Psychology in the Schools, Vol.

49(6), 2012 
C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21616

EXAMINING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN READING FLUENCY AND READING

COMPREHENSION FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
MATTHEW QUIRK AND SOFIE BEEM
University of California, Santa Barbara

This study examined the relations between reading fluency and comprehension among elementary
school students (N = 171) in Grades 2, 3, and 5, all of whom were designated as English language
learners (ELL) at some point in their educational careers. Although the overall relation between
reading fluency and comprehension (r = .56) was consistent with previous research using non-ELL
student samples, results also revealed a substantial number of students (55.5%) who exhibited a
significant gap (SD, 0.67 ) between their scores on reading fluency and comprehension assessments.
In addition, the prevalence of students with fluency/comprehension gaps varied significantly across
grade and English language proficiency levels. The results suggested that, although reading fluency
and comprehension are significantly related for ELL students, practitioners should be cautious when
making identification and instructional decisions for ELL students based solely on oral reading
fluency data. C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Measures of oral reading fluency have been researched extensively, with evidence supporting
their reliability and validity as indictors of students’ overall reading proficiency (Ardoin & Christ,
2008; Fuchs & Vaughn, 2005; Hintze, Callahan, Matthews, Williams, & Tobin, 2002; Reschly,
Busch, Betts, Deno, & Long, 2009). A recent study, however, found that the relation between oral
reading fluency and reading comprehension is weaker for English language learners (ELLs) than for
those students whose primary language is English (Crosson & Lesaux, 2010). To date, few studies
have examined the use of oral reading fluency data to predict the overall reading performance of
ELL students (Baker & Good, 1995; De Ramirez & Shapiro, 2006; Wiley & Deno, 2005), and none
has examined the potential for misidentification of reading problems when fluency data are used in
this way.
With the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004), an increasing
number of school districts are implementing multitiered problem-solving models (i.e., Response to
Intervention) to identify and intervene with students who experience reading difficulties. Measures
of oral reading fluency are often the primary source of data used to make decisions within these
frameworks. Given the high-stakes decisions that are being made within these problem-solving
models and the increasing number of ELL students in U.S. classrooms, it is critical to better
understand the functional relationship between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension for
ELL students.

R EADING F LUENCY AND R EADING C OMPREHENSION

LaBerge and Samuels’ (1974) automaticity model of reading is most frequently referenced as
a framework for conceptualizing oral reading fluency as an indicator of overall reading competence.
In essence, LaBerge and Samuels promoted the view that skilled reading involves the reallocation of
attentional capacity from lower level word identification processing to more demanding higher order
reading skills, including comprehension functions. Research has repeatedly supported this model,
with many studies yielding evidence of a positive relation between students’ oral reading fluency

The authors thank Michael Furlong, Elina Saeki, Renee Singh, and Fong Lau for their support in the completion
of this study.
Correspondence to: Matthew Quirk, Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology Department, Gevirtz Graduate
School of Education, 2145 Education Building, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9490. E-mail:
mquirk@education.ucsb.edu

