Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 246–251

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f

Role of working memory in explaining the performance of individuals with specific

reading comprehension difficulties: A meta-analysis
Barbara Carretti ⁎, Erika Borella, Cesare Cornoldi, Rossana De Beni
Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It is well established that working memory is related to reading comprehension ability. However, its role in
Received 14 January 2008 explaining specific reading comprehension difficulties is still under debate: the issue mainly concerns
Received in revised form 22 September 2008 whether the contribution of working memory is dependent on task modality (verbal tasks being more
Accepted 5 October 2008
predictive than visuo-spatial tasks) and/or on the attentional control implied in working memory tasks
(tasks requiring storage/manipulation being more predictive than storage-only tasks, regardless of task
Keywords:
Reading comprehension difficulties
modality). Meta-analysis is used here to examine the relevance of several working memory measures in
Working memory distinguishing between the performance of poor and good comprehenders in relation to the modality of the
Inhibition working memory task, and the involvement of controlled attention required by such a task. Our results
demonstrate that memory tasks that are demanding in terms of attentional control and that require verbal
information processing are best at distinguishing between poor and good comprehenders, suggesting that
both domain-specific factors as well as general factors of working memory contribute to reading
comprehension performance. The implications for different models of working memory in relation to
reading comprehension are discussed.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It is well established that working memory (WM) is involved in
reading comprehension. However, depending on the theoretical
approach the structural and functional role of WM in reading
comprehension is explained in different ways. Referring to the
original model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), some
researchers suggest that the relationship between WM and reading
comprehension depends on domain-specific factors (see also Cornoldi
& Vecchi, 2003). Consistently with this idea, it has been shown that
verbal WM tasks (e.g., Reading Span Test by Daneman & Carpenter,
1980) are related to reading comprehension tasks since both draw on
processes of a specific domain (the verbal domain), since visuo-spatial
WM tasks are only moderately correlated to reading comprehension
(Daneman & Tardif, 1987). However, other data have suggested that
the involvement of WM in reading comprehension is domain-general,
i.e. dependent on the attentional/executive control component of WM
tasks (e.g., Engle, Kane & Tuholski, 1999; Turner & Engle, 1989). In fact, it
has been reported that tasks requiring both maintenance and
manipulation of information, or tasks associated to executive functions,
correlate more strongly with reading comprehension – regardless of
task modality (e.g. Daneman & Merikle, 1996 meta-analysis) – than
⁎ Corresponding author. Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Via Venezia, 8, 35131
Padova, Italy. Tel.: +39 049 8276948.
E-mail address: barbara.carretti@unipd.it (B. Carretti).
storage-only tasks (e.g. forward digit span tasks). This relationship is
explained by the fact that in understanding a text a reader is engaged not
only in maintaining some piece of information but also, for example, in
merging that information with previous knowledge, therefore actively
processing incoming information.
Studies comparing good and poor comprehenders (i.e. readers
with adequate decoding and intellectual abilities) may clarify the
relationship between working memory and reading comprehension,
establishing which mechanisms might become particularly crucial for
the case of substantial reading comprehension difficulties. However,
this controversy also arises in studies taking an individual-differences
viewpoint (for a review see Savage, Lavers, & Pillay, 2007). Indeed,
studies have shown contrasting results on whether or not a deficit in
WM is present in poor comprehenders regardless of task modality:
some report significant differences between good and poor compre-
henders in visuo-spatial WM tasks (e.g. Cornoldi, De Beni, & Pazzaglia,
1996), albeit more modest than in verbal WM tasks, but others find no
difference (e.g. Nation, Adams, Bowyer-Crane, & Snowling, 1999). To
explain the nature of reading comprehension disabilities, the
existence of differences also in visuo-spatial WM task performance
would support a view where domain-general aspects of WM are
specifically involved in higher-order cognition (Swanson & Siegel,
2001), whereas the opposite result would suggest that the lower
performance of poor comprehenders is not completely independent of
the nature of WM task (see for example Cornoldi & Vecchi, 2003).
To sum up, different approaches to WM result in different
predictions about the nature of WM deficits in individuals who have

1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.002
Table 1
List of studies included with details about the selection reading comprehension task, reading decoding task, age, gender and N of participants, separated into good and poor comprehenders.

