Reading fluency as a marker for
early reading progress: Strengths
and Weaknesses
Joseph K. Torgesen
Florida State University and the Eastern Regional
Reading First Technical Assistance Center
Massachusetts Reading First,March, 2006
Examine the utility of reading fluency as a marker for
early reading progress by focusing on three
questions:
1. How useful are measures of reading fluency in identifying
students who are “at risk” for performing below grade level
on “high stakes” measures of reading comprehension?
2. What is the causal connection between reading fluency and
reading comprehension?
What evidence do we have that there is a causal
connection?
What mechanisms or skills mediate that connection?
3. What are the big ideas that should guide our work to build
reading fluency in young children?
Why is it important for us all to acquire more
knowledge and understanding about these questions?
1. Measures off reading fluency are being used in a very
large number of states in Reading First as one of the
primary indicators of early reading growth.
2. Reading Fluency has been identified as one of the five
major components of reading growth that should be the
focus of instruction and assessment in grades K-3
3. Many programs are currently being promoted and used
for the specific purpose of increasing reading fluency—
and the goal of these programs is not just to increase
reading fluency, but also to increase students ability to
comprehend complex text.
Examine the relationship between reading fluency
and reading comprehension with a view toward more
fully understanding the answers to three questions:
1. How useful are measures of reading fluency in identifying
students who are “at risk” for performing below grade
level on measures of reading comprehension?
2. What is the causal connection between reading fluency and
reading comprehension?
What evidence do we have that there is a causal
connection?
What mechanisms or skills mediate that connection?
3. What are the big ideas that should guide our work to build
reading fluency in young children?
The most common way of assessing reading fluency is
to ask students to read a passage of grade level text
orally and count the number of words the student
reads correctly in a defined period of time.
The time period for assessment is typically one
minute.
Provides a reliable assessment of fluency
one passage – in low .90’s
three passages with median – mid to high .90’s
Oral reading fluency shows steady growth as children
acquire reading skills during 1st through 3rd grade
Correct Words per Minute on Grade Level Text
120
110
Correct Words per Minute
100
33 WPM
90
80
70
45 WPM
60
50
40
Good, Wallin, Simmons,
Kame’enui, & Kaminski, 2002
27 WPM
30
20
W
S
1st Grade
F
W
2nd Grade
S
F
W
3rd Grade
S
The most common way of assessing reading fluency is
to ask students to read a passage of grade level text
orally and count the number of words the student
reads correctly in a defined period of time.
The time period for assessment is typically one
minute.
Provides a reliable assessment of fluency
one passage – in low .90’s
three passages with median – mid to high .90’s
Oral reading fluency shows steady growth as children
acquire reading skills during 1st through 3rd grade
Oral reading fluency measures are strongly related to
reading comprehension in grades 1,2, 3
Correlations range from about .50 to .90, with
most falling around .70.
The strength of the relationship depends
upon such things as:
The measure of reading comprhension
N=218
R=.76
N=218
R=.56
Correlations range from about .50 to .90, with
most falling around .70.
The strength of the relationship depends
upon such things as:
The measure of reading comprehension
Age/grade level of students – r with SAT10
1st grade
2nd grade
3rd grade
r = .79
r = .70
r = .69
Why is the correlation
higher at 1st than at 3rd
grade?
These correlations indicate that performance on brief
measures of oral reading fluency is strongly
correlated with performance on measures of reading
comprehension.
However, they don’t tell us directly how useful the
ORF measures actually are in identifying students
likely to struggle on comprehension measures
It turns out that ORF measures have high
predictive utility for identifying students
likely to struggle on “high stakes” or formal
measures of reading comprehension
Prediction from first of year
90
10
19
3rd Grade-MASS
Florida
Orf > 78
25
Orf from 53 to 77
20
46
<53
30
Percent Grade level on FCAT
40
40
Orf > 78
50
Orf from 53 to 77
60
72
<53
70
86
3,339 students
Percent Proficient on MCAS
80
Hi risk
Moderate Risk
Low Risk
OSA Reading/Literature, Spring,
Grade 3
Teaching Reading is Urgent
240
88% of students who
met the end of first
grade ORF goal met
or exceeded
Oregon’s State
Benchmark Test.
