ERIC ED575712: Text (Oral) Reading Fluency as a Construct in Reading Development: An Investigation of Its Mediating Role for Children from Grades 1 to 4

2015·0.34 MB·English

by  ERIC

This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]
On: 16 May 2015, At: 04:47
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Scientific Studies of Reading
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hssr20
Text (Oral) Reading Fluency as a
Construct in Reading Development: An
Investigation of Its Mediating Role for
Children From Grades 1 to 4
Young-Suk Grace Kima & Richard K. Wagnera
a Florida State University, Florida Center for Reading Research
Published online: 24 Feb 2015.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Young-Suk Grace Kim & Richard K. Wagner (2015) Text (Oral) Reading Fluency as a
Construct in Reading Development: An Investigation of Its Mediating Role for Children From Grades 1
to 4, Scientific Studies of Reading, 19:3, 224-242, DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
5
1
0
2
y
a
M
6
1
7
4
4:
0
at
]
y
sit
r
e
v
ni
U
e
at
St
a
d
ri
o
Fl
[
y
b
d
e
d
a
o
nl
w
o
D
ScientificStudiesofReading,19:224–242,2015
Copyright©2015SocietyfortheScientificStudyofReading
ISSN:1088-8438print/1532-799Xonline
DOI:10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375
Text (Oral) Reading Fluency as a Construct in Reading
Development: An Investigation of Its Mediating Role
for Children From Grades 1 to 4
Young-SukGraceKimandRichardK.Wagner
FloridaStateUniversity,FloridaCenterforReadingResearch
5
1
0
2
y
Ma Inthepresentstudyweinvestigatedadevelopmentallychangingroleoftextreadingfluencyinmedi-
6 atingtherelationsofwordreadingfluencyandlisteningcomprehensiontoreadingcomprehension.
7 1 WeaddressedthisquestionbyusinglongitudinaldatafromGrades1to4andemployingstructural
4 equationmodels.Resultsshowedthattheroleoftextreadingfluencychangesovertimeaschildren’s
4:
0 readingproficiencydevelops.Inthebeginningphaseofreadingdevelopment(Grade1),textreading
at fluencywasnotindependentlyrelatedtoreadingcomprehensionoverandabovewordreadingfluency
]
y andlisteningcomprehension.InGrades2to4,however,textreadingfluencycompletelymediated
rsit therelationbetweenwordreadingfluencyandreadingcomprehension,whereasitpartiallymediated
e
v therelationbetweenlisteningcomprehensionandreadingcomprehension.Theseresultssuggestthat
ni
U textreadingfluencyisadissociableconstructthatplaysadevelopmentallychangingroleinreading
e acquisition.
at
St
a
d
ori Readingcomprehensionisacritical,necessaryskillforsuccessinschoolsandciviclife.Theories
Fl
[ and empirical studies have shown that reading comprehension is a complex skill drawing from
y
b multiple component skills (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Kendeou & van den Broek, 2007;
d
e Kim,inpress;Snow,2002;vandenBroek,Fletcher,&Risden, 1993).Ofthesemultipleskills,
d
a language comprehension and word reading skills are necessary foundations for reading com-
o
nl prehension(i.e.,simpleviewofreading,seeCatts,Adlof,Hogan,&Weismer,2005;Hoover&
w
o Gough,1990;Johnston&Kirby,2006;Joshi,Tao,Aaron,&Quiroz, 2012;Mancilla-Martinez,
D
Kieffer, Biancarosa, Christodoulou, & Snow, 2011). Recent evidence, however, suggests that
“text”readingfluency,fastandaccuratereadingofconnectedtext,mightbeanothercriticalcom-
ponentskillforreadingcomprehensionoverandabovechildren’swordreading(Jenkins,Fuchs,
vandenBroek,Espin,&Deno,2003)andlisteningcomprehension(Kim,Park,&Wagner,2014;
Kim,Wagner,&Lopez,2012;Tilstra,McMaster,vandenBroek,&Rapp,2009).