539
540 Quirk and Beem

and overall reading achievement (Ardoin & Christ, 2008; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxwell, 1988; Fuchs &
Vaughn, 2005; Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Epsin, & Deno, 2003; Shinn, Good, Knutson, Tilly,
& Collins, 1992). More specifically, a moderate to strong relation between oral reading fluency and
reading comprehension has been replicated in many studies, including students from the primary
grades through middle school (Neddenriep, Fritz, & Carrier, 2011; Schwanenflugel et al., 2006;
Shankweiler et al., 1999).
This body of evidence has led to the wide practice of using measures of oral reading as an ade-
quate proxy of students’ overall reading achievement (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001). More
recently, Reschly et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of the adequacy of reading curriculum-
based measures (R-CBM) for assessing students’ overall reading achievement in Grades 1 through
6. Specifically, these authors analyzed the results of 41 studies, concluding that there is a moderately
high correlation between R-CBM and other standardized tests of reading achievement (weighted
average, r = .67), with no significant differences found in the magnitude of correlations across grade
levels. They also found no differences in the correlations between R-CBM and tests of comprehen-
sion, decoding, and vocabulary, indicating that R-CBM is not just a measure of reading rate, but an
adequate indicator of students’ reading comprehension and overall reading proficiency.
Although the validity of oral reading fluency measures as an indicator of overall reading
proficiency has been examined across many different grade levels and racial or ethnic groups
(Hintze et al., 2002; Kranzler, Miller, & Jordan, 1999), few studies have examined the validity of
these measures with substantial numbers of ELL students (Reschly et al., 2009). The few studies that
have examined these relations have yielded mixed results. Some empirical evidence supports the use
of oral reading fluency measures as a valid indicator of ELL students’ overall reading achievement
(Wiley & Deno, 2005) and suggests that they are sensitive to ELL students’ reading growth (Baker
& Good, 1995; De Ramirez & Shapiro, 2006). In fact, Riedel (2007) found that the relation between
reading fluency and comprehension was stronger for ELL students (r = .69) than for native English
speakers (r = .51) at the end of Grade 1; however, only 59 of the 1,518 students participating in this
study were ELL.
In contrast, other recent studies have yielded results that indicated oral reading fluency measures
may not be a valid proxy for the overall reading achievement of ELL students. Klein and Jimerson
(2005) analyzed data from nearly 4,000 Caucasian and Hispanic students in Grades 1 through 3 to
examine whether oral reading fluency scores predicted performance on the Stanford Achievement
Test-Ninth Edition (SAT-9; Harcourt Brace & Company, 1997). The results of this study indicated
that “oral reading fluency probes tended to overpredict the reading proficiency of Hispanic students
whose home language is Spanish and underpredict the reading proficiency of Caucasian students
whose home language is English” (p. 39). In another study, Crosson and Lesaux (2010) found that the
relation between fluency and comprehension for ELL students was moderated by their English oral
language skills. The results of these studies suggested that existing assumptions about the relation
between fluency and comprehension may not apply to ELL students.

WORD C ALLERS
Despite research supporting the use of oral reading fluency measures as a proxy for overall
reading proficiency (Fuchs et al., 2001; Reschly et al., 2009), teachers and school practitioners have
expressed concerns regarding the high-stakes decisions that are being made based primarily on oral
reading fluency data. These concerns have grown from a commonly held belief that fluency measures
may overlook students who are able to decode words but who lack sufficient comprehension skills.
Students that fit this profile have been referred to as “word callers.” A word caller is a student who
reads with adequate fluency but with limited comprehension; that is, a student can call out words in
a text, but without fully understanding their meaning (Stanovich, 1986). However, few studies have

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 ELL Reading Fluency and Comprehension 541