Age Good Poor Reading Reading Working memory task performances considered for the meta-analysis
comprehenders comprehenders comprehension decoding
Simple span task Complex span task Executive functions
Verbal Visuo-spatial mechanisms

1. Cain (2006) Study 2 9–10 13 13 Reading aloud + open- Read a text aloud Forward digit span LST Counting span LST intrusion errors
ended questions Non-words reading Word span
2. Cain and Oakhill Study 1 7–8 23 23 Reading aloud + open- Read a text aloud LST
(2006) ended questions WM Digit
3.Cain, Oakhill and Study 1 8–11 12 13 Reading aloud + open- Read a text aloud Forward digit span LST Counting span
Lemmon (2004) Study 2 9–10 12 12 ended questions
4. Carretti, Cornoldi, Exp. 1 18–30 15 12 Silent reading + multiple CWMS CWMS intrusion errors
De Beni and Palladino Exp. 2 18–30 19 18 choice questions
(2004)
5. Carretti, Cornoldi, Exp. 1 8–11 109 109 Silent reading + multiple Word search Updating (Morris & Jones'

B. Carretti et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 246–251

De Beni and Romanò Exp. 2 12 30 30 choice questions version) Updating (semantic
(2005) criterion) intrusion errors
6. Cornoldi, De Beni Study 1 12–15 26 26 Silent reading + multiple Read a text aloud LST F.I.T. LST intrusion errors
and Pazzaglia (1996) 20 20 choice questions
7. De Beni and Exp. 1 8–11 12 12 Silent reading + multiple Read a text aloud Forward digit span Backward digit span LST intrusion errors
Palladino (2000) choice questions LST
8. De Beni, Palladino, Exp. 1 18–30 22 22 Silent reading + multiple Forward digit span Backward digit span LST and CWMS intrusion
Pazzaglia and Cornoldi choice questions LST errors
(1998) Exp. 2 18–30 15 15 CWMS
9. Floyd, Bergeron and Study 1 7–18 50 28 Silent reading + cloze Letter-word Phonological WM span
Alfonso (2006) task identification
Non-word reading
10. Leseaux, Pearson Study 1 9–10 314 65 Silent reading + multiple Word reading LST Counting span
and Siegel (2006) choice questions
11. Nation, Adams, Exp. 3 10 15 14 Reading aloud + open- Non-word reading LST
Bowyer-Crane ended questions
and Snowling (1999)
12. Oakhill, Hartt and Exp. 1 9–11 12 12 Reading aloud + open- Read a text aloud WM digit
Samols (2005) ended questions
13. Palladino, Cornoldi, Exp. 1 18–30 14 16 Silent reading + multiple Forward digit span Updating (Morris & Jones'
De Beni and Pazzaglia Exp. 2 18–30 17 12 choice questions version) Updating
(2001) Exp. 3 12–15 30 30 (semantic criterion)
Exp. 4 18–30 20 18 Intrusion errors
14. Rankin (1993) Exp. 1 18–20 16 16 Reading aloud + open- Read a text aloud Word re-ordering
ended questions task RST
15. Stothard and Exp. 2 7–8 14 14 Reading aloud + open- Read a text aloud LST
Hulme (1992) ended questions
16. Swanson and Exp. 1 8–12 33 22 Silent reading + picture Word reading Non-words recall, Digit/sentence span Matrix span task
Berninger (1995) selection letters recall,
Exp. 2 34 30 Silent reading + cloze Word reading syllables recall LST Map and direction
task Story retelling
17. Swanson, Howard 7–18 15 14 Silent reading + cloze Pseudoword reading Non-words recall, Digit/sentence span Updating (Morris &
and Sáez (2006) task word span LST Jones' version)
Phonological deletion Semantic association task
Backward digit span
18. Yuill, Oakhill and Exp. 1 7–8 42 42 Reading aloud + open- Read a text aloud WM Digit
Parkin (1989) ended questions
Total 954 659

Note. LST: Listening Span Test; RST: Reading Span Test; CWMS: Categorization Working Memory Span Test.

247
248 B. Carretti et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 246–251

Table 2
Commonly used verbal complex span tasks.

