three‐factor model (i.e., morphological awareness, morphological analysis, and vocabulary) provided the best fit to the data compared to one‐ (all linguistic skills together) and two‐factor models (morphology factor consisting of morphological awareness and morphological analysis and a separate vocabulary factor). These results replicate our findings that morphological awareness and morphological analysis are distinct factors.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref51" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> We conducted the same series of SEM models using only the English‐speaking children to confirm that our findings apply specifically to children who speak English as a first language. Analyses showed that a parallel set of results, including the best‐fitting model and the significant pathways within it.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref21" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> In Levesque et al. ([83]), indirect mediation was through both morphological decoding and word reading.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref265" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> In our piloting in public schools, we asked English‐speaking children in Grade 1 to read morphologically complex and appropriate control words (e.g., <emph>reading</emph> and <emph>react</emph>) and non‐words (e.g., <emph>doer</emph> and <emph>dancive</emph>). For the real words, as much as possible, we selected words with frequencies for Grades 1 and 2 (based on Zeno et al. [131]). Children in Grade 1 were at 13% (SD = 17%) accuracy on the words and 16% (SD = 16%) on the non‐words, suggesting that the scores overlapped with zero and clear floor effects.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref164" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This work was supported by SSHRC Insight Grant and InterUniversity Research Network (435‐2018‐1456) to the third author.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184680262-42"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Akinwande, M. O., H. G. Dikko, and A. Samson. 2015. " Variance Inflation Factor: As a Condition for the Inclusion of Suppressor Variable (S) in Regression Analysis." Open Journal of Statistics 5, no. 07 : 754. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2015.57075.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anglin, J. M. 1993. " Vocabulary Development: A Morphological Analysis." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 58, no. 10 : i. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baumann, J. F., E. C. Edwards, G. Font, C. A. Tereshinski, E. J. Kame'enui, and S. Olejnik. 2002. " Teaching Morphemic and Contextual Analysis to Fifth‐Grade Students." Reading Research Quarterly 37, no. 2 : 150 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.37.2.3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blevins, W. 2001. Teaching Phonics and Word Study in the Intermediate Grades: A Complete Source Book. Teaching Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowers, J. S., and P. N. Bowers. 2018. " The Importance of Correctly Characterising the English Spelling System When Devising and Evaluating Methods of Reading Instruction: Comment on Taylor, Davis, and Rastle (2017)." Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 71, no. 7 : 1497 – 1500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818759477.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowers, J. S., and P. N. Bowers. 2021. "The Science of Reading Provides Little or No Support for the Widespread Claim That Systematic Phonics Should be Part of Initial Reading Instruction: A Response to Buckingham." https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f5qyu.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowers, P., J. R. Kirby, and S. H. Deacon. 2010. " The Effects of Morphological Instruction on Literacy Skills: A Systematic Review of the Literature." Review of Educational Research 80, no. 2 : 144 – 179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowers, P. N., and J. R. Kirby. 2010. " Effects of Morphological Instruction on Vocabulary Acquisition." Reading and Writing 23, no. 5 : 515 – 537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐009‐9172‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, T. A. 2015. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2nd ed. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck. 1992. " Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit." Sociological Methods & Research 21, no. 2 : 230 – 258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryant, F. B., and A. Satorra. 2012. " Principles and Practice of Scaled Difference Chi‐Square Testing." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 19, no. 3 : 372 – 398. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.687671.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F. 1988. " Knowledge of Derivational Morphology and Spelling Ability in Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Graders." Applied PsychoLinguistics 9, no. 3 : 247 – 266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400007839.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F. 1995. " Morphological Awareness and Early Reading Achievement." In Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, edited by L. B. Feldman, 189 – 209. Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F. 2000. " Awareness of the Structure and Meaning of Morphologically Complex Words: Impact on Reading." Reading and Writing 12 : 169 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F. 2003. " Morphology Matters in Learning to Read: A Commentary." Reading Psychology 24, no. 3–4 : 291 – 322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710390227369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F., and J. Fleming. 2003. " Lexical Processing of Morphologically Complex Words in the Elementary Years." Scientific Studies of Reading 7, no. 3 : 239 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0703_3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F., and A. Goodwin. 