examined the word caller phenomenon, and those that have been conducted provided mixed evidence
regarding the existence of word callers and, if detected, their prevalence rates (Hamilton & Shinn,
2003; Meisinger, Bradley, Schwanenflugel, & Kuhn, 2010; Meisinger, Bradley, Schwanenflugel,
Kuhn, & Morris, 2009).
Hamilton and Shinn (2003) investigated whether empirical evidence would validate the exis-
tence of teacher-identified word callers. To address this issue, they assessed the reading fluency and
reading comprehension of 66 third-grade students. They used a criterion for empirically identifying
word callers that required a minimal difference of .67 standard deviations (SD) between students’
reading fluency and reading comprehension scores. Before these data were analyzed, half of the
participating students (n = 33) had been identified by their teachers as word callers. The results of
their analyses showed that none of the children met the empirical criteria of a word caller, leading
the authors to conclude that the misidentification of word callers was a function of teachers’ holistic
impressions of the children’s’ reading abilities. Specifically, teachers tended to accurately predict
students’ reading comprehension skills, but they also tended to overpredict the reading fluency skills
of both word callers and non-word callers. Therefore, the students that teachers were identifying as
word callers were struggling with both reading fluency and reading comprehension, which suggested
that the word caller phenomenon may not hold up empirically.
In a more recent study, Meisinger et al. (2009) further examined the prevalence of word callers
with a sample of second-, third-, and fifth-grade students (N = 1,486). When the criterion from
Hamilton and Shinn (2003) was applied to a subsample of second- and third-grade students (n = 868),
only 1.4% were identified as word callers. However, nearly 10% of fifth-grade students in the sample
met the word caller criteria, suggesting that the phenomenon may become more prevalent later in
elementary school. The authors hypothesized that this may be due to the increasing complexity of
reading texts, which require more sophisticated comprehension skills, or that fluency was measured
by an oral reading task in the study, when silent reading fluency may be more closely related to
comprehension. Counter to the findings of Hamilton and Shinn, the Meisinger et al. study clearly
showed that word callers do exist, albeit with low incidence, and suggested that it may become more
prevalent as students progress into the later elementary school years.
From examining the research on word callers, there appear to be inconsistencies between what
teachers are reporting and what research has been able to demonstrate empirically. Furthermore,
although these studies revealed important information about the word caller phenomenon, they did
not examine the phenomenon with adequate samples of ELL students. Despite the growing body of
research investigating the nature of fluency and its relation to comprehension among monolingual
children, very little is known about reading ?uency and comprehension for ELL students (Crosson
& Lesaux, 2010). This is particularly problematic, given that reading comprehension is a specific
area of weakness for ELL students (Lesaux, Rupp, & Siegel, 2007).

P URPOSE OF THE C URRENT I NVESTIGATION

The current investigation examined the relation between reading fluency and comprehension
among a sample of predominantly Hispanic elementary school students, many of whom were clas-
sified as ELLs. Specifically, this study was designed to answer the following research questions:
(a) What are the relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension for ELL and non-ELL
students? (b) What percentage of students exhibit a significant gap between scores on measures of
reading fluency and reading comprehension? (c) Are there relations between fluency/comprehension
gaps and students’ English language proficiency and/or grade level? This study contributes to the
existing literature on the functional relationship between reading fluency and comprehension in
multiple ways. First, it replicates and extends on previous research on word callers by examining
the prevalence rates of word callers among a sample of predominantly ELL students. In addition, it

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

542 Quirk and Beem

further examines the complexity of the functional relation between reading fluency and comprehen-
sion by examining additional potential gaps that fall outside of the traditional definition of a word
caller. Finally, it examines whether the prevalence of significant gaps between reading fluency and
comprehension differ across grade level and English language proficiency level for ELL students.

M ETHOD

Participants and Setting

The participants included 49 second-grade, 60 third-grade, and 62 fifth-grade (N = 171) stu-
dents from a single elementary school in a midsized city in Southern California. Of the participating
students, 53% were female and 100% were Hispanic. Eighty-six percent of the students were clas-
sified as ELL at the time of data collection, with the other 14% of students having been reclassified
as English proficient, meaning that all of the participating students were classified as ELL at some
point in their educational career. Spanish was the primary language for all students classified as
ELL. The students attended a school at which 100% of students receive free or reduced-cost lunch,
indicating that most students came from low-income families.