Similar correlations
have been found for
CO, IA, FL, and PA.
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Oral Reading Fluency, Spring, Grade 1
160
Performance at the end of first grade strongly predicts
performance on third grade high stakes test.
Examine the relationship between reading fluency
and reading comprehension with a view toward more
fully understanding the answers to three questions:
1. How useful are measures of reading fluency in identifying
students who are “at risk” for performing below grade
level on measures of reading comprehension?
2. What is the causal connection between reading fluency and
reading comprehension?
What evidence do we have that there is a causal
connection?
What mechanisms or skills mediate that connection?
3. What are the big ideas that should guide our work to build
reading fluency in young children?
Some definitions of reading fluency
“the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly,
effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious
attention to the mechanics of reading, such as
decoding” (Meyer and Felton (1999, p. 284).
Five common methods for identifying words in
text (Ehri, 1999)
1. By sounding out and blending graphemes into phonemes
to form recognizable words (decoding)
2. By pronouncing common spelling patters as chunks (a
more advanced form of decoding)
3. By retrieving words from memory. Such words are
referred to as “sight words.” Retrieval happens quickly
and effortlessly with practice
4. By analogizing to words already known by sight
5. By predicting words from context
Five common methods for identifying words in
text (Ehri, 1999)
1. By sounding out and blending graphemes into phonemes
to form recognizable words (decoding)
2. By pronouncing common spelling patters as chunks (a
more advanced form of decoding)
3. By retrieving words from memory. Such words are
referred to as “sight words.” Retrieval happens quickly
and effortlessly with practice
4. By analogizing to words already known by sight
5. By predicting words from context
Although all these methods for reading words become more
fluent with practice, fluency increases most dramatically as
more words become identifiable “by sight.”
These are iNTirEStinG and cHallinGinG
times for anyone whose pRoFEshuNle
responsibilities are rEelaTed in any way to
liTiRucY outcomes among school children.
For, in spite of all our new NaWLEGe
about reading and reading iNstRukshun,
there is a wide-spread concern that public
EdgUkAshuN is not as eFfEktIve as it
shood be in tEecHiNg all children to read.
The report of the National Research
Council pointed out that these concerns
about literacy derive not from declining
levels of literacy in our schools but rather
from recognition that the demands for
high levels of literacy are rapidly
accelerating in our society.
The Fluency Challenge…..
“One of the great mysteries to challenge
researchers is how people learn to read and
comprehend text rapidly and with ease. A large
part of the explanation lies in how they learn to
read individual words. Skilled readers are able to
look at thousands of words and immediately
recognize their meanings without any effort.”
Ehri, L. C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications
for teaching. In R. Stainthorp and P. Tomlinson (Eds.) Learning and teaching
reading. London: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II.
December, 3rd Grade
Correct word/minute=60
19th percentile
The Surprise Party
My dad had his fortieth birthday last month, so my mom
planned a big surprise party for him. She said I could assist with
the party but that I had to keep the party a secret. She said I
couldn’t tell my dad because that would spoil the surprise.
I helped mom organize the guest list and write the
invitations. I was responsible for making sure everyone was
included. I also addressed all the envelopes and put stamps and
return addresses on them…..
December, 3rd Grade
Correct word/minute=128
78th percentile
The Surprise Party
My dad had his fortieth birthday last month, so my mom
planned a big surprise party for him. She said I could assist with
the party but that I had to keep the party a secret. She said I
couldn’t tell my dad because that would spoil the surprise.
I helped mom organize the guest list and write the
invitations. I was responsible for making sure everyone was
included. I also addressed all the envelopes and put stamps and
return addresses on them…..
Some definitions of reading fluency
“the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly,
effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious
attention to the mechanics of reading, such as
decoding” (Meyer and Felton (1999, p. 284).
“freedom from word recognition problems that
might hinder comprehension” (Literacy Dictionary, Harris &
Hodges, 1995, p. 85).
“Fluency is the ability to read text quickly,
accurately, and with proper expression”
National Reading Panel, 2000
“Fluency involves accurate reading at a minimal rate
with appropriate prosodic features (expression) and
deep understanding” Hudson, Mercer, and Lane (2000, p. 16).