2013. " Morphemes Matter: How Morphological Knowledge Contributes to Reading and Writing." In Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders, edited by C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, and G. P. Wallach, 2nd ed., 265 – 282. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F., and C. A. Stone. 2005. " Exploring the Role of Morphemes in Word Reading." Reading Research Quarterly 40, no. 4 : 428 – 449. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.4.3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casalis, S., M. Dusautoir, P. Colé, and S. Ducrot. 2009. " Morphological Effects in Children Word Reading: A Priming Study in Fourth Graders." British Journal of Developmental Psychology 27, no. 3 : 761 – 766. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151008X389575.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casalis, S., and M.‐F. Louis‐Alexandre. 2000. " Morphological Analysis, Phonological Analysis and Learning to Read French: A Longitudinal Study." Reading and Writing 12, no. 3–4 : 303 – 335. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008177205648.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheng, Y., J. Zhang, X. Wu, H. Liu, and H. Li. 2016. " Cross‐Lagged Relationships Between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension Among Chinese Children." Frontiers in Psychology 7 : 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01379.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cirino, P. T., C. E. Chin, R. A. Sevcik, M. Wolf, M. Lovett, and R. D. Morris. 2002. " Measuring Socioeconomic Status: Reliability and Preliminary Validity for Different Approaches." Assessment 9, no. 2 : 145 – 155. https://doi.org/10.1177/10791102009002005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, E. V. 1982. " The Young Word‐Maker: A Case Study of Innovation in the Child's Lexicon." In Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, edited by E. Wanner and L. R. Gleitman, 390 – 425. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, E. V. 2017. " Morphology in Language Acquisition." In The Handbook of Morphology, edited by A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky, 374 – 389. Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clarke, P. J., M. J. Snowling, and C. Hulme. 2010. " Ameliorating Children's Reading‐Comprehension Difficulties: A Randomized Controlled Trial." Psychological Science 21, no. 8 : 1106 – 1116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610375449.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. 1992. " Statistical Power Analysis." Current Directions in Psychological Science 1, no. 3 : 98 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Common Core State Standards Initiative. n.d. "Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects." https://<ulink href="http://www.thecorestandards.org/wp‐content/uploads/ELA%5fStandards1.pdf">www.thecorestandards.org/wp‐content/uploads/ELA%5fStandards1.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Craney, T. A., and J. G. Surles. 2002. " Model‐Dependent Variance Inflation Factor Cutoff Values." Quality Engineering 14, no. 3 : 391 – 403. https://doi.org/10.1081/QEN‐120001878.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crosson, A. C., and M. G. McKeown. 2016. " Middle School Learners' Use of Latin Roots to Infer the Meaning of Unfamiliar Words." Cognition and Instruction 34, no. 2 : 148 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1145121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., and P. E. Bryant. 2005. " The Strength of Children's Knowledge of Root Morphemes in the Spelling of Derived Words." Journal of Child Language 32, no. 2 : 375 – 389.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., E. Campbell, M. Tamminga, and J. Kirby. 2010. " The Relation Between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension: Evidence From Mediation and Longitudinal Models." Applied PsychoLinguistics 31, no. 4 : 759 – 775.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., N. Conrad, and S. Pacton. 2008. " A Statistical Learning Perspective on Children's Learning About Graphotactic and Morphological Regularities in Spelling." Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 49, no. 2 : 118 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708‐5591.49.2.118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., A. J. Holliman, G. J. Dobson, and E. C. J. Harrison. 2018. " Assessing Direct Contributions of Morphological Awareness and Prosodic Sensitivity to Children's Word Reading and Reading Comprehension." Scientific Studies of Reading 22, no. 6 : 527 – 534.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., M. J. Kieffer, and A. Laroche. 2014. " The Relation Between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension: Evidence From Mediation and Longitudinal Models." Scientific Studies of Reading 18, no. 6 : 432 – 451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.926907.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., and J. R. Kirby. 2004. " Morphological Awareness: Just 'More Phonological'? The Roles of Morphological and Phonological Awareness in Reading Development." Applied PsychoLinguistics 25, no. 2 : 223 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716464001110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., and K. Levesque. 2024. " Mechanisms in the Relation Between Morphological Awareness and the Development of Reading Comprehension." Journal of Educational Psychology 116, no. 6 : 1052 – 1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000871.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., X. Tong, and K. Francis. 2017. " The Relationship of Morphological Analysis and Morphological Decoding to Reading Comprehension." Journal of Research in Reading 40, no. 1 : 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12056.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., X. Tong, and C. Mimeau. 