Measures
Test of Word Reading Efficiency. The Sight Word Efficiency (SWE) and Phonemic Decoding
Efficiency (PDE) subtests of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE; Pro-Ed Inc., 2008) were
used to assess students’ word-level reading fluency. The TOWRE is a timed test that was designed
to measure students’ ability to decode sight words and nonwords, which are both subcomponents
of their overall reading fluency. For both subtests, the examinee was shown a list of words (SWE)
or nonwords (PDE) that progressed in difficulty and was asked to read aloud as many words as
possible within a 45-second period. Both subtests were scored in terms of the total number of words
(or nonwords) read correctly within the 45-second time frame. The TOWRE has demonstrated
reliability and validity as a measure of word-reading fluency, including concurrent validity estimates
with the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R; Woodcock, 1987), ranging from .85
(PDE) to .89 (SWE). Test–retest reliability for both subtests is strong, with estimates ranging from
.90 (PDE) to .91 (SWE).
AIMSweb R-CBM. AIMSWeb (Shinn & Shinn, 2002) passages were used to assess students’
passage-level reading fluency. AIMSweb R-CBM passages were administered to students individu-
ally and provided information on the number of words read correctly (WRC) by each student during a
1-minute interval. During each assessment session, individual students read three separate passages,
and the median WRC of the three scores was recorded. The AIMSweb R-CBM passages are graded,
curriculum-independent stories and specifically written for assessment purposes. Research has found
alternate forms reliability of the passages to range from .85 to .88, and the technical manual reports
high alternate form reliability across grades ranging from .81 to .90 (Howe & Shinn, 2002).
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. The Comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Read-
ing Test (GMRT-4, Fourth Edition, Form S; MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, Dreyer, & Hughes,
2009) was used as a group-administered, standardized measure of students’ reading comprehension.
For the purposes of this study, Levels 2, 3, and 5 were used to assess students at the corresponding
grade levels. The Level 2 test is comprised of a series of 10 passages. Each passage has four para-
graphs, and accompanying each paragraph is a panel of three pictures. Students were asked to read
each paragraph silently and choose the picture that best illustrates the paragraph. The Level 3 and
Level 5 tests comprise 11 paragraphs. Again, students were asked to read each paragraph silently
and answer three to six multiple-choice questions following each paragraph. Tests at all levels were

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 ELL Reading Fluency and Comprehension 543

to be completed within a specified amount of time, ranging from 25 to 35 minutes. The GMRT-4
technical manual reports reliabilities from .93 to .96 and validity estimates with other tests of verbal
language skill and reading performance ranging from .60 to .62.

California English Language Development Test. The California English Language Develop-
ment Test (CELDT; CTB/McGraw-Hill, 2008) was used to assess the English language proficiency
levels of participating students. The CELDT is a state test of English language proficiency admin-
istered as per state law to newly enrolled students whose primary language is not English and also
to ELL students as an annual progress monitoring assessment at the beginning of every school
year. The five levels of English proficiency a student can achieve are: beginning, early intermediate,
intermediate, early advanced, and advanced. The technical manual on the CELDT from the Cali-
fornia Department of Education reports reliabilities from .75 to .92 across all grades and domains
(California Department of Education, 2008).

Dependent Variables
Reading fluency. Based on research indicating that oral reading fluency is comprised of both
word-level and text-level skills (Shinn et al., 1992), students’ standard scores from the two subtests
of the TOWRE (SWE and PDE grade-based standard scores) were combined with scores from
the AIMSweb R-CBM passages using principle components analysis to form a reading fluency
component score. For this analysis, students’ AIMSweb R-CBM raw scores were converted to z-
scores using grade-level means and standard deviations provided by the AIMSweb database. This
conversion was conducted to place all scores across grade levels on a normative standard metric. Next,
the converted AIMSweb R-CBM, TOWRE-PDE, and TOWRE-SWE were included in a principle-
components analysis using SPSS version 19 (PASW, 2010). The results of this analysis revealed
a clear one-component solution, with 85% of the variance explained in the primary component
extracted and communalities ranging from .84 to .88. The resultant reading fluency component score
was used as the dependent reading fluency variable in all subsequent analyses.

Reading Comprehension. To allow for direct comparisons with the reading fluency component
scores from the principle components analysis, students’ GMRT-4 reading comprehension standard
scores were also converted to z-scores to put them on the same standard normal metric as the reading
fluency component scores.