Listening span test (LST) Material: sentences, e.g. there are 18 h in a day; sea water is full of salt
Reading span test (RST) Task requests: true/false judgment of each sentence and memorization of thes last word of each sentence
Storage request: final words (e.g. day, salt)
WM digit Material: series of digits, e.g. 4 7 5; 9 3 2
Task request: reading aloud of digits and memorization of the last digit of each series
Storage request: final digits (e.g. 5, 2)
Categorization working memory span test (CWMS) Material: sequences of words, e.g. house, mother, dog, word, night; money, bull, minister, duck, strawberry
Task request: tapping whenever an animal noun appears and memorization of the last word of each sequence
Storage request: final words (e.g. night, strawberry)
Word re-ordering/semantic association Material: sequences of words, e.g. shirt, saw, trousers, hammer, shoes, nail
Task request: listening to the words and memorization of them in alphabetical order or memorization of the words
that “go together”
Storage request: ordered words (e.g. hammer, nail, trousers, saw, shirt) or grouped words (e.g. shoes, shirt, trousers).

Note. WM: working memory.

specific reading comprehension difficulties but adequate intellectual 3. Study selection

functioning and level of reading (decoding) skills. This controversy
raises serious problems in the field, not only in studying the
relationship between WM and reading comprehension, but also as
regards implementation of the most suitable procedures for assess-
ment and intervention. Reading comprehension difficulties certainly
have marked effects on school achievement (Taraban, Rynearson, &
Kerr, 2000; Meneghetti, Carretti, & De Beni, 2006) and day-to-day
activities. From a practical point of view, therefore, great benefit
would derive from determining which aspects should be explored
during clinical evaluation, with a view to devising an empowerment
programme of activities for poor comprehenders.
The aim of this meta-analysis is to clarify the specificity of the role
of WM in reading comprehension difficulties of individuals (children
or adults) with normal decoding skills and intellectual abilities. The
strength of the differences in reading comprehension performance
between good and poor comprehenders in WM tasks is tested using
the classic effect-size index (Cohen, 1988), which refers to the degree
of association/correlation between two or more variables.
In line with a domain-specific view of WM, it is possible to predict
that, if the relationship between WM and reading comprehension
performance is mediated by task modality and attentional control,
then verbal complex memory tasks should better discriminate
between poor and good comprehenders than verbal simple memory
tasks and visuo-spatial tasks. In contrast, a domain-general view of
WM should predict that WM tasks, regardless of task modality, should
better capture the differences between poor and good comprehenders
in comparison to less demanding tasks in terms of attentional
resources (e.g. short-term memory tasks). From an individual
differences point of view, this would mean that the poorer WM
performance of poor comprehenders depends little on task modality,
and instead is mainly related to the attentional control involved.
Several inclusion and exclusion criteria were used for identifying
relevant articles. The criteria mainly refer to participant selection.
Articles selected had to:
(1) include a group of poor comprehenders with reading compre-
hension learning disabilities with a normal-range level of general
cognitive abilities (usually associated with level of IQ); specific
impairment in the ability to understand the meaning of a text, not
anticipated from the participant's level of general cognitive
abilities; reading comprehension difficulties not primarily due to
hearing and/or visual problems, socio-economic factors, cultural
or linguistic differences, lack of motivation, or ineffective teaching
(see Cain & Oakhill, 2004 or Cornoldi & Oakhill, 1996);
(2) provide comparison with groups of normally developing children
or children with reading comprehension score above expected
age average score. Good and poor comprehenders had to be
matched on measures of general cognitive functioning and, in
particular for children, on measures of reading decoding;
These two above criteria allowed exclusion of participants from
the poor comprehension group whose weak comprehension
ability was due to low cognitive profile or word reading
(decoding) difficulties.
(3) select good and poor comprehenders on the basis of a standar-
dized reading comprehension task. The reading comprehension
performance of the poor comprehenders group had to be two
standard deviations below expected age average score or alter-
natively 12 months below their chronological age.
This procedure allowed us to find 18 articles; these are listed in
Table 1. Despite the low number of studies found, we went ahead to