Accordingtothetwo-processexpectancytheory(Posner&Snyder,1975)andtheinteractive-
compensatory model (Stanovich, 1980), inefficient word reading causes children to rely on
both conscious and automatic activation processes for word identification. Efficient word read-
ing, in contrast, enables readers to rely less on conscious processes (e.g., attention) for word
CorrespondenceshouldbesenttoYoung-SukGraceKim,FloridaStateUniversity,1114W.CallStreet,Tallahassee,
FL32306.E-mail:[email protected]
TEXT(ORAL)READINGFLUENCY 225
identification. Thus, fast and accurate reading of connected text (text reading fluency) releases
readers’limitedcognitiveresourcessuchasattentionandworkingmemorytobeusedforhigher
ordercomprehensionprocesses,facilitatingreadingcomprehension(LaBerge&Samuels,1974;
Samuels,2006).Anumberofstudieshaveshownthattextreadingfluencyisstronglyrelatedto
readingcomprehensionwithbivariatecorrelationsrangingfrom.67to.91forchildreninprimary
grades(e.g.,Kim,Petscher,Schatschneider,&Foorman,2010;NationalInstituteofChildHealth
and Human Development [NICHD], 2000; Silverman et al., 2013) and somewhat weaker rela-
tionsforchildreninupperelementaryandsecondaryschools(e.g.,Tilstraetal.,2009;Yovanoff,
Duesbery, Alonzo, & Tindal, 2005). Given these relations, perhaps it is not surprising that text
readingfluencyiswidelyusedinNorthAmericaasascreeningandprogressmonitoringtoolfor
childreninprimarygradesasaproxyforreadingcomprehension(Jenkins,Hudson,&Johnson,
5 2007).
1
0 Despiteitswidespreaduse,however,ourunderstandingislimitedaboutthenatureofdevelop-
2
y mentalrelationsbetweentextreadingfluencyandreadingcomprehension.Therefore,theprimary
a
M goalofthepresentstudyistoaddressthisgapinourunderstanding.Notethatinthepresentstudy
6
1 weusetheterm“text”readingfluencytorefertoreadingaccuracyandratein“connectedtexts”
47 or in context, and distinguish it from “word” reading fluency, which is accurate and fast read-
4: ingofwordsinisolationoroutofcontext(Jenkinsetal.,2003).Althoughweacknowledgethat
0
at readingprosody,oralexpressionduringconnectedtextreading,isanimportantaspectofthedef-
]
y initionofreadingfluency(e.g.,Hudson,Pullen,Lane,&Torgesen,2009;Kuhn,Schwanenflugel,
rsit &Meisinger,2010;Kuhn&Stahl,2003),itisbeyondthescopeofthepresentstudy.
e
v Textreadingfluencyhasbeencharacterizedas“abridge”betweenwordreadingandreading
ni
U comprehension(Hudsonetal.,2009;Kuhnetal.,2010;Pikulski&Chard,2005).Inotherwords,
e
at text reading fluency plays a mediating role between word reading and reading comprehension.
St However,atleasttwopointsneedfurtherclarificationaboutthehypothesizedmediationoftext
a
d readingfluency.First,thishypothesisassumesthattextreadingfluencyisanextensionandcon-
ri
o sequenceofonlywordreading(Pikulski&Chard,2005;seeNICHD,2000,forasimilarview).
Fl
[ However,theoretically,thereasonwhytextreadingfluencyisdissociablefromcontext-freeword
y
b reading fluency is because automaticity in word reading allows children to focus on meaning
d
e construction(Jenkinsetal.,2003;Samuels,2006;Wolf&Katzir-Cohen,2001),whichisinlarge
d
oa part a function of their oral language comprehension. Then, text reading fluency not only is an
wnl outcomeofwordreadingbutalsodependsuponchildren’slanguagecomprehension(Kimetal.,
Do 2014;Kimetal.,2012).Inotherwords,accordingtothetextreadingfluencytheories,textreading
fluencyshouldmediatetherelationnotonlybetweenwordreadingandreadingcomprehension
but also between listening comprehension and reading comprehension at least to some extent.