2019. " Morphological and Semantic Processing in Developmental Dyslexia." In Developmental Dyslexia Across Languages and Writing Systems, edited by L. Verhoeven, C. Perfetti, and K. Pugh, 327 – 349. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553377.015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Desrochers, A., G. Manolitsis, P. Gaudreau, and G. Georgiou. 2018. " Early Contribution of Morphological Awareness to Literacy Skills Across Languages Varying in Orthographic Consistency." Reading and Writing 31, no. 8 : 1695 – 1719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐017‐9772‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamanti, V., M. Angeliki, A. Ralli, F. Antoniou, S. Papaioannou, and A. Protopapas. 2017. " Preschool Phonological and Morphological Awareness as Longitudinal Predictors of Early Reading and Spelling Development in Greek." Frontiers in Psychology 8 : 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02039.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donaldson, M. 1978. Children's Minds. Fontana.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M., and D. M. Dunn. 2007. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test‐ Fourth Edition (PPVT‐IV). Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enders, C. K. 2013. " Analyzing Structural Equation Models With Missing Data." In Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course, edited by G. R. Hancock and R. O. Mueller, 493 – 519. IAP Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed. Sage Publications Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finney, S. J., and C. DiStefano. 2013. " Nonnormal and Categorical Data in Structural Equation Modeling." In A Second Course in Structural Equation Modeling, edited by G. R. Hancock and R. O. Mueller, 2nd ed., 439 – 492. Information Age.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitzgerald, J., J. Elmore, J. E. Relyea, E. H. Hiebert, and A. J. Stenner. 2016. " Has First‐Grade Core Reading Program Text Complexity Changed Across Six Decades? " Reading Research Quarterly 51, no. 1 : 7 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Florida Center for Reading Research. 2025a. Build a Word. Florida State University. https://fcrr.org/sites/g/files/upcbnu2836/files/media/PDFs/student_center_activities/23_morphemic_elements/23_v012_build_a_word.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Florida Center for Reading Research. 2025b. Root a Word. Florida State University. https://fcrr.org/sites/g/files/upcbnu2836/files/media/PDFs/student_center_activities/23_morphemic_elements/23_v014_root_a_word.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B. R., S. Herrera, Y. Petscher, A. Mitchell, and A. Truckenmiller. 2015. " The Structure of Oral Language and Reading and Their Relation to Comprehension in Kindergarten Through Grade 2." Reading and Writing 28, no. 5 : 655 – 681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐015‐9544‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B. R., S. Koon, Y. Petscher, A. Mitchell, and A. Truckenmiller. 2015. " Examining General and Specific Factors in the Dimensionality of Oral Language and Reading in 4th–10th Grades." Journal of Educational Psychology 107, no. 3 : 884 – 899. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B. R., Y. Petscher, and D. M. Bishop. 2012. " The Incremental Variance of Morphological Knowledge to Reading Comprehension in Grades 3–10 Beyond Prior Reading Comprehension, Spelling, and Text Reading Efficiency." Learning and Individual Differences 22, no. 6 : 792 – 798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galuschka, K., R. Görgen, J. Kalmar, S. Haberstroh, X. Schmalz, and G. Schulte‐Körne. 2020. " Effectiveness of Spelling Interventions for Learners With Dyslexia: A Meta‐Analysis and Systematic Review." Educational Psychologist 55, no. 1 : 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1659794.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gombert, J. E. 1992. Metalinguistic Development. Harvesters Wheatsheaf; University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodwin, A. P., and S. Ahn. 2013. " A Meta‐Analysis of Morphological Interventions in English: Effects on Literacy Outcomes for School‐Age Children." Scientific Studies of Reading 17, no. 4 : 257 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689791.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodwin, A. P., Y. Petscher, J. F. Carlisle, and A. M. Mitchell. 2017. " Exploring the Dimensionality of Morphological Knowledge for Adolescent Readers." Journal of Research in Reading 40, no. 1 : 91 – 117. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12064.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, S. B., and S. L. Hershberger. 2000. " Correlated Errors in True Score Models and Their Effect on Coefficient Alpha." Structural Equation Modeling 7, no. 2 : 251 – 270. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0702_6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F. 2018. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach. 2nd ed. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E. H., and L. S. Tortorelli. 2022. " The Role of Word‐, Sentence‐, and Text‐Level Variables in Predicting Guided Reading Levels of Kindergarten and First‐Grade Texts." Elementary School Journal 122, no. 4 : 557 – 590. https://doi.org/10.1086/719658.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoad, T. F. 1993. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollingshead, A. B. 1975. Four Factor Index of Social Status. Department of Sociology, Yale University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honig, B., L. Diamond, and L. Gutlohn. 2000. Teaching Reading: Sourcebook for Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. Arena Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover, W. A., and P. B. Gough. 1990. " The Simple View of Reading." Reading and Writing 2, no. 2 : 127 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L.‐T., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. " Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 : 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IBM Corp. 2023. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0. IBM Corp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> James, E., N. K. Currie, S. X. Tong, and K. Cain. 2021. " The Relations Between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension in Beginner Readers to Young Adolescents." Journal of Research in Reading 44, no. 1 : 110 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kargiotidis, A., A. Mouzaki, E. Kagiampaki, et al. 2023. " Modeling the Effects of Oral Language Skills on Early Reading Development in an Orthographically Consistent Language." Scientific Studies of Reading 27, no. 3 : 272 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2156347.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kearns, D. M. 2015. " How Elementary‐Age Children Read Polysyllabic Polymorphemic Words." Journal of Educational Psychology 107, no. 2 : 364 – 390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037518.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keenan, J. M., R. S. Betjemann, and R. K. Olson. 2008. " Reading Comprehension Tests Vary in the Skills They Assess: Differential Dependence on Decoding and Oral Comprehension." Scientific Studies of Reading 12, no. 3 : 281 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendeou, P., R. Savage, and P. van den Broek. 2009. " Revisiting the Simple View of Reading." British Journal of Educational Psychology 79 : 353 – 370. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185408X369020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendeou, P., P. Van den Broek, M. J. White, and J. S. Lynch. 2009. " Predicting Reading Comprehension in Early Elementary School: The Independent Contributions of Oral Language and Decoding Skills." Journal of Educational Psychology 101, no. 4 : 765 – 778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015956.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kieffer, M. J. 2012. " Before and After Third Grade: Longitudinal Evidence for the Shifting Role of Socioeconomic Status in Reading Growth." Reading and Writing 25, no. 7 : 1725 – 1746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐011‐9339‐2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kieffer, M. J., and C. D. Box. 2013. " Derivational Morphological Awareness, Academic Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension in Linguistically Diverse Sixth Graders." Learning and Individual Differences 24 : 168 – 175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y. G. 2016. " Direct and Mediated Effects of Language and Cognitive Skills on Comprehension of Oral Narrative Texts (Listening Comprehension) for Children." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 141 : 101 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W. 1988. " The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: A Construction‐Integration Model." Psychological Review 95, no. 2 : 163 – 182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, J. R., and P. N. Bowers. 2017. " Morphological Instruction and Literacy." Theories of Reading Development 15 : 437. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.15.24kir.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, J. R., S. H. Deacon, P. N. Bowers, L. Izenberg, L. Wade‐Woolley, and R. Parrila. 2012. " Children's Morphological Awareness and Reading Ability." Reading and Writing 25, no. 2 : 389 – 410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐010‐9276‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, R. B. 2016. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 4th ed. Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kristensen, J. K., B. Andersson, S. S. Bratlie, and J. V. K. Torkildsen. 2023. " Dimensionality of Morphological Knowledge—Evidence From Norwegian Third Graders." Reading Research Quarterly 58 : 406 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.497.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruk, R. S., and K. Bergman. 2013. " The Reciprocal Relations Between Morphological Processes and Reading." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 114, no. 1 : 10 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larson, J., and M. A. Nippold. 2007. " Morphological Analysis in School‐Age Children: Dynamic Assessment of a Word Learning Strategy." Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 38, no. 3 : 201 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161‐1461(2007/021).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lervåg, A., C. Hulme, and M. Melby‐Lervåg. 2018. " Unpicking the Developmental Relationship Between Oral Language Skills and Reading Comprehension: It's Simple, but Complex." Child Development 89, no. 5 : 1821 – 1838. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12861.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levesque, K., H. Breadmore, and S. H. Deacon. 2021. " How Morphology Impacts Reading and Spelling: Advancing the Role of Morphology in Models of Literacy Development." Journal of Research in Reading 44, no. 1 : 10 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12313.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levesque, K. C., M. J. Kieffer, and S. H. Deacon. 2017. " Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension: Examining Mediating Factors." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 160 : 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levesque, K. C., M. J. Kieffer, and S. H. Deacon. 2019. " Inferring Meaning From Meaningful Parts: The Contributions of Morphological Skills to the Development of Children's Reading Comprehension." Reading Research Quarterly 54, no. 1 : 63 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonigan, C. J., and T. F. Milburn. 2017. " Identifying the Dimensionality of Oral Language Skills of Children With Typical Development in Preschool Through Fifth Grade." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 60, no. 8 : 2185 – 2198. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR‐L‐15‐0402.