2. Method Table 3
Commonly used visuo-spatial complex span tasks.
We carried out a search of the published literature to identify Counting span test Material: series of dot arrays presented on a page
studies where WM was assessed in individuals (children ages 8–14 Task request: counting of the dots and memorization of
and young adults ages 18–30) with reading comprehension difficul- the results of counting
ties. Medline, Web of Science, ERIC and PsycINFO were searched from Storage request: numbers of dots
Map and direction Material: street map with lines connected to a number of
August 1980 to September 2006 (i.e. after introduction of Daneman
dots/positions (pathway)
and Carpenter's Reading Span Test) using combinations of specific Task request: decision whether the presented dots/positions
terms such as reading comprehension difficulties and disabilities, poor fall into a particular pattern and memorization of the pathway
comprehenders, with the following keywords: WM, verbal span, Storage request: pathway on a blank map
Matrix span Material: series of dots in a matrix
visuo-spatial span, short-term memory, phonological loop, visual-
Task request: decision whether the dots presented fall in a
spatial sketchpad, digit span. The lists of articles retrieved were also particular position and memorization of the position of the dots
examined for further relevant publications. We limited our search to Storage request: positions of dots
studies in the English language in peer-reviewed journals and in Figure intersection Material: series of overlapping geometrical figures
published books (Table 1 list the studies and administered tasks test (FIT) Task and storage requests: find where figures intersect
maintaining the visual images of the figures
included in the meta-analysis).
 B. Carretti et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 246–251 249

Table 4 Another measure often associated to poor comprehension perfor-

WM memory updating tasks.
Updating (Morris & Jones'
version, 1990)
Updating (semantic criterion)
Material: Sequences of words of unknown length,
e.g. oven, milk, cathedral, breath, bath, pumpkin,
juice, box, moustache
Task request: recall of the last four words
Storage request: final words (e.g. pumpkin, juice,
box, moustache)
Material: Sequences of words, e.g. meeting, sense,
woodpecker, passion, law, cow, happiness, amount,
caterpillar, lamb, feast, frog
Task request: recall of the three smallest items
Storage request: ordered smallest items
(e.g. woodpecker, caterpillar, frog)
mance is the intrusion error, i.e. the recall of no-longer-relevant
information in WM tasks (Carretti, Cornoldi, De Beni, & Palladino,
2004). The occurrence of intrusion errors is considered an index of the
inefficiency of inhibitory mechanisms (De Beni, Palladino, Pazzaglia, &
Cornoldi, 1998). If poor comprehender WM deficit is related to
difficulty in controlling the permanence of irrelevant or no longer
useful information in WM (see Gernsbacher, 1993) – which can
saturate WM capacity – then the difference with good comprehenders
should also be large for the intrusion errors measure.
Both updating and intrusion errors were considered since they
refer to ability to manage attentional control resources, maintain
relevant information in an active state, suppress irrelevant informa-
tion, or dynamically change memory content.

calculate effect-size indexes, since no particular concerns emerge in 4. Analyses

the meta-analysis literature about sample size for a meta-analysis
(Higgins & Green, 2006).
3.1. Categorization of WM measures
Although there are a variety of theoretical views of WM (Miyake &
Shah, 1999), most of the models agree that WM tasks can be
distinguished according to modality (verbal vs visuo-spatial) and
attentional control (only storage, simple span task, vs tasks requiring
storage plus processing, complex span tasks).
In this vein, simple span tasks (forward digit or word span) were
considered as tasks requiring only storage, since participants are
simply required to reproduce a sequence of items without any further
manipulation. The simple span tasks therefore only involved storage
of the material (verbal or visuo-spatial). As storage plus processing
tasks (complex span task), we considered all the variations of the
Daneman and Carpenter's Reading or Listening Span Test that required
the processing of some piece of information (reversing the order of
item presented, or semantically judging sentences) and simultaneous
memorization of the last word of each set (maintenance phase).
Complex span tasks were then distinguished according to task
modality: verbal and visuo-spatial tasks (see Tables 2 and 3).
Furthermore, two WM measures involving executive functions
were considered: updating, assessed through correct recall in WM
updating tasks, and inhibition, with intrusion errors in WM tasks.
In the WM updating tasks, participants are required to remember a
variable number of items following a criterion, for example the last
three items in a list or the smallest items. Tasks of this type, implying a
continuous change in the information held in the memory in order to
maintain active only the relevant items, have been shown to be
strongly related to successful comprehension (Carretti, Cornoldi, De
Beni, & Romanò, 2005; Palladino, Cornoldi, De Beni, & Pazzaglia,
2001). Table 4 gives an example of tasks included in this category.
The studies are numbered in Table 1 and summarized with
reference to the tasks and measures used.
In particular, in calculating the effect size for the simple span task
we considered Studies 1, 3, 7, 8, 13, 16 and 17 (see Table 1); for verbal
complex span tasks, Studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17
and 18; for the visuo-spatial complex span tasks, Studies 1, 3, 6, 10 and
16; for the high attentional controlled tasks, Studies 5, 13 and 17; and
finally for intrusion error measure, Studies 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13.
In the 18 studies selected, participant ages ranged from 8 to 30; in
order not to confound developmental issues with reading compre-
hension difficulties (Cain & Oakhill, 2006), two separate meta-
analyses were run, one for children (8–15), the other for young adults
(18–30). Two studies (Floyd, Bergeron, & Alfonso, 2006; Swanson,
Howard, & Sáez, 2006) with participants aged from 8 to 17/18 were
excluded.
To establish the magnitude of the differences between poor and
good comprehenders, the classic effect-size index (d) proposed by
Cohen (1988) was calculated: this expresses “the degree to which the
phenomenon is present in the population” (p. 9, Cohen, 1988). It is
obtained either by subtracting experimental (poor comprehenders)
from control group (good comprehenders) mean scores and dividing
by the pooled (average) standard deviation ([M1 − M2] / σ), or from
tests of the significance of differences in performance between groups
(e.g. t or F, χ2 tests, exact p value). This formula therefore allows
evaluation of the overlap between the group means by expressing
score distances in units of variability.
The magnitude of effect sizes was interpreted according to Cohen's
(1988) guidelines (d = .20 small; d = .50 medium; d = .80 large). The
value d described the mean standardized difference in WM perfor-
mance between poor and good comprehenders. For example, a d value
of .5 indicated that the means differed by half a standard deviation,
equivalent to a medium effect size, suggesting that group means differ

Table 5
Summary of indices obtained in the meta-analysis (the studies used for each index are mentioned in Table 1 and in the text).