If comprehension is included as part of the definition of
fluency, then questions about the causal relationships
between fluency and comprehension disappear
However, when we assess ORF, we do not directly
assess comprehension, we assess rate of reading
The question we address here is whether there are
causal relationships between the processes that
contribute to individual differences in oral reading
rate and the processes that are required for good
performance on measures of reading
comprehension
Within current reading theory, we can identify two
major ways that individual differences in ORF (as it is
commonly measured) might be related causally to
individual differences in reading comprehension
Efficient, or automatic, identification of words
allows the reader to focus more attention on the
meaning of the passage
Comprehension processes themselves may cause
individual differences in reading rate. These
comprehension processes influence both fluency
and comprehension tasks.
Within current reading theory, we can identify two
major ways that individual differences in ORF (as it is
commonly measured) might be related causally to
individual differences in reading comprehension
Efficient, or automatic, identification of words
allows the reader to focus more attention on the
meaning of the passage
Comprehension processes themselves may cause
individual differences in reading rate. These
comprehension processes influence both fluency
and comprehension tasks.
The idea that automatic word recognition processes
make it possible to focus more attentional resources
on comprehension was initially popularized by the
work of LaBerge and Samuals (1974)
They developed a model of reading with the concept
of automaticity as one of its central features
1. A complex skill like reading requires the rapid and
efficient coordination of many processes
2. If enough processes are executed automatically, then
the attentional load remains within tolerable limits.
3. Word identification processes are more likely to
become automatic than comprehension processes
“In fact, the automaticity with which skillful
readers recognize words is the key to the
whole system…The reader’s attention can
be focused on the meaning and message of
a text only to the extent that it’s free from
fussing with the words and letters.”
Marilyn Adams
Why is fluency important?
Because it provides a bridge between
word recognition and comprehension.
“Fluency, it seems, serves as a bridge between word
recognition and comprehension. Because when fluent
readers are able to identify words accurately and
automatically, they can focus most of their attention on
comprehension.
They can make connections among the ideas in the text
and between the text and their background knowledge.
In other words, fluent readers can recognize words and
comprehend at the same time.
Less fluent readers, however, must focus much of their
attention on word recognition…The result is that nonfluent readers have little attention to devote to
comprehension” (Osborn, Lehr, and Hiebert, 2003)
The Evidence:
When reading rate is increased through the use of
repeated reading techniques, comprehension also
increases (16 studies-NRP report)
Effect size for fluency = .44
Effect size for comprehension = .35
Problem: a variety of techniques were actually mixed
together in these findings
A more recent meta-analysis focusing only on repeated
reading studies reported these effect sizes (THERRIEN, 2004)
Effect size for fluency = .50
Effect size for comprehension= .25
Problem: processes other than word reading efficiency
might be enhanced by repeated reading practice
The Evidence (cont.):
What we need is evidence that practice which focuses
solely on increasing word reading efficiency can also
increase text reading fluency and reading comprehension
Can practice specifically targeted on word reading
efficiency improve fluency and comprehension?
What do we mean by context-free practice?:
animal
faster
happy
never
time
sleep
rabbit
The Evidence (cont.):
Recently, Levy, Abello, and Lysnchuk(1997) reported a
carefully controlled study with 4th grade poor readers in
which context free practice to increase speed of word
identification positively affected both fluency and
comprehension
Critical features
1. intensive fluency practice-every word recognized in
less than 1 seconds
2. Used long stories that places particular demands on
fluency
3. Stories were at the appropriate level of difficulty for
each student
To summarize:
Increasing rate through repeated reading practice also
increases comprehension
There has been at least one demonstration that increasing
rate through isolated word practice can increase reading
comprehension
Across these definitions of fluency, we can identify two
major ways that individual differences in ORF might be
related causally to individual differences in reading
comprehension
Efficient identification of words allow a focus on the
meaning of the passage
Comprehension processes themselves may
contribute to individual differences in reading rate.
These comprehension processes are shared
between fluency and comprehension tasks.
The Evidence:
Comprehension is occurring for most students as they
read the words on ORF passages.