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manolitsis, G., G. K. Georgiou, T. Inoue, and R. Parrila. 2019. " Are Morphological Awareness and Literacy Skills Reciprocally Related? Evidence From a Cross‐Linguistic Study." Journal of Educational Psychology 111, no. 8 : 1362 – 1381. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manolitsis, G., I. Grigorakis, and G. K. Georgiou. 2017. " The Longitudinal Contribution of Early Morphological Awareness Skills to Reading Fluency and Comprehension in Greek." Frontiers in Psychology 8 : 1793. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01793.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manyak, P. C., J. F. Baumann, and A. M. Manyak. 2018. " Morphological Analysis Instruction in the Elementary Grades: Which Morphemes to Teach and How to Teach Them." Reading Teacher 72, no. 3 : 289 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1713.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcoulides, K. M., and T. Raykov. 2019. " Evaluation of Variance Inflation Factors in Regression Models Using Latent Variable Modeling Methods." Educational and Psychological Measurement 79, no. 5 : 874 – 882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418817803.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Massonnié, J., A. Llaurado, E. Sumner, and J. E. Dockrell. 2022. " Oral Language at School Entry: Dimensionality of Speaking and Listening Skills." Oxford Review of Education 48, no. 6 : 743 – 766. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2021.2013189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell, S. E., and D. A. Cole. 2007. " Bias in Cross‐Sectional Analyses of Longitudinal Mediation." Psychological Methods 12, no. 1 : 23 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082‐989X.12.1.23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell, S. E., D. A. Cole, and M. A. Mitchell. 2011. " Bias in Cross‐Sectional Analyses of Longitudinal Mediation: Partial and Complete Mediation Under an Autoregressive Model." Multivariate Behavioral Research 46, no. 5 : 816 – 841. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.606716.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metsala, J. L., E. Sparks, M. David, N. Conrad, and S. H. Deacon. 2021. " What Is the Best Way to Characterise the Contributions of Oral Language to Reading Comprehension: Listening Comprehension or Individual Oral Language Skills? " Journal of Research in Reading 44, no. 3 : 675 – 694.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W. E., V. W. Berninger, and R. D. Abbott. 2006. " Contributions of Morphology Beyond Phonology to Literacy Outcomes of Upper Elementary and Middle‐School Students." Journal of Educational Psychology 98, no. 1 : 134 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.98.1.134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W. E., J. F. Carlisle, and A. P. Goodwin. 2014. " Morphological Knowledge and Literacy Acquisition." Journal of Learning Disabilities 47, no. 1 : 3 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509967.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation, K. 2019. " Children's Reading Difficulties, Language, and Reflections on the Simple View of Reading." Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 24, no. 1 : 47 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1609272.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunes, T., and P. Bryant. 2006. Improving Literacy by Teaching Morphemes. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunes, T., P. Bryant, and R. Barros. 2012. " The Development of Word Recognition and Its Significance for Comprehension and Fluency." Journal of Educational Psychology 104 : 959 – 973.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunes, T., P. Bryant, and M. Bindman. 2006. " The Effects of Learning to Spell on Children's Awareness of Morphology." Reading and Writing 19 : 767 – 787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐006‐9025‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliveira, M., K. C. Levesque, S. H. Deacon, and M. M. P. E. da Mota. 2020. " Evaluating Models of How Morphological Awareness Connects to Reading Comprehension: A Study in Portuguese." Journal of Research in Reading 43, no. 2 : 161 – 179. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pacheco, M. B., and A. P. Goodwin. 2013. " Putting Two and Two Together: Middle School Students' Morphological Problem‐Solving Strategies for Unknown Words." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 56, no. 7 : 541 – 553. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.181.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pacton, S., and H. Deacon. 2008. " Implicit and Explicit Learning in Children's Use of Morphology in Spelling: A Review of Evidence From French and English." Cognitive Development 23 : 339 – 359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., and J. Stafura. 2014. " Word Knowledge in a Theory of Reading Comprehension." Scientific Studies of Reading 18, no. 1 : 22 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A., N. Landi, and J. Oakhill. 2005. " The Acquisition of Reading Comprehension Skill." In The Science of Reading: A Handbook, edited by M. J. Snowling and C. Hulme, 227 – 247. Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2008. " Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models." Behavior Research Methods 40, no. 3 : 879 – 891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Protopapas, A., A. Fakou, S. Drakopoulou, C. Skaloumbakas, and A. Mouzaki. 2013. " What Do Spelling Errors Tell Us? Classification and Analysis of Errors Made by Greek Schoolchildren With and Without Dyslexia." Reading and Writing 26, no. 5 : 615 – 646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐012‐9378‐3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rabin, J., and S. H. Deacon. 2008. " The Representation of Morphologically Complex Words in the Developing Lexicon." Journal of Child Language 35, no. 2 : 453 – 465. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000907008525.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rastle, K. 2019. " The Place of Morphology in Learning to Read in English." Cortex 116 : 45 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.02.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roman, A., J. R. Kirby, R. Parrila, L. Wade‐Woolley, and S. H. Deacon. 2009. " Toward a Comprehensive View of the Skills Involved in Word Reading in Grades 4, 6, and 8." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102, no. 1 : 96 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.01.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruan, Y., G. K. Georgiou, S. Song, Y. Li, and H. Shu. 2018. " Does Writing System Influence the Associations Between Phonological Awareness, Morphological Awareness, and Reading? A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology 110, no. 2 : 180 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000216.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandra, D., D. Ravid, and I. Plag. 2024. " The Orthographic Representation of a Word's Morphological Structure: Beneficial and Detrimental Effect for Spellers." Morphology 34, no. 2 : 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525‐024‐09424‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Satorra, A., and P. M. Bentler. 1994. " Corrections to Test Statistics and Standard Errors in Covariance Structure Analysis." In Latent Variables Analysis: Applications for Developmental Research, edited by A. von Eye and C. C. Clogg, 399 – 419. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savage, R., K. Maiorino, K. Gavin, H. Horne‐Robinson, G. Georgiou, and H. Deacon. 2024. " Contrasting Direct Instruction in Morphological Decoding and Morphological Inquiry‐Analysis Interventions in Grade 3 Children With Poor Morphological Awareness." Journal of Learning Disabilities 57, no. 2 : 120 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231161117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selig, J. P., and K. J. Preacher. 2009. " Mediation Models for Longitudinal Data in Developmental Research." Research in Human Development 6, no. 2‐3 : 144 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427600902911247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shrestha, N. 2020. " Detecting Multicollinearity in Regression Analysis." American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics 8, no. 2 : 39 – 42. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams‐8‐2‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. 2002. Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Rand Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spencer, M., A. Muse, R. K. Wagner, et al. 2015. " Examining the Underlying Dimensions of Morphological Awareness and Vocabulary Knowledge." Reading and Writing 28, no. 7 : 959 – 988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐015‐9557‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Statistics Canada. 2023. "Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population." https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census‐recensement/2021/dp‐pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, C. G., R. S. Kim, A. M. Aloe, and B. J. Becker. 2017. " Extracting the Variance Inflation Factor and Other Multicollinearity Diagnostics from Typical Regression Results." Basic and Applied Social Psychology 39, no. 2 : 81 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1277529.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomblin, J. B., and X. Zhang. 2006. " The Dimensionality of Language Ability in School‐Age Children." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, no. 6 : 1193 – 1208. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092‐4388(2006/086).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torgesen, J. K., R. K. Wagner, and C. A. Rashotte. 2012. TOWRE‐2 Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., and J. van Leeuwe. 2012. " The Simple View of Second Language Reading Throughout the Primary Grades." Reading and Writing 25, no. 8 : 1805 – 1818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐011‐9346‐3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, T., and H. Zhang. 2023. " Examining the Dimensionality of Morphological Knowledge and Morphological Awareness and Their Effects on Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge." Frontiers in Psychology 14 : 1207854. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1207854.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler, D. 1999. Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI). Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolter, J. A., and K. Pike. 2015. " Dynamic Assessment of Morphological Awareness and Third‐Grade Literacy Success." Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 46, no. 2 : 112 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS‐14‐0037.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W. 2011. Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests. 3rd ed. (WRMT‐III) [Database Record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15178‐000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wyse, D., and A. Bradbury. 2022. " Reading Wars or Reading Reconciliation? A Critical Examination of Robust Research Evidence, Curriculum Policy and Teachers' Practices for Teaching Phonics and Reading." Review of Education 10, no. 1 : 1 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3314.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie, R., J. Zhang, X. Wu, and T. P. Nguyen. 2019. " The Relationship Between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension Among Chinese Children." Frontiers in Psychology 10 : 54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00054.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, Y., and S. B. Green. 2010. " A Note on Structural Equation Modeling Estimates of Reliability." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 17, no. 1 : 66 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903438963.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeh, N. 2016. Teaching Morphology to Improve Literacy: A Guide for Teachers. Cambridge University. https://ttaconline.org/Document/zxbIhX_YCJMjWCo85sacgHOpHMm‐kTw6/Zeh_Morphological‐Awareness.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeno, S., S. Ivens, R. Millard, and R. Duvvuri. 1995. The Educator's Word Frequency Guide. Touchstone Applied Science Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, J., T. J. Lin, Y. Liu, and W. E. Nagy. 2020. " Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension: Differential Mediation Mechanisms in Native English Speakers, Fluent English Learners, and Limited English Learners." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 199 : 104915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104915.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sofia Giazitzidou; Kyle Levesque and Hélène Deacon</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref192"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref257"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref266"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref268"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref272"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref273"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref274"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref275"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref276"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref277"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref279"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref285"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref286"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref290"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref293"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref294"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref296"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref299"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref300"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1468450
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Getting at How: Testing Mediating Factors in the Relation between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension in Grade 1
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sofia+Giazitzidou%22">Sofia Giazitzidou</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7892-7653">0000-0002-7892-7653</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kyle+Levesque%22">Kyle Levesque</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hélène+Deacon%22">Hélène Deacon</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(2).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Morphology+%28Languages%29%22">Morphology (Languages)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Word+Recognition%22">Word Recognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonological+Awareness%22">Phonological Awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nonverbal+Ability%22">Nonverbal Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Status%22">Socioeconomic Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age%22">Age</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Short+Term+Memory%22">Short Term Memory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Reading%22">Early Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.70007
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The relation of morphological awareness with reading comprehension is well established. For this advance to inform instruction, the push is now on to understand how morphological awareness is related to reading comprehension. We address this question here by examining potential mechanisms. We do so with children in Grade 1, a time at which it is widely debated as to whether to include morphology instruction. We examine three potential mediating factors through which morphological awareness may contribute to reading comprehension: word reading, vocabulary, and morphological analysis, or the ability to use morphemes to understand morphologically complex words. A total of 336 English-speaking Grade 1 children participated and completed control measures of phonological awareness, nonverbal ability, socioeconomic status, working memory, and age. Initial confirmatory factor analyses showed the separability of morphological awareness, morphological analysis, and vocabulary. Multivariate path analyses revealed two indirect pathways from morphological awareness to reading comprehension: through word reading and through morphological analysis. There were no indirect effects via vocabulary, nor were there direct effects from morphological awareness to reading comprehension beyond the other variables. These findings identify two potential mechanisms by which morphological awareness connects with early reading comprehension. These findings will inform theories of reading development and may influence the development of effective early reading instruction.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1468450
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1468450
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.70007
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Morphology (Languages)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Word Recognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonological Awareness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nonverbal Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Status
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Short Term Memory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Getting at How: Testing Mediating Factors in the Relation between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension in Grade 1
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sofia Giazitzidou
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kyle Levesque
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hélène Deacon
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-2722
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1