RecentemergingevidencefromEnglish-speakingchildren(Kim,Wagner,&Foster,2011;Kim
etal.,2012)andKorean-speakingchildren(Kimetal.,2014)indicatesthattextreadingfluency
isuniquelypredictedbylisteningcomprehensionaswellaswordreadingfluencyafterchildren
havereachedacertainlevelofwordreadingproficiency.
The second clarification about the mediating role of text reading fluency involves whether
themediationisstaticordevelopmental.Althoughpreviousstudieshavebeeninformative,they
werelimitedinexaminingdevelopmentalrelationsbecausemanywerecross-sectional(Jenkins
etal.,2003;Kimetal.,2011;Schwanenflugeletal.,2006;Silvermanetal.,2013;Tilstraetal.,
2009).Furthermore,insomestudiesreadingfluencywasoperationalizedmorebroadlythantext
reading fluency and did not differentiate text reading fluency from word reading fluency. For
226 KIMANDWAGNER
instance, Silverman et al. (2013) found reading fluency to be independently related to reading
comprehension for children in Grade 4, but their reading fluency construct was composed of
sublexical(rapidautomatizednaming),lexical(wordreadingfluency),andtext-level(textreading
fluency) tasks. In the present study, our primary goal was to examine “text” reading fluency as
differentiated from “word” reading fluency, and the relations of word reading fluency and text
readingfluencytoreadingcomprehensionaschildrendevelopreadingskills.Differentiatingtext
versuswordreadingfluencyallowsustoenhanceourtheoreticalunderstandingaboutwhattext
readingfluencyis,includingitsmediatingrole.
Adevelopmentalperspectiveoftextreadingfluencyhypothesizesthechangingnatureoftext
reading fluency as a function of children’s reading proficiency (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001).
Duringthebeginning phase, children’s primaryfocus isdecoding, and children’s wordreading
5 fluency and text reading fluency are very highly related. Therefore, the influence of word read-
1
0 ing fluency and text reading fluency on reading comprehension overlaps to a large extent such
2
y that text reading fluency does not mediate relations between word reading fluency and reading
a
M comprehension.However,aschildrendeveloptheirwordreadingproficiency,andlisteningcom-
6
1 prehensioncancontributetotextreadingfluency,andtextreadingfluencymightbegintomediate
47 relations of word reading fluency and listening comprehension to reading comprehension. In a
4: recent study, text reading fluency was not independently related to reading comprehension for
0
at English-speaking children in first grade, but it was in second grade, along with word reading
]
y fluency and listening comprehension (Kim et al., 2012). What remains unclear is the develop-
rsit mentallychangingnatureofrelationsforalongerdevelopmentalspan.Therefore,inthepresent
e
v study,wesoughttoexpandourunderstandingaboutthedevelopmentalnatureofrelationsamong
ni
U wordreadingfluency,listeningcomprehension,textreadingfluency,andreadingcomprehension,
e
at using longitudinal data from English-speaking children in Grades 1 to 4. The primary research
St questionwaswhethertextreadingfluencymediatestherelationofwordreadingfluencyandlis-
a
d teningcomprehensiontoreadingcomprehension,andifso,howthemediatingrolechangesover
ri
o time.