Although students remember more of the content from ORF
stories if prompted to remember, they do remember a significant
amount with only a cue to “do their best reading” (O’Shea, Sindelar, &
O’Shea, 1987)
There is experimental evidence to indicate that comprehension
processes (identifying anaphoric referents, integrating
propositions in text with background knowledge, inferencing)
can also become automatized with reading practice. (Perfetti, 1995)
This means they can occur without the specific “intention to
comprehend.”
The Evidence:
How could automatically occurring comprehension
processes affect rate of reading on ORF tasks?
There is experimental evidence for fast acting,
automatic spreading of semantic activation thast
does not consume attention resources…words are
primed for easier recognition (Posner & Snyder,
1975).
The Evidence:
Jenkins, et al., (2003) asked 113 4th grade students
with a broad range of reading ability to perform three
tasks:
1. ORF following standard (best reading) cue.
2. ORF with words in passage arranged in random
order in a list
3. ITBS reading comprehension test
The Evidence:
WPM Text = 127
WPM List = 83
Processes unique to reading meaningful text supported
more fluent reading of words – spreading activation based
on comprehension facilitates fluency – is one possibility
Correlation with ITBS
Text = .83
List = .53
Test format that allowed comprehension processes (presumably
operating in both ORF and comprehension test) to influence
rate led to higher correlation – word reading that is influenced
by comprehension is more correlated with comprehension than
just word reading efficiency alone
Conclusions:
1. Both single word identification processes and
comprehension processes contribute to individual
differences in oral reading fluency for text
a. At the lower end of the ORF continuum, word reading
efficiency makes a stronger unique contribution in
explaining variance in fluency
b.At the higher end of the ORF continuum,
comprehension processes make a stronger unique
contribution to explaining variance in fluency.
Individual Differences in Oral Reading Fluency are
influenced by different factors, depending on level of
fluency
Single word reading
efficiency
2nd
16th
Automatic comprehension
processes
50th
Standard Scores
84th
98th
Conclusions (cont.):
ORF is correlated with reading comprehension
because
1. Both ORF and reading comprehension depend to
some extent on efficiency of single word reading
processes
2. Both ORF speed and reading comprehension
scores are influenced to some extent by the
efficiency of comprehension processes that
facilitate performance on both tasks
Reading Processes measured by ORF facilitate
performance on tests of Reading Comprehension
Next question: Are the two direct causal connections
the only reason that ORF is related to performance on
tests of reading comprehension?
A reminder about correlations
A can be correlated with B because:
A causes B (good reading rate enables comp.)
B causes A (comp. enables good reading rate)
Both A and B are caused by C
(comp. and rate are both influenced by experience)
Fluency can be correlated with comprehension
because individual differences in both skills are
caused by differences in:
Reading experience
Home environment and support
Motivation to succeed in school
Reading
Experience
Motivation to
succeed in
school
Fluency
Reading comprehension through
vocabulary increases
Fluency
Reading comprehension through
development of reading strategies
“…motivated students usually want to
understand text content fully and therefore,
process information deeply. As they read
frequently with these cognitive purposes,
motivated students gain in reading
comprehension proficiency”
Guthrie, J.T. (et al.) (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and
engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 403-421.
Differences in SES cause differences among
students in both comprehension and fluency
Lower SES students:
 Lower vocabulary
Lower Comprehension
 Less support for reading in
the home –less practice
Lower Comprehension
Lower Fluency
 Less preparation in
preschool environment for
early acquisition of
alphabetic principle
Lower Fluency
 Less exposure to books
 Fewer opportunities to
develop rich content
knowledge
Lower Comprehension
Lower Fluency
Lower Comprehension
Differences in SES cause differences among
students in both comprehension and fluency
Differences in learning opportunities and motivation for
school learning that are associated with differences in
SES cause both:
Lower
Comprehension
???