Procedures
The current study was conducted as part of a broader ongoing partnership between a university
and elementary school to establish a multigating reading assessment and intervention framework.
Within this partnership, the participating school’s primary interest was in gathering systematic
data regarding students’ ongoing reading development in English. Thus, all of the assessments
used in this study were administered to students in English, following the participating school’s
regular procedures for providing accommodations to students with limited English proficiency (e.g.,
clarifying directions in the child’s primary language). In addition, all ELL students at the school
received regular classroom reading instruction in English and also participated in weekly English
language development classes.
All of the assessments used in this study were administered to participating students during the
spring 2008. The teachers were provided with 1 hour of training on how to administer and score the
AIMSweb R-CBM probes and had conducted these assessments at two time points (fall and winter)
prior to the spring term. Either the primary investigator or trained research assistants administered
the TOWRE and GMRT-4. Every research assistant was provided with 2 hours of training on how

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

544 Quirk and Beem

to administer and score each assessment. The TOWRE was administered to students individually
in a quiet area of the school, and the GMRT-4 was administered classwide in the students’ regular
classroom. Per California Department of Education requirements, the CELDT was administered
individually by trained school personnel to all students whose home language was identified to be
anything other than English during the fall 2007 term.

R ESULTS

Descriptive Statistics
Mean scores for the total sample on the word-level reading fluency measures fell in the average
range (TOWRE-SWE, M = 101.3, SD = 13.3; TOWRE-PDE, M = 106.8, SD = 13.6) and slightly
below average for text reading fluency (AIMSweb R-CBM, M = −0.39, SD = 0.84). This indicated
that the students’ individual word-decoding skills were slightly better than their text-level reading
skills; however, the overall reading fluency component score used in subsequent analyses also
fell in the average range (M = −0.04, SD = 0.97). In addition, the mean reading comprehension
z-scores for the sample were slightly below average (M = −0.87, SD = 0.79), indicating that
the students’ overall reading comprehension was .87 SD below grade-level expectations. Bivariate
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated across all assessments, with each being statistically
significant (p < .01; see Table 1). Specifically, the word-level fluency measures showed a slightly
weaker relation with reading comprehension (TOWRE-SWE and GMRT-4, r = .49; TOWRE-
PDE and GMRT-4, r = .43) when compared with the text-level fluency measure (r = .63), which
resulted in an overall correlation between the reading fluency component score and comprehension
of .56. Finally, a series of t-tests were conducted to examine potential gender differences across
all dependent variables. There were no significant differences found (p > .05); therefore, gender
was not considered in subsequent analyses. Thus, the overall results of these preliminary analyses
revealed that the students were reading with average fluency and below-average comprehension,
which is a pattern consistent with that of a word caller.

Fluency and Comprehension Gaps

To identify students from our sample whose reading fluency was significantly higher than their
reading comprehension, the criterion from previous studies on word callers was used (Hamilton
& Shinn, 2003; Meisinger et al., 2009). To be identified as a word caller, students were required
to have psychometrically normal reading fluency scores (as demonstrated by a minimum reading
fluency z-score of −0.33) and below-average reading comprehension scores (as demonstrated by
a maximum reading comprehension z-score of −1.0), such that there was a minimal difference of

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Reading Measures

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 M SD

1. TOWRE-SWE — 101.29 13.28

2. TOWRE-PDE .79∗ — 106.81 13.57
3. R-CBM .80∗ .74∗ — −0.39 0.84
4. Fluency Component .94∗ .91∗ .92∗ — −0.04 0.97
5. GMRT-4 .49∗ .43∗ .63∗ .56∗ — −0.87 0.79

Note. The TOWRE-SWE and TOWRE-PDE means and standard deviations are based on grade-level standard scores (M
= 100, SD = 15). All other means and standard deviations are based on a z distribution (M = 0.0, SD = 1.0). ∗ indicates
statistical significance (p < .05).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 ELL Reading Fluency and Comprehension 545