Fl
[
y
b
d
e METHOD
d
a
o
nl Participants
w
o
D
The sample students were 316 English-speaking children who participated in a 4-year longitu-
dinal study from Grade 1 to Grade 4 in Florida. Data in Grades 1 and 2 have been reported in
previousstudies(Kimetal.,2011;Kimetal.,2012),andthepresentstudyextendsanalysisfrom
Grades1to4.Students’ageswere85(SD=5.67),95.92(SD=5.26),107.85(SD=5.42),and
119.97(SD=5.07)monthsinGrades1,2,3,and4,respectively.Of316(49%female)students,
270(49%female)remainedinGrade2,260(51%female)inGrade3,and219(52%female)in
Grade4.Mostoftheobservedattritionresultedfromseveralteachersnotallowingtheirstudents
to participate in the longitudinal study. Racial and ethnic backgrounds were as follows in the
orderofCaucasian,AfricanAmerican,Hispanic,Asian,andOthers:60%,25%,4%,4%,and7%
in Grade 1; 62%, 21%, 5%, 4%, and 7% in Grade 2; 61%, 23%, 5%, 4%, and 7% in Grade 3;
65%,19%,6%,5%,and5%inGrade4.
TEXT(ORAL)READINGFLUENCY 227
Multivariate analysis of variance results showed that children who remained in the study
through Grade 4 did not differ from those who left the study in all the measures in Grade
1 except in mean standard scores of Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised (WRMT-R)
and Woodcock–Johnson III (WJ-III) Passage Comprehension measures (ps < .001; Wilks’s
(cid:2)=1.70),F(296,15)=1.70,p=.05.Thefollowingweremeanstandardscoresofchildrenwho
stayedinthestudyandleftthestudy,respectively:M =109.97(SD=10.01)andM =105.31
(SD = 10.78) in the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension; M = 106.20 (SD = 12.76) and
M = 100.30 (SD = 13.04) in the WJ-III Passage Comprehension. These suggest that children
who left the study had lower standard scores in the Passage Comprehension in Grade 1 than
thosewhostayedinthestudy.Inthepresentstudy,weutilizedallavailabledataforanalysisin
each grade (i.e., N = 316 in Grade 1, 270 in Grade 2, 260 in Grade 3, and 219 in Grade 4),
5 andtheMplussoftwarethatwasusedinthestudycanhandlemissingdata.Whenweconducted
1
0 analysis using only data from children who stayed in the study (stayers, N = 219), the pattern
2
y of the results (the appendix) was essentially identical as that using all available data in each
a
M grade(Figure1).However,thepathcoefficientsoftextreadingfluencytoreadingcomprehension
16 tendedtobeslightlylargerinGrades2,3,and4(βs=.47,.49,and.42,respectively)whenusing
47 data from stayers. We acknowledge that the attrition is a limitation of the study, and therefore
4: findingsshouldbetakenwiththiscautioninmind(seenextforfurtherdiscussion).
0
at
]
y
sit Measures
r
e
v
ni Multiplemeasureswereusedtoassessthefollowingconstructs:listeningcomprehension,word
U
e readingfluency,textreadingfluency,andreadingcomprehension.
at
St
a
d Listening comprehension. Three tasks were used: the WJ-III Oral Comprehension sub-
ri
o test(Woodcock,McGrew,&Mather,2001)andanexperimentaltask.OralComprehensionisa
Fl
[ clozetaskinwhichchildrencompleteorallypresentedsentences(e.g.,Peoplesitin____)and
y
b short passages. Cronbach’s alpha estimates ranged from .70 to .71. The Oral Comprehension
d
e subtest has been shown to be related to other language skills such as Verbal Comprehension
d
oa (r = .59) and Story Recall (r = .47) for children 6 to 8 years old (Woodcock et al., 2001).