Lower
Fluency
N=218
ORF R=.76
Vocab R = .69
NVR R = .48
Mem R = .35
Total R2 = 71%
Common = 43.5%
ORF = 18.9%
Vocab = 7.1%
NVR = 1.2%
Mem = .3%
ORF Unique R = .43
What is the practical meaning of these analyses in terms of
the potential impact of interventions that increase just
reading fluency
If we based our estimate of the impact of these
interventions on the raw correlation between ORF and
comprehension, we would expect:
A 10 WPM gain on ORF would produce a 12.5 point gain
on the FCAT
If we controlled for the joint, and shared, contribution of
vocabulary, nonverbal reasoning, and memory, we would
expect:
10 WPM gain on ORF would produce an 8.6 point gain
on the FCAT
Conclusions from analysis of causal relations
between ORF and reading comprehension:
Interventions that focus directly on increasing oral
reading fluency are likely to have an impact on
performance on broad comprehension measures,
because fluency is causally related to comprehension
How ever, the maximum impact from improvement in
ORF will not be obtained unless work on ORF is
embedded within a complete program that also
stimulates and builds comprehension strategies,
vocabulary, and reasoning skills, because these
variables have an independent impact on
comprehension
Something else to think about:
“Fluency is the ability to read text quickly,
accurately, and with proper expression”
National Reading Panel
What is the role of prosody in fluent reading?
Why is prosody important?
Should teachers spend time modeling
prosody and encouraging students to read
with expression?
What are the causal relationships among
prosody, comprehension, and reading rate?
Possible Causal connections:
If children will read with expression, it helps them
understand what they are reading
Prosody indicates that the child is apprehending
the meaning of what is being read-prosody reflects
comprehension
The relationship between prosody and reading
comprehension
Certainly, when speech is given with proper prosody
and expression, it helps the listener to comprehend
Does it work the same way for reading? Does the
reader listen to his/her own prosody as an aid to
comprehension?
The evidence is not definitive on this point, but it
seems most likely that prosody is primarily a reflection
of comprehension, rather than a cause of it.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., et al., Becoming a Fluent Reader: Reading Skill and Prosodic
Features in the Oral Reading of Young Readers, Journal of Educational Psychology,
2004, 119-129
Examine the relationship between reading fluency
and reading comprehension with a view toward more
fully understanding the answers to three questions:
1. How useful are measures of reading fluency in identifying
students who are “at risk” for performing below grade
level on measures of reading comprehension?
2. What is the causal connection between reading fluency and
reading comprehension?
What evidence do we have that there is a causal
connection?
What mechanisms or skills mediate that connection?
3. What are the big ideas that should guide our work to build
reading fluency in young children?
What are the big ideas that should guide our
work to build reading fluency in young
children?
Learning to read accurately is one of the first steps to
becoming a fluent reader
The development of reading fluency for
students in Reading First Schools:
Massachusetts Data
Growth of Reading Fluency in Second Grade.
Testing point
% at Benchmark
percentile rank
Fall, 2003
44.2
41st
Spring, 2003
41.2
30th
Fall, 2004
46.0
42nd
Spring, 2005
49.9
37th
The development of reading fluency for
students in Reading First Schools:
Massachusetts Data
Growth of Reading Fluency in Third Grade.
Testing point
% at Benchmark
percentile rank
Fall, 2003
38.3
33rd
Spring, 2003
36.7
28th
Fall, 2004
40.7
34th
Spring, 2005
43.1
32nd
The development of reading fluency for
students in Reading First Schools:
Massachusetts Data
Relative performance across grades 1-3 in Spring 2005
Grade
% at Benchmark
percentile rank
First
60.0
49th
Second
49.9
37th
Third
43.1
31st
The development of reading fluency for
students in Reading First Schools:Florida
Schools
For the past two years, students in 320 Reading First
schools in Florida have been “losing ground” in the
development of reading fluency in 2nd grade.
Many students who enter second grade with reading
fluency at “grade level” leave second grade below
grade level
37th
percentile
53rd
percentile
:
Instructional Emphasis for Second Grade
Writing or lang. arts
3%
Fluency
4%
Fluency – 4%
Non-instructional
6%
Spelling
2%
Word study/phonics
21%
Comprehension
42%
Text reading
22%
About half our second
graders began second grade
not having met the February
1st grade benchmark in NWF
Slightly more than 20%
still hadn’t met the 1st
grade benchmark at the
end of second grade
One problem that arises from so many students
coming into 2nd grade still weak in effective, accurate
word reading strategies
Growth in fluency requires accurate practice
A major factor underlying growth in fluency for
struggling readers is how fast the number of words
they can recognize “by sight” increases
Children must read unfamiliar words with perfect
accuracy on multiple occasions before they can
become sight words
Sight vocabulary must grow very rapidly in second
grade to keep pace with normative development
47th
percentile
62nd
percentile
Over ½ of our
students did not
make the
benchmark on
time
What are the big ideas that should guide our
work to build reading fluency in young
children?