0.67 SD between their reading fluency and reading comprehension. Based on this identification
criterion, 15.8% of students in the total sample were identified as word callers (n = 27), meaning
that they read with near-average (or above) fluency and severely impaired comprehension.
Next, because the descriptive statistics for the overall sample indicated a general trend of av-
erage fluency and below-average comprehension, we further examined fluency/comprehension gap
patterns that emerged for the remaining students. This analysis revealed two additional profiles of flu-
ency/comprehension discrepant readers in the sample. When the word caller criteria of near-average
reading fluency (>−0.33) was removed, 20 additional students (11.7% of the total sample) met the
remaining criteria of having at least a 0.67SD gap between reading fluency and comprehension,
with comprehension scores significantly below average (<−1.0). This group showed a pattern of
below-average reading fluency, yet they continued to have significantly lower comprehension scores,
even when their impaired fluency was taken into account. The second group of non-word caller stu-
dents that exhibited a significant gap between fluency and comprehension scores were students that
tended to have above-average reading fluency (M = 0.86) and slightly below-average reading com-
prehension (M = −0.43). This was the largest group of fluency/comprehension discrepant students
identified (n = 48; 28.0% of the total sample).
Finally, we examined the remaining students who did not exhibit significant gaps between
fluency and comprehension, revealing two distinct reader profiles. The largest group of nondiscrepant
students (n = 54) exhibited a pattern of low overall reading achievement, with fluency and/or
comprehension scores at least 0.33 SD below grade-level expectations. These students appear to fit
the profile of a struggling reader, with a consistent pattern of below-average scores for both fluency
and comprehension. The remaining nondiscrepant students (n = 22) were achieving near or above
grade-level expectations for both reading fluency and comprehension, consistent with normally
achieving or high-achieving readers. It should be noted that this was the second smallest group
identified in our sample, indicating that most of the students in this school were struggling with
reading fluency, comprehension, or both.
To summarize, we identified students in one of five categories that described the func-
tional relation between their reading fluency and reading comprehension scores: (a) word caller—
near-average or above-average reading fluency (≥−0.33) paired with significantly impaired reading
comprehension (≤−1.0); (b) dysfluent discrepant—below-average reading fluency with significantly
lower comprehension (<−1.0); (c) fluent discrepant—less impaired comprehension (>−1.0) with
a significant gap between fluency and comprehension (≥0.67 SD); (d) nondiscrepant struggling—
consistent pattern of below-average fluency and comprehension; and (e) nondiscrepant proficient—
consistent pattern of average or above-average fluency and comprehension. Table 2 shows the mean
fluency and comprehension scores for each profile group. Taken together, 55.5% of the total sample
exhibited some pattern of a significant gap between their scores on reading fluency and comprehen-
sion. Figure 1 shows the distribution of fluency/comprehension difference scores for the total sample,
highlighting the specific profile group of students on this distribution. Although the distribution of
difference scores appears normal, the mean difference score was 0.83, with a standard deviation of
0.86. This fundamental shift in the difference score distribution provides additional evidence of the
relative asymmetry between reading fluency and comprehension for the ELL students in our sample.

Effects of Grade and Language Proficiency

A chi-square test for independence was conducted to examine whether the prevalence of
fluency/comprehension profiles was related to students’ grade level. Table 3 provides the prevalence
rates in each profile categorization by grade level. A significant relation was found between students’

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

546 Quirk and Beem

Table 2
Mean Fluency and Comprehension Scores by Profile

Nondiscrepant Dysfluent Word Fluent Nondiscrepant

Struggling Discrepant Caller Discrepant Proficient
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M(SD)

TOWRE-SWE 88.5 (10.2) 93.7 (5.1) 107.2 (8.6) 112.9 (7.8) 107.2 (7.2)
TOWRE-PDE 94.0 (8.0) 98.7 (6.1) 115.9 (10.3) 117.9 (9.3) 110.4 (9.3)
R-CBM −1.1 (0.7) −1.1 (0.4) 0.0 (0.5) 0.3 (0.6) 0.1 (0.4)
Fluency Component −1.0 (0.7) −0.8 (0.3) 0.5 (0.6) 0.9 (0.6) 0.4 (0.4)
GMRT-4 −1.1 (0.6) −1.9 (0.4) −1.4 (0.4) −0.4 (0.4) 0.2 (0.4)

Note. The TOWRE-SWE and TOWRE-PDE means and standard deviations are based on grade-level standard scores (M =
100, SD = 15). All other means and standard deviations are based on a z distribution (M = 0.0, SD = 1.0).

FIGURE 1. Distribution of fluency/comprehension difference scores by profile categorization.

fluency/comprehension profile status and grade level, χ 2 (8, N = 171) = 22.26, p < .01. The effect
size for this relation (Cramer’s V) was .26, suggesting a medium-sized effect of grade level on profile
prevalence rates. Specifically, there were relative increases in the percentage of students identified
as word callers from Grade 2 to Grade 5, with 14.3% of students identified in Grade 2 and 21.0% of
students identified in Grade 5. A similar pattern emerged in the dysfluent discrepant group, with the

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 ELL Reading Fluency and Comprehension 547

Table 3
Fluency/Comprehension Profile Status by Grade Level

Nondiscrepant Dysfluent Word Fluent Nondiscrepant

Struggling Discrepant Caller Discrepant Proficient
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Grade 2 (n = 49) 9 (18.4) 4 (8.2) 7 (14.3) 20 (40.8) 9 (18.3)

Grade 3 (n = 60) 27 (45.0) 3 (5.0) 7 (11.7) 17 (28.3) 6 (10.0)
Grade 5 (n = 62) 18 (29.0) 13 (21.0) 13 (21.0) 11 (17.7) 7 (11.3)
Total (N = 171) 54 (31.6) 20 (11.7) 27 (15.8) 48 (28.0) 22 (12.9)

Note. Chi-square test for independence found a significant relation between grade level and fluency/comprehension profile
status, χ 2 (8, N = 171) = 22.26, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .26.

highest prevalence rate emerging in Grade 5 (21.0%). Conversely, there were substantial decreases
in the prevalence rates for both the fluent discrepant and nondiscrepant proficient groups across
grade levels, with both being lowest in Grade 5 (17.7% and 11.3%, respectively).
Finally, a second chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine whether flu-
ency/comprehension profile prevalence rates varied significantly according to students’ English
language proficiency levels. To ensure that adequate numbers of students were represented in each
cell from the chi-square analysis, the English language proficiency designations were collapsed to
form the following groups: (a) Early (included students designated as beginning and early inter-
mediate), (b) Intermediate (included students designated as intermediate and early advanced), and
(c) Advanced (included students designated as advanced and redesignated English Proficient). These
groups were formed to capture students at three distinct levels of English language development.
The results revealed a significant relation between students’ English language proficiency levels
and fluency/comprehension profile status, χ 2 (8, N = 171) = 34.79, p < .001. The effect size for
this relation (Cramer’s V) was .30, suggesting a medium to large effect of English language profi-
ciency on profile prevalence. Table 4 presents the prevalence rates for each fluency/comprehension
profile categorization by English language proficiency level. In general, there were decreases in
the nondiscrepant struggling and dysfluent discrepant groups and increases in the fluent discrepant
and nondiscrepant proficient groups as students increased in English language proficiency, with the
prevalence of word callers remaining fairly stable across English proficiency levels.