wnl Toassessthechild’sorallanguagecomprehensionskillsofextendedpassagessuchasstories,an
Do experimentalmeasurewasdevelopedandused.Intheexperimentaltasks,childrenlistenedtotwo
shortpassages (one narrative and oneexpository text)read aloud bytheassessorandanswered
fouropen-endedquestionsforeachpassage(atotalofeightquestionsintwopassages).Thepas-
sages were composed of 133 to 230 words. The comprehension questions involved children’s
recall of details (e.g., What did Pierre take to the town square?) and inference skills (e.g., Do
youthinkPierreevergotajob?Why?).Children’sanswerswerescoreddichotomously(1=cor-
rect; 0 = incorrect) for each question. For the questions that had two parts (e.g., Do you think
Pierre ever got a job? Why?), the child had to provide correct answer to both parts. The same
passageswereusedinGrades1and2,whereaspassagesinGrades3and4weredifferent.The
reliabilityestimates(alpha)acrosseightitemswere.50,.60,.37,and.58inGrades1,2,3,and
4, respectively. Although these reliability estimates are not ideal, it should be noted that in the
latentvariableapproach,thechallengeofsomewhatlowreliabilityisamelioratedgiventhatonly
commonvarianceamongmeasuresisusedtoestimaterelations.
228 KIMANDWAGNER
5
1
0
2
y
a
M
6
1
7
4
4:
0
at
]
y
sit
r
e
v
ni
U
e
at
St
a
d
ri
o
Fl
[
y
b
d
e
d
a
o
nl
w
o
D
FIGURE 1 Standardized structural regression weights among listening
comprehension,wordreadingfluency,textreadingfluency,andreading
comprehension. Note. Solid lines represent statistically significant rela-
tions,anddottedlinesstatisticallynonsignificantrelations.Toreducethe
complexityoftheillustrations,correlationsamongwordreadingfluency
andlisteningcomprehensionatdifferenttimepointsarenotshowninthe
figurealthoughtheyweremodelled.
TEXT(ORAL)READINGFLUENCY 229
Word reading fluency. Two forms (Forms A and B) of the Sight Word Efficiency sub-
testoftheTestofWordReadingEfficiency—SecondEdition(TOWRE-2;Torgesen,Wagner,&
Rashotte, 2012) were used. In these tasks, the child is asked to read aloud as many words as
possiblewithin45s.Wordsincreaseindifficultyprogressively(e.g.,fromsimplesingle-syllable
to multisyllabic words). Total score is the number of correctly read words within 45 s. Test–
retestreliabilitieshavebeenreportedtorangefrom.96to.97(Torgesenetal.,2012).TheSight
WordEfficiencytaskhasbeenshowntobehighlyrelatedtootherreadingmeasuresofGrayOral
ReadingTest–4readingfluency(r =.91),TestofSilentContextualReadingFluency(r =.75),
andWRMT-RPassageComprehension(r=.88;Torgesenetal.,2012).
Text Reading Fluency. A widely used “oral” text reading fluency task were employed,
5
1 using three grade-level midyear passages from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
0
2 Skills(DIBELS)TextReadingFluency(6thed.;Good,Kaminski,&Dill,2007).Inthesetasks,
y
a the child was asked to read the passages aloud for 1 min, and the number of words accurately
M
6 read during the interval was calculated. Word omissions, substitutions, and hesitations of more
1
7 than3swerescoredaserrors.Reliabilitieshavebeenreportedtorangefrom.92to.97(Shaw&
4
4: Shaw,2002).DIBELStextreadingfluencyhasbeenshowntobehighlyrelatedtootherreading
at 0 fluency tasks such as Gray Oral Reading Test–4 (.86 ≤ rs ≤ .88; Hudson, Torgesen, Lane, &
] Turner,2012)andtoreadingcomprehension(Good,Simmons,&Kame’enui,2001;Riedel,2007;
y
sit Roehrig,Petscher,Nettles,Hudson,&Torgesen,2008).
r
e
v
ni
U Reading Comprehension. Reading comprehension was measured by the WJ-III Passage
e
at Comprehension subtest (Woodcock et al., 2001), WRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest
St (Woodcock,1987),andanexperimentaltask.BothWoodcockmeasuresareclozetasksinwhich
a
d thechildisaskedtoreadsentencesandpassagesandfillinacorrectwordbasedonthetextsread.
ri
o Although the Woodcock tasks have the same format, the items are different in these tasks and
Fl
[ arenormedondifferentsamples.Cronbach’salphaestimatesforWJ-IIIandWRMT-RPassage
y
b Comprehension tasks ranged from .84 to .93 across grades. Studies have shown that reading
d
e comprehension tasks vary in the extent to which they tap into component skills. For instance,
d
oa clozetaskssuchasWJ-IIIandWRMT-RPassageComprehensiontaskshavebeenshowntotap
wnl into word reading to a greater extent than to oral language compared to other reading compre-
Do hension tasks (e.g., reading passages and answering questions; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006;
Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008). Therefore, an experimental task was developed and used.