Reading First students need powerful instruction in
strategies for accurate word identification (phonemic
decoding) in first grade and extending into complex
skills in second grade.
Children must become accurate readers as a first step
toward becoming fluent readers.
Reading first students need many opportunities to
acquire sight word representations for high frequency,
high utility words – working to expand student’s “sight
word vocabulary” as fast as possible
Supervised, repeated reading practice is one efficient way to
do this
What are the big ideas that should guide our
work to build reading fluency in young
children?
Reading First students should be encouraged to attend to
meaning in all their reading assignments
Encouraging students to read with prosody will lead them to
attend to meaning
Repeated practice in reading for meaning supports the
growth of “automatic comprehension processes” which are
important for both fluency and comprehension
Strengths of oral reading fluency measures:
They are an extremely reliable measure of one of
the important components of reading proficiency
They currently provide the most accurate brief
assessment to identify students likely to struggle
on measures of comprehension at the end of
grades 1, 2, and 3.
The most important single danger in using Oral
Reading Fluency measures as an index of
“reading growth” in grades 1-3 is that teachers will
be mislead into focusing just on rate.
We must focus on the true definition of fluency:
It involves reading at an appropriate rate with
deep comprehension
Thank you
References:
Adams, M. J. (1991). A talk with Marilyn Adams. Language Arts, 68, 206-212
Fleisher, L. S., Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. (1979). Effects on poor readers’
comprehension of training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 30–
48.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.D., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an
indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-259.
Fuchs,L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading
comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20-29.
Good, R.H., Wallin, J.U., Simmons, D.C., Kame’enui, E.J. & Kaminski, R.A. (2002).
System-wide percentile ranks for DIBELS benchmark assessment. (Technical
Report 9). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B. & Pullen, P.C. (2005). Reading Fluency Assessment and
Instruction: What, Why, and How? The Reading Teacher (in press)
Hudson, R.F., Mercer, C.D., & Lane, H.B. (2000). Exploring reading fluency: A
paradigmatic overview. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Jenkins, J.R., Fuchs, L.S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S.L. (2003).
Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719-729.
Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.
Levy, B.A. (2001). Moving the bottom: Improving reading fluency. In M. Wolf (Ed.),
Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain. (pp. 357-382). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Levy, B.A., Abello, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Transfer from word training to
reading in context: Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 173-188.
Marston, D. (2000). personal communication cited in Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp,
M.D., & Jenkins, J. (2001).
Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old
approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283-306.
Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old
approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283-306.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
Washington, D.C.
Osborn, J., Lehr, F., & Hiebert, E.H. (2003). A Focus on Fluency. Monograph
published by Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Copies available at
www.prel.org/programs/rel/rel.asp.
O'Shea, L. J., Sindelar, P. T., & O'Shea, D. J. (1987). The effects of repeated
reading and attentional cues on the reading fluency and comprehension of leaming
disabled readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 103-109.
Perfetti, C.A. (1995). Cognitive research can inform reading education. Journal of
Research in Reading, 18, 106-115.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. Solso
(Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55–85).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rasinski, T.V. Assessing reading fluency. Pacific Resources for Education and
Learning (PREL). Funded by U.S. Office of Education. 2004
Rasinski, T.V. (2003). The Fluent Reader. New York: Scholastic
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Hamilton, A.M., Kuhn, M.R., Wisenbaker, J.M., & Stahl, S.A.
(2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral
reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 119-129.
Stahl, S.A. (2004). What do we know about fluency? Findings of the National
Reading Panel. In In McCardle, P. & Chhabra, V. (Eds.) The voice of evidence in
reading research. (pp. 187-211) Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Therrien, W.J. (2004). Fluency and Comprehension Gains as a Result of Repeated
Reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252-261
Tindal, G., Hasbrouck, J, & Jones, C. (2005). Oral Reading Fluency: 90 Years of
measurement. Technical Report #33, Behavioral Research and Teaching,
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon