A reaction to Holmes's Basic assumptions underlying the substrata-factor theory.

The article presents a critique to various papers of Jack Alroy Holmes that appeared in the "Reading Research Quarterly" related to his basic assumptions on the substrata-factor theory. Holmes paper could not define any sensible meaning of substrata-factor theory. An examination of an earlier publication by Holmes reveals that a substrata factor is apparently a score on a test which somebody found to be related to a score on the criterion test for speed of reading. The reviewers were somewhat disoriented by Holmes's insistence that his exploratory ideas represented a theory. Several problems are apparent in Holmes's procedure following the derivation of the initial regression equation. Holmes says little about problems of validity. In the section on "neurological evidence" Holmes presents not one iota of evidence. Instead, the reader is offered by quotation scraps of theories about the makeup and operation of the brain. In his work to date Holmes has not developed a theoretical framework for reading research. He has some idea that there must be some connection between what neurologists are finding and saying about the brain and what underlies the ability to read. Beyond that, since hypotheses have not been developed concerning the underlying variables and their relationships, Holmes has turned to analysis of the interrelationships among scores on tests which have been found to be related to reading performance criteria.