Number of participants d 95% CI r I2 95% CI

Good comprehenders Poor comprehenders
Memory task
Simple span tasks 109 107 .29 .10–.47 .14 0% 0–51
Complex span tasks
Verbal 718 422 .75 .64–.85 .34 40% 0–60
Visuo-spatial 447 182 .36 .19–.51 .18 0% 0–54
Executive functions mechanisms
WM updating measure 235 230 1.07a .66–1.47 .47 71% 14–85
Intrusion errors 163 262 − .91a − 1.27–.55 − .41 70% 30–82
Verbal working memory
Young adults 87 83 .89 .64–1.15 .41 17% 0–63
Children 571 306 .73 .60–.87 .32 48% 0–69
a
In view of the high value of the heterogeneity index, the value of d was calculated using a random effect analysis (see DerSimonian & Laird, 1986). In all other cases a fixed effect
model was used (see Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
250 B. Carretti et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 246–251
to some extent. From a correlational viewpoint, a higher level of d
corresponds to a higher degree of association between the variables
considered. To perform a statistical analysis of the strength of the
difference, the d was transformed into the correlation index (r) and
then compared, to understand whether or not they might be
considered significantly different.
Furthermore, for each meta-analysis the I2 statistic and 95%
confidence intervals were calculated according to Higgins and
Thompson (2002). The index is intended to describe the amount of
total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance.
The range of I2 values lies between 0% (negative values are set to 0)
and 100%, with a value of 0% indicating no observed heterogeneity,
and larger values suggesting very little consistency in effect sizes
across the studies. As suggested by Higgins and Green (2006), the
value of d was adjusted using random or fixed effect models after
considering the degree of heterogeneity.
5. Results
As can be seen in Table 5, the magnitude of d varies as a function of
two characteristics of WM task: the modality (verbal vs visuo-spatial),
and attentional control involved (storage vs storage/processing).
Higher values are associated with tasks with a verbal domain
requiring both maintenance and manipulation of information. Indeed,
d values for verbal WM tasks can be considered to lie in the medium
range, while for WM updating and intrusion errors (measures of
executive functions), the measure was high (see Cohen, 1988,
guidelines). In contrast, when visuo-spatial tasks are considered
along with verbal tasks requiring storage only, the correlation with
reading comprehension diminishes — in fact, the magnitude of the
effect fell within the range of a small effect size.
To carry out a statistical comparison of the relevance of these
differences, d values were converted into the Pearson correlation
index and then compared to each other. The outcome showed that the
values for verbal complex span tasks and WM updating measure are
higher than for the verbal simple span tasks (z = 2.16, p b .05 and
z = 3.12, p b .001 respectively) or the visuo-spatial complex span tasks
(z = 2.14, p b .05 and z = 2.28, p b .001 respectively). Similar results
were found comparing the index from intrusion errors with the verbal
simple span tasks (z = 2.61, p b .01), and the visuo-spatial complex
span tasks (z = 2.53, p b .01). Comparison between r-values for verbal
complex span tasks, WM updating measure and intrusion errors
showed no significant differences. It is important to note that all the
correlations differ significantly from zero (simple span task and visuo-
spatial complex span p b .05; verbal complex span task, WM updating
measure and intrusion errors p b .01).
However, heterogeneity analysis (see Table 5) revealed that the
WM measures verbal complex span, WM updating measure and
intrusion errors (i.e. excluding verbal simple span and visuo-spatial
complex span), had moderate to high I2 values (Higgins & Thompson,
2002). This finding indicates that within each of these three measures,
there was substantial variability in findings between studies that was
not due to chance alone.
Finally, for the analysis related to age, although the d value
obtained for young adults is particularly high (both correlations were
found to differ from zero for p b .01), the statistical comparison with
that for children was not significantly different. This result suggests an
equivalent role of WM in characterizing the cognitive profile of poor
comprehenders, regardless of age.
6. Discussion and conclusion
The main goal of the current study was to clarify the role of WM
measures in distinguishing between performance of poor and good
comprehenders, by analyzing two possible factors that can account for
their differences: the modality of WM tasks (verbal vs visuo-spatial),
and attentional control involved (storage vs storage/processing)
during reading comprehension.
Examining the d values (see Table 5), it is clear that the association
between WM measures and reading comprehension abilities varies as
a function of the modality and attentional control required. It should
be noted that poor comprehenders are more disadvantaged in
complex span tasks than good comprehenders only when tasks
involve verbal material. In contrast, the performance of poor
comprehenders is comparable to that of good comprehenders when
considering visuo-spatial complex span tasks and simple span tasks. It
therefore seems plausible that the poor WM performance of poor
comprehenders depends partially on WM modality, but it may also be
caused by failure in attentional control component of WM. Consis-
tently with this view, the difference in performance between poor and
good comprehenders in updating and inhibitory (intrusion errors)
executive functions mechanisms proved high.
Overall our findings confirm that WM tasks that involve a high
demand in terms of attentional resources are a better predictor of
reading comprehension performance than measures of simple span
tasks (see Daneman & Merikle, 1996). The results thus appear to be
consistent with non-unitary models of WM (see for example Baddeley
& Logie, 1999 or Cornoldi & Vecchi, 2003), suggesting that deficits in
reading comprehension by poor comprehenders can also be partly
attributed to inefficiencies in WM control mechanisms, which are
failing to support specifically the verbal processing (see for example
Swanson & Berninger, 1995). Substantial differences between groups
were indeed isolated to verbal complex span measures, whereas
weaker group differences between poor and good comprehenders
emerged on visual-spatial complex span measures.
However, some caution should be applied in interpreting the data,
since in some cases heterogeneity values are high, in particular in the
case of d values for WM updating measures and intrusion errors. On the
one hand, this could depend on the paucity of studies considering
updating and inhibition in relation to reading comprehension difficul-
ties; but equally it could be due to the different procedures adopted, for
example, for measuring the updating process. Swanson et al. (2006) and
Palladino, Cornoldi, De Beni, and Pazzaglia (2001, Exp. 1), for instance,
used a variant of the classic Morris and Jones (1990) task in which
participants are required to recall the last four items of each of a set of
lists. However, some authors have pointed out that this classic memory
updating task does not necessarily imply an updating process, since
participants could adopt a more passive strategy by waiting until the end
of the presentation and then retrieving the correct items on the basis of a
recency criterion (Ruiz, Elousa, & Lechuga, 2005). These latter aspects
may contribute to the heterogeneity obtained.
It should be noted here that only published studies were included
in the meta-analysis. Ignoring unpublished studies, which tend to
reveal smaller effect sizes, may have biased our research by increasing
the chances of finding larger effect sizes (Rosenthal, 1991). Never-
theless, overall our findings should be considered as an attempt to
summarize available data.
Another issue to consider is that the majority of studies were
carried out by only a few research teams, exposing the results to a
range of biases. Nevertheless, the results were obtained with different
groups of subjects and are very consistent not only internally but also
with studies analyzing correlations within the random population
(e.g. Daneman & Merikle, 1996).
In conclusion, our study shows that the WM deficit of poor
comprehenders relates mainly to those tasks requiring storage and
processing of information while inhibiting off-goal information and/or
updating memory content information (Carretti et al., 2005). However,
this is true only when considering verbal complex span tasks or tasks
involving executive functions. In fact, the performance of poor compre-
henders differs only marginally from that of good comprehenders in
visuo-spatial WM complex span or verbal simple span tasks. Consistently
with the common features of “working memory” (see Miyake & Shah,
 B. Carretti et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 246–251
1999), we suggest that also in the case of individual differences in reading
comprehension (poor vs good comprehenders) WM cannot be con-
sidered as completely unitary, since both domain-specific and attentional
control factors place constraints on WM performance.
As regards to possible implications for the field of learning
disabilities, our results point to WM as a possible important marker
of reading comprehension difficulties (see Gathercole, Alloway, Willis,
& Adams, 2006), suggesting the relevance of its evaluation for
characterizing reading comprehension deficit profile. An important
question arising is its potential clinical application in remedial
activities designed to increase WM capacity and thus reading
comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. Consequently,
the crucial question is whether or not WM can be enhanced. Benefits
from WM training have been examined, although to date only on
adulthood (young and older adults), showing that WM performance
can be improved (e.g. Carretti, Borella, & De Beni, 2007; Cavallini,
Pagnin, & Vecchi, 2003; McNamara & Scott, 2001; Turley-Ames, &
Whitfield, 2003). It is worth noting that most of these studies trained
participants to use mnemonic strategies, such as imagery or semantic
processing. These results therefore seem to indicate that WM
enhancement might relate to a better use of strategies (see Ericsson
& Kintsch, 1995), decreasing the demand for attentional control,
rather than a direct modification of WM structures.
Another key issue is the possibility of generalizing the effect of WM
training to other related cognitive processes. In this case too, some
encouraging results are present in the literature. For example, Jaeggi,
Buschkuehl, Jonides, and Perrig (2008) demonstrated that WM training
produces a transfer effect on fluid intelligence scores in young adults.
Overall, these data lead to the hypothesis that, also in the case of poor
comprehenders, enhancement of WM could produce a transfer effect on
specific components of reading comprehension ability. For example,
some studies (e.g. Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Hamm & Hasher, 1992)
allow prediction that an increase in WM capacity could produce an
improvement in ability to maintain content-relevant information for
construction of a mental model despite the presence of irrelevant
material, or to connect different parts of a text. Addressing this crucial
issue, future research should offer further demonstration of the central
role of WM in learning disabilities, and thereby supporting the need to
introduce WM evaluation in common clinical practice.
References
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The
psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 8 (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model.
In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active
maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cain, K. (2006). Individual differences in children's memory and reading comprehen-
sion: An investigation of semantic and inhibitory deficits. Memory, 14, 553–569.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2004). Reading comprehension difficulties. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant
(Eds.), Handbook of children's literacy (pp. 313–338). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension
difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 683–696.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word
meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary
knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671-68.
Carretti, B., Borella, E., & De Beni (2007). Does a strategic memory training improve the
working memory performance of younger and older adults? Experimental
Psychology, 54, 311–320.
Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Palladino, P. (2004). What happens to information
to be suppressed in working memory tasks? Short and long term effects. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 1059–1084.
Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Romanò, M. (2005). Updating in working
memory: A comparison of good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 91, 45–66.
Cavallini, E., Pagnin, A., & Vecchi, T. (2003). Aging and everyday memory: The beneficial
effect of memory training. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 37, 241–257.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Pazzaglia, F. (1996). Reading comprehension profiles. In C.
Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and
intervention. Mahwah, NJ, US: Erlbaum.
251
Cornoldi, C., & Oakhill, J. (1996). Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and
intervention. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Cornoldi, C., & Vecchi, T. (2003). Visuo-spatial working memory and individual
differences. Howe: Psychological Press.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and
reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension:
A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 422–433.
Daneman, M., & Tardif, T. (1987). Working memory and reading skills re-examined. In M.
Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp.
491–508). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
De Beni, R., & Palladino, P. (2000). Intrusion errors in working memory tasks: Are they related
to reading comprehension ability? Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 131–143.
De Beni, R., Palladino, P., Pazzaglia, F., & Cornoldi, C. (1998). Increases in intrusion errors
and working memory deficit of poor comprehenders. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 51(A), 305–320.
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical
Trials, 7, 177–188.
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working
memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid
intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.),
Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control.
London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review,
102, 211–245.
Floyd, R. G., Bergeron, R., & Alfonso, V. C. (2006). Cattell–Horn–Carroll cognitive ability
profiles of poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 19, 427–456.
Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C., & Adams, A. M. (2006). Working memory in
children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 265–281.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993). Less skilled readers have less efficient suppression
mechanisms. Psychological Science, 4, 294–298.
Hamm, V. P., & Hasher, L. (1992). Age and the availability of inferences. Psychology and
Aging, 7, 56–64.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA, US:
Academic Press.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2006). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of
interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]. http://www.cochrane.org/resources/
handbook/hbook.htm (accessed 6th October 2006).
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.
Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558.
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, K. J. (2008). Improving fluid
intelligence with training on working memory. PNAS, 105, 6829–6833.
Leseaux, N. K., Pearson, M. R., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). The effects of timed and untimed
testing conditions on the reading comprehension performance of adults with
reading disabilities. Reading and Writing, 19, 21–48.
McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (2001). Working memory capacity and strategy use.
Memory & Cognition, 29, 10–17.
Meneghetti, C., Carretti, B., & De Beni, R. (2006). Components of reading comprehension
and scholastic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 291–301.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active
maintenance and executive control. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Morris, N., & Jones, D. M. (1990). Memory updating in working memory: The role of the
central executive. British Journal of Psychology, 81(2), 111–121.
Nation, K., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C. A., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Working memory
deficits in poor comprehenders reflect underlying language impairments. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 139–158.
Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working
memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18, 657–686.
Palladino, P., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Pazzaglia, F. (2001). Working memory and
updating processes in reading comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 29, 344–354.
Rankin, J. L. (1993). Information-processing differences of college-age readers differing
in reading comprehension and speed. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 261–278.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analysis: A review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 53, 247–271.
Ruiz, R. M., Elousa, M. R., & Lechuga, M. T. (2005). Old-fashioned responses in an updating
memory task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A, 58, 887–908.
Savage, R., Lavers, N., & Pillay, V. (2007). Working memory and reading difficulties:
What we know and what we don't know about the relationship. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 185–221.
Stothard, S. E., & Hulme, C. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties in children: The
role of language comprehension and working memory skills. Reading and Writing,
4, 245–256.
Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. (1995). The role of working memory in skilled and less
skilled readers' comprehension. Intelligence, 21, 83–108.
Swanson, H. L., Howard, C. B., & Sáez, L. (2006). Do different components of working
memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 39, 252–270.
Swanson, H. L., & Siegel, L. S. (2001). Learning disabilities as a working memory deficit.
Issues in Education, 7, 1–48.
Taraban, R., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. (2000). College students' academic performance
and selfreports of comprehension strategy use. Reading Psychology, 21, 283–308.
Turley-Ames, K. J., & Whitfield, M. M. (2003). Strategy training and working memory
task performance. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 446–468.
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?
Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154.
Yuill, N. M., Oakhill, J. V., & Parkin, A. J. (1989). Working memory, comprehension skill
and the resolution of text anomaly. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 351–361.