Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A latent variable analysis of the contribution of executive function to adult readers’ comprehension of science text: the roles of vocabulary ability and level of comprehension

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that executive function plays an important role in adult readers’ understanding of text. This study examined the contribution of executive function to comprehension of expository science text among adult readers, as well as the role of vocabulary ability in the relation between executive function and text comprehension. The roles of additional reader characteristics, including age, reading time, prior knowledge, and vocabulary ability, in comprehension were also examined. Using structural equation modeling, a latent executive function factor significantly predicted comprehension after accounting for age, reading time, prior knowledge, and vocabulary ability. Vocabulary ability mediated the relation between executive function and both lower-level and higher-level reading comprehension. Executive function contributed more strongly to lower-level compared with higher-level comprehension of the text. Implications for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Miyake & Friedman (2012) advocate for the use of multiple exemplar tasks, and for the subsequent modeling of latent executive function variables based on multiple tasks. In part to manage study and procedural constraints in the current work, we opted to administer one task per executive function and to extract a latent executive function variable based on these three tasks. We believe that this approach, while somewhat limited relative to Miyake et al. (2000) use of three tasks per executive function, resulted in a “purer” estimate of participants’ executive function than the use of a simple sum- or mean-based composite score.

  2. To support the administration of the executive function tasks using MTurk, a pilot study was first conducted. Data from the pilot work supported low to moderate correlations (rs = 0.22–0.42) among scores on the executive functions consistent with previous research. Further, scores on the executive function tasks correlated significantly with comprehension in the pilot study (rs = 0.21–0.33). In addition, in the current study, examination of mean values as well as variances, standard deviations, and coefficient of variation values for each of the executive function tasks suggested little evidence of floor or ceiling effects as well as appropriate distributions of scores on the tasks.

  3. Because the dependent variable for the plus-minus task is based on one response time, an estimate of the reliability of scores cannot be calculated.

  4. Because the calculation of bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals is not currently available with MLR estimation in Mplus, the models were rerun using ML estimation for the purposes of calculating the confidence intervals. Across models, in no instance did the significance or interpretation of factor loadings, regression coefficients, or indirect effects differ.

References

  • Anderson, V. (2002). Executive function in children: Introduction. Child Neuropsychology, 8, 69–70. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.8.2.69.8725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attridge, N., Noonan, D., Eccleston, C., & Keogh, E. (2015). The disruptive effects of pain on n-back task performance in a large general population sample. Pain, 156(10), 1885–1891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. N., Kulesz, P. A., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. A. (2014). The contribution of attentional control and working memory to reading comprehension and decoding. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(5), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.902461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 49(1), 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive function: Constructing a unified theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 186–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, C. (2016). Developmental science and executive function. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, C., & Ursache, A. (2010). A bidirectional model of executive functions and self-regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, & applications (2nd ed., pp. 300–320). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 206–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borella, E., Carretti, B., & Pelegrina, S. (2010). The specific role of inhibition in reading comprehension in good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410371676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatta, E. F., & Corsini, R. J. (1960a). The quick word test. The Journal of Educational Research, 54(1), 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatta, E. F., & Corsini, R. J. (1960b). The quick word test (QWT) and the WAIS. Psychological Reports, 6(2), 201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borkowski, J. G., & Burke, J. E. (1996). Theories, models, and measurements of executive functioning: An information processing perspective. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 235–261). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K. S., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 1–41). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braze, D., Tabor, W., Shankweiler, D. P., & Mencl, W. E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 226–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2017). The role of executive functions in reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9422-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J. S. (2013). Exploring the role of prosodic awareness and executive functions in word reading and reading comprehension: A study of cognitive flexibility in adult readers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

  • Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavioral Research Methods, 46(1), 112–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R. S., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969709547947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M. E., Miyake, A., Keenan, J. M., Pennington, B. F., DeFries, J. C., Wadsworth, S. J., et al. (2012). Predicting word reading and comprehension with executive function and speed measures across development: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 470–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corso, H. V., Cromley, J. G., Sperb, T., & Salles, J. F. (2016). Modeling the relationship among reading comprehension, intelligence, socioeconomic status, and neuropsychological functions: The mediating role of executive functions. Psychology & Neuroscience, 9(1), 32–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A. S., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(1), 34–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis–Kaplan executive function system (D-KEFS). Psychological Corporation.

  • Denckla, M. B. (1996). Research on executive function in a neurodevelopmental context: Applications of clinical measures. Developmental Neuropsychology, 12, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565649609540637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., & Carlisle, J. (2011). The development of comprehension. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 199–228). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203840412.ch10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader–text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 515–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eslinger, P. J. (1996). Conceptualizing, describing, and measuring components of executive function: A summary. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 367–395). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, C. R. (1994). Levels of representation in memory for discourse. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 589–607). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follmer, D. J., Fang, S. Y., Clariana, R. B., Meyer, B. J., & Li, P. (2018). What predicts adult readers’ understanding of STEM texts? Reading and Writing, 31(1), 185–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follmer, D. J., & Sperling, R. A. (2016). The mediating role of metacognition in the relationship between executive function and self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follmer, D. J., Sperling, R. A., & Suen, H. K. (2017). The role of MTurk in educational research: Advantages, issues, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 329–334. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17725519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Catts, H. W., & Tomblin, J. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369–394). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2005). Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 581–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhs, M. W., & Day, J. D. (2011). Verbal ability and executive functioning development in preschoolers at Head Start. Developmental Psychology, 47, 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhs, M. W., Farran, D. C., & Nesbitt, K. T. (2015). Prekindergarten children’s executive functioning skills and achievement gains: The utility of direct assessments and teacher ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhs, M., Nesbitt, K., Farran, D., & Dong, N. (2014). Longitudinal associations between executive functioning and academic skills across content areas. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1698–1709. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, J. K. (2009). Conceptualizing the relations between executive functions and self- regulated learning. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 405–426. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.4.405-426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgiou, G. K., & Das, J. P. (2016a). Direct and indirect effects of executive function on reading comprehension in young adults. Journal of Research in Reading. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12091.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgiou, G. K., & Das, J. P. (2016b). What component of executive functions contributes to normal and impaired reading comprehension in young adults? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 49, 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.12.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(2), 245–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Madruga, J. A., Vila, J. O., Gómez-Veiga, I., Duque, G., & Elosúa, M. R. (2014). Executive processes, reading comprehension and academic achievement in 3th grade primary students. Learning and Individual Differences, 35, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-metrix providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guajardo, N. R., & Cartwright, K. B. (2016). The contribution of theory of mind, counterfactual reasoning, and executive function to pre-readers’ language comprehension and later reading awareness and comprehension in elementary school. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 144, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.11.004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. E., Buxton, J. E., Husain, M., & Wise, R. (2000). Short test of semantic and phonological fluency: Normal performance, validity and test-retest reliability. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466500163202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling (white paper). Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2017.

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertzog, C., Dixon, R. A., Hultsch, D. F., & MacDonald, S. W. (2003). Latent change models of adult cognition: Are changes in processing speed and working memory associated with changes in episodic memory? Psychology and Aging, 18(4), 755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive functions and self- regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 174–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, R., & Parkinson, J. (2015). The potential for school-based interventions that target executive function to improve academic achievement: A review. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 512–552. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314561338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14(89), 81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567–1577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer, M. J., Vukovic, R. K., & Berry, D. (2013). Roles of attention shifting and inhibitory control in fourth-grade reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(4), 333–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction integration model. Discourse Processes, 16, 193–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latzman, R. D., Elkovitch, N., Young, J., & Clark, L. A. (2010). The contribution of executive functioning to academic achievement among male adolescents. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32(5), 455–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390903164363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehto, J. (1996). Are executive function tests dependent on working memory capacity? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 49(1), 29–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, C. H. (2014). The performance of MLR, USLMV, and WLSMV estimation in structural regression models with ordinal variables (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

  • Locascio, G., Mahone, E. M., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2010). Executive dysfunction among children with reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. D., Blair, G. E., & Vickers, D. M. (1979). Correlation of the quick word test and wide range vocabulary test with the Shipley-Institute of Living Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39(4), 935–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinussen, R., & Mackenzie, G. (2015). Reading comprehension in adolescents with ADHD: Exploring the poor comprehender profile and individual differences in vocabulary and executive functions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.12.007.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F. (1983). Text structure and its use in studying comprehension across the adult life span. In B. A. Hutson (Ed.), Advances in reading/language research (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1983). Learning and memory from text across the adult life span. In J. Fine & R. O. Freedle (Eds.), Developmental studies in discourse (pp. 291–306). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Talbot, A., Stubblefield, R. A., & Poon, L. W. (1998). Interests and strategies of young and old readers differentially interact with characteristics of texts. Educational Gerontology, 24(8), 747–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellard, D. F., Fall, E., & Woods, K. L. (2010). A path analysis of reading comprehension for adults with low literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(2), 154–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. C., Davis, N., Gilbert, J. K., Cho, S. J., Toste, J. R., Street, J., et al. (2014). Novel approaches to examine passage, student, and question effects on reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 29(1), 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. C., Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2013). Reading comprehension in children with ADHD: Cognitive underpinnings of the centrality deficit. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(3), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9686-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millis, K. K., Morgan, D., & Graesser, A. C. (1990). The influence of knowledge-based inferences on the reading time of expository text. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 25, 197–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, Tor D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, N., & Jones, D. M. (1990). Memory updating in working memory: The role of the central executive. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Retrieved from: https://www.statmodel.com/html_ug.shtml. Accessed 15 October 2017.

  • Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2017). Software Mplus version 8.

  • Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18(7–9), 657–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K. (2009). Design for a working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 45–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K. (2010). Declarative and procedural working memory: Common principles, common capacity limits? Psychologica Belgica, 50(3&4), 277–308. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-50-3-4-277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelegrina, S., Capodieci, A., Carretti, B., & Cornoldi, C. (2015). Magnitude representation and working memory updating in children with arithmetic and reading comprehension disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(6), 658–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414527480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, C. M., Sperling, R. A., & Dornisch, M. M. (2010). A comparison of the effects of students’ expository text comprehension strategies. Instructional Science, 38(6), 551–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinking, D. (1988). Computer-mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of reading time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 484–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, G. E., & Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Reading behavior and prose recall performance of young and older adults with high and average verbal ability. Journal of Educational Gerontology, 11(1), 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, G. E., & Meyer, B. J. F. (1986). Prose recall: Effects of aging, verbal ability, and reading behavior. Journal of Gerontology, 41(4), 469–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saffer, B. Y., & Klonsky, E. D. (2017). The relationship of self-reported executive functioning to suicide ideation and attempts: Findings from a large US-based online sample. Archives of Suicide Research, 21(4), 577–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, B., Milyavskaya, M., Etz, A., Randles, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). Reported self-control is not meaningfully associated with inhibition-related executive function: A Bayesian analysis. Retrieved from http://psyarxiv.com/bxfsu. Accessed 15 October 2017.

  • Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(2), 141–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (1997). Situational interest in literary text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(4), 436–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, A., & Biederman, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669–679. https://doi.org/10.2307/1421465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, R. A., & Dornisch, M. M. (2004). Facilitating higher-order processing while learning from text: Effective and less effective strategy prompts. Paper presentation at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.

  • Stine-Morrow, E. A., Miller, L. M. S., & Hertzog, C. (2006). Aging and self-regulated language processing. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 582–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L. (2003). Age-related differences in learning disabled and skilled readers’ working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L. (2011). Working memory, attention, and mathematical problem solving: A longitudinal study of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 821–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 54(6), 360–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Mouw, J., & Kraal, A. (2015). Individual differences in reading comprehension. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 138–150). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wati, Y. & Davis, F. D. (2012). The relations among executive functions and users’ perceptions toward using technologies to multitask. In Special interest group on human–computer interaction, SIGHCI proceedings, pp. 1–5.

  • Welsh, M., Friedman, S., & Spieker, S. (2006). Executive functions in developing children: Current conceptualizations and questions for the future. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 167–187). Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757703.ch9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Groisser, D. B. (1991). A normative-developmental study of executive function: A window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565649109540483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, C. Y., & Muthén, B. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Zelazo, P., & Cunningham, W. (2007). Executive function: Mechanisms underlying emotion regulation. In J. Gross (Ed.), The handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 135–158). New York: Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019995845.013.0025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6(5), 292–297.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded in part by Psi Chi.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Salisbury University, 354D Conway Building, Salisbury, MD, 21801, USA

    D. Jake Follmer

  2. Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

    Rayne A. Sperling

Authors
  1. D. Jake Follmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rayne A. Sperling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Jake Follmer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Follmer, D.J., Sperling, R.A. A latent variable analysis of the contribution of executive function to adult readers’ comprehension of science text: the roles of vocabulary ability and level of comprehension. Read Writ 32, 377–403 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9872-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9872-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation