Examining the growth trajectories and cognitive predictors of reading in a consistent orthography: Evidence from a 10-year longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examined the growth trajectories of reading in a consistent orthography (Greek) in two developmental periods (from Grade 1 to Grade 4 and from Grade 4 to Grade 10) and what cognitive skills predict the growth patterns. Seventy-five Greek-speaking children were assessed in Grades 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10 on word-, nonword-, and text-reading fluency. In Grades 1 and 4, they were also assessed on phonological awareness, rapid naming, phonological memory, orthographic knowledge, and articulation rate. Results of growth curve modeling showed that during the first developmental period, there was a rapid initial growth from Grade 1 to Grade 2 followed by a less rapid growth from Grade 2 to Grade 4. In the second developmental period, the slow growth continued. In both developmental periods, rapid naming and orthographic knowledge predicted the initial status of all reading outcomes and phonological memory predicted the initial status of nonword-reading fluency. Phonological awareness predicted the initial status of nonword-reading fluency in the first developmental period and the initial status of word- and text-reading fluency in the second developmental period. None of the cognitive skills predicted the growth rate in reading skills. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".