Inthistask,childrenwereaskedtoreadtwoshortpassages(onenarrativeandoneexpository)and
answerfouropen-ended questionsineachpassagethatrequiredchildrentorecalldetailsinthe
passage(e.g.,WheredoesHarrylive?)andmakeinferences(e.g.,WhydidHarryandSallyboth
seewindowsmadeofgold,butatdifferenttimesoftheday?).Thepassagesrangedfrom126to
218 words with a total of eight questions per grade. Children’s answers were scored dichoto-
mously(1=correct;0=incorrect)foreachquestion.Cronbach’salphaestimatesacrosseight
itemswere.61,.62,.58,and.43inGrades1,2,3,and4,respectively.Notethatreliabilityesti-
matesofexperimentalmeasuresappeartodecreaseparticularlyinGrade4.However,again,given
theuseofalatentvariableapproach,onlycommonvarianceamongstandardizedandexperimen-
talmeasuresareusedinestimatingrelations,andthusreducingtheimpactoflowerreliabilityin
Grade4.
230 KIMANDWAGNER
Procedures
Alltheassessmentswereindividuallyadministeredinquietareasbytrainedresearchassistants.
Children were assessed in two 30-min sessions. The assessments were administered at the end
of the fall semester and during the spring semester. To minimize time-sampling error, multiple
measuresofeachconstructwereadministeredduringdifferenttestingsessionstotheextentpos-
sible. In all grades, assessments were administered in the following order: text reading fluency,
WJ-IIIPassageComprehension,WJ-IIIOralComprehension,researcher-developedreadingcom-
prehension,TOWRESightWordEfficiency,researcher-developedlisteningcomprehension,and
WRMTPassageComprehension.
5 DataAnalysis
1
0
2
ay Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were employed as the primary
M
analyticstrategiesusingMPLUS7.0(Muthén&Muthén,2013).Preliminaryanalysesconfirmed
6
1 thatunivariateandmultivariatenormalityassumptionsweremetoveralldespitesomeflooreffects
7
4 in Grade 1 (see next), and all the measurement models were appropriate. Model fits were eval-
4:
0 uated by the following multiple indices: chi-square statistics, comparative fit index (CFI), the
at Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standard-
]
y
sit izedrootmeansquareresiduals(SRMR).RMSEAvaluesbelow.08,CFIandTLIvaluesequal
er to or greater than .95, and SRMR equal to or less than .05 indicate an excellent model fit (Hu
v
ni & Bentler, 1999). TLI and CFI values greater than .90 are considered to be acceptable (Kline,
U
2005).
e
at Becausetheanalysisinvolvedalongitudinalsample,measurementinvariancewasexamined
St
a followingproceduresdescribedinBrown(2006)andThompsonandGreen(2006).
d
ri Establishingmeasurementinvarianceisimportantbecausetheindicatorsthatmeasurethecon-
o
Fl structs in one time point should be the same as another time point (i.e., factor loadings from
y [ observedmeasurestohypothesizedlatentvariablesacrosstimepoints)toensureunbiasedeffects
b
d ofthemeasuresacrosstimepoints(Byrne&Watkins,2003).
e
d
a
o
nl
w
RESULTS
o
D
DescriptiveStatisticsandPreliminaryAnalyses
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, minimum, and maxi-
mum) of measures in Grades 1 to 4. The participating children’s mean performances in the
language and reading measures were in the average range compared to the norms (e.g., WJ-III
Oral Comprehension, TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency, and Woodcock Passage Comprehension
measures).Althoughnotrelevanttoaddressingtheresearchquestions,wealsoreportchildren’s
performancesonwordreadingaccuracy,measuredbytheWJ-IIILetterWordIdentificationTask
fordescriptivepurposes.Inthistask,thechildisaskedtoreadaloudincreasinglydifficultwords.
Children’smeanstandardscoresontheLetterWordIdentificationTasktendedtobehighaverage
ranging from 112.54 in Grade 1 to 107.99 in Grade 4. This compares to average performances
x g
Grade Min–Ma 8–2871–1300–8 33–7072–136 34–9261–13334–9761–138 27–22124–20532–233 16–5277–13015–5568–1260–7 WordReadin nalysis.
Fourth (SD) 5(3.86)0(12.05)3(1.80) 9(6.22)9(10.51) 3(9.65)4(13.00)2(10.02)8(13.48) 9(35.09)5(30.58)0(35.58) 0(6.01)9(10.12)8(4.09)2(9.34)9(1.58) Testof dinthea
M 21.3109.53.9 55.1107.9 69.2101.068.7100.4 112.2118.5145.3 38.4105.229.9101.73.4 ofthe notuse
e Min–Max 9–2878–1361–8 35–6976–136 26–8856–13838–8458–133 22–2358–21719–242 16–5181–13414–3772–1270–8 ncysubtest ntandthus
d e a
May 2015 ThirdGra M(SD) 9.36(3.85)8.68(12.33)5.39(1.43) 1.55(6.80)7.55(10.65) 4.20(10.81)0.70(14.32)4.82(10.68)1.43(14.04) 3.66(37.07)2.79(38.42)8.30(32.40) 5.28(5.97)6.06(9.78)7.96(4.25)2.03(9.83)4.72(1.88) ghtWordEffici dwerenotrelev
6 110 510 610610 111011 310210 Si an
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 04:47 1 TABLE1DescriptiveStatistics FirstGradeSecondGrade M(SD)Min–MaxM(SD)Min–Max 14.10(3.31)5–2317.13(3.44)5–25107.09(11.07)82–137108.89(11.42)76–1362.50(1.53)0–73.68(1.80)0–8 35.78(7.85)17–5745.69(6.78)26–66112.54(13.44)70–143109.62(10.63)72–136 34.98(16.56)3–7057.73(11.29)12–8199.72(17.19)55–144109.52(14.00)11–13834.94(16.65)3–7056.32(12.08)12–8399.46(17.50)36–142108.43(14.21)12–137 56.53(37.14)0–176108.81(37.35)11–20752.85(35.06)3–142100.77(38.03)9–20652.62(36.06)2–18492.72(30.00)10–197 21.06(8.52)1–3829.95(6.13)8–47108.54(10.46)75–132107.89(10.64)77–19318.01(5.13)6–3124.46(4.65)12–35104.38(13.12)68–136103.26(10.40)72–1253.26(1.82)0–85.05(1.80)1–8 ==TestsofAchievement–ThirdEdition;SSstandardscore;SWE=ncy;WRMT–RWoodcockReadingMasteryTest–Revised.WJ-IIILetterWordIdentificationisreportedfordescriptivepurposes,
ListeningcomprehensionWJOralComprehensionWJOralComprehension(SS)ExperimentaltaskaWordreadingaccuracyWJLetterWordIdentificationWJLetterWordIdentification(SS)WordreadingfluencySWEForm1SWEForm1(SS)SWEForm2SWEForm2(SS)TextreadingfluencyORFPassage1ORFPassage2ORFPassage3ReadingcomprehensionWRMT-RPassageCompWRMT-RPassageComp(SS)WJPassageCompWJPassageComp(SS)Experimentaltask =Note.WJWoodcockJohnson=Efficiency;ORFOralReadingFlueaChildren’sperformancesonthe
231