A striking similarity among the studies reporting positive transfer is found in the content of the auding training programs. Six of these studies included training in "listening in order to recall events, ideas, or details"; five included training in "vocabulary"; five provided training in "listening to predict outcomes or to draw conclusions or inferences"; and four provided training in "listening to follow directions." Seven studies had at least two of these training elements in common.

An analysis of the reading measures employed in this work reveals a fair degree of correspondence between the nature of the auding training provided and the reading skills measured. These studies all employed standardized reading tests (Gates Primary Reading Tests; Iowa Silent Reading Test; SRA Reading Record; California Achievement Test, Elementary Reading Section; Dominion Achievement Tests, Reading; Metropolitan Achievement Tests, Reading) to measure for transfer. As might be expected, all of these tests are heavily loaded with vocabulary items. The task of recalling details is specifically identified as a part of the Iowa Silent Reading Tests, the SRA Reading Record, and the California Achievement Test, Elementary Reading Section. The Gates Primary Reading Tests are in essence a measure of a student's ability to follow directions and this ability surely affects performance on this entire set of measures.

Generally speaking, the studies reporting significant transfer are characterized by a fairly high level of correspondence between auding training and reading transfer measures. This is consistent with the assumption in the developmental model of a common denominator for both auding and reading; this denominator is the more central ability of languaging, including the signs (vocabulary) and rules for using the signs in inter- and intra-personal communication (comprehension skills) and the cognitive content. When training and transfer test correspond, the probability is increased that the altered languaging skills and the new cognitive content will in fact be sampled.

Overall, then, available research appears to support the transfer hypothesis. This conclusion conflicts with that put forth by Devine (1968) after he reviewed a portion of this research. Devine rejected the transfer hypothesis based upon the work of R.F. Lewis (1963), Hollingsworth (1964), and Reeves (1965), all of whom failed to find evidence of transfer. However, in his review, Devine did not take into account the data reflecting the success of original auding training. As indicated in Table 6, the auding training provided by R.F. Lewis, Hollingsworth, and Reeves did not produce a significant improvement in the auding skills of their subjects. Therefore, the evidence cited.by Devine as demonstrating the untenability of the transfer hypothesis provided, instead, examples of unsuccessful auding training programs. Given this failure of original training, transfer from auding to reading could not occur.