Table 4
Fluency/Comprehension Profile Status by English Language Proficiency

Nondiscrepant Dysfluent Word Fluent

Struggling Discrepant Caller Discrepant Nondiscrepant
CELDT Level n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Proficient

Early (n = 47) 22 (46.8) 12 (25.5) 6 (12.8) 7 (14.9) 0 (0.0)

Intermediate (n = 89) 24 (27.0) 6 (6.7) 16 (18.0) 30 (33.7) 13 (14.6)
Advanced (n = 35) 8 (22.9) 2 (5.7) 5 (14.3) 11 (31.4) 9 (25.7)

Note. CELDT = California English Language Development Test. Chi-square test for independence showed a significant
relation between English language proficiency level and fluency/comprehension profile status, χ 2 (8, N = 171) = 34.79,
p < .001, Cramer’s V = .30.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

548 Quirk and Beem

D ISCUSSION
Few studies have examined the functional relation between reading fluency and comprehension
with substantial numbers of ELL students (Reschly et al., 2009), and those that have been conducted
have yielded mixed results (Crosson & Lesaux, 2010; Klein & Jimerson, 2005; Riedel, 2007; Wiley
& Deno, 2005). The current study provided evidence that the general relation between reading
fluency and comprehension for ELL students is similar, albeit slightly weaker, than that found in
previous studies examining predominantly non-ELL student populations (Reschly et al., 2009). The
most widely accepted explanation for the relation between reading fluency and comprehension is
LaBerge and Samuels’ (1974) reading automaticity model. However, research has also found that, for
ELL students, oral language proficiency contributes more to reading comprehension than automatic
word reading (Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). Therefore, it may be that a relative weakness
in oral language is attenuating the broader relation between reading fluency and comprehension for
these students.
Teachers and other school practitioners have often reported the existence of substantial numbers
of students who can read fluently, but with little comprehension. Traditionally, these students have
been identified as word callers, suggesting that they literally call out the words without fully attending
to the meaning of the broader text that they are reading (Stanovich, 1986). Previous research has
suggested that word callers do not exist in appreciable numbers, particularly in the lower elementary
grades (Hamilton & Shinn, 2003; Meisinger et al., 2009). However, the present study identified a
substantial proportion of word callers (15.8%) within the overall sample, with 14.3% of students
in Grade 2 and 11.7% of students in Grade 3 meeting the word caller criteria. Clearly, this finding
suggests that word callers may exist in appreciable numbers regardless of grade level, particularly
in ELL student populations.
In addition to the students identified as word callers, the results of this study revealed two
sizeable groups of other students that exhibited significant gaps between reading fluency and com-
prehension. Specifically, 11.7% of students were identified as dysfluent discrepant, indicating that
they were reading with below-average fluency, accompanied by significantly impaired reading
comprehension. In addition, 28.0% of students were identified as fluent discrepant, reading with
above-average fluency and slightly below-average comprehension. When each of these discrepant
groups are combined with those students identified as word callers, 55.5% of the total sample had
reading fluency scores that were significantly higher (.67 SD) than their reading comprehension
scores. This finding highlights the somewhat arbitrary nature of how word callers have been defined
in previous studies. Although the shape of the distribution for difference scores from our sample ap-
peared normal, the average difference score was .83 (SD = .86). This shift in the distribution clearly
reflects the higher rates of fluency/comprehension gaps found within the current study when com-
pared with the rates of word callers found in previous research (Hamilton & Shinn, 2003; Meisinger
et al., 2009). It remains unclear whether the distribution of fluency/comprehension difference scores
from other, non-ELL samples more closely resembles a standard normal distribution. If so, that
would explain the relatively smaller number of word callers identified in those studies; however, it
would also suggest that there may be additional students with significant comprehension problems
that have gone undetected when the traditional definition of a word caller was applied.
The current study also found significant variations in the prevalence rates of fluency/comprehen-
sion profiles across grade levels. Specifically, we found fairly consistent increases in the dysfluent
discrepant and word caller groups from Grade 2 to Grade 5, suggesting that students’ reading fluency
may be increasing at a faster rate than their reading comprehension. These results are consistent with
previous research that has found an increase in the prevalence rates of word callers during the later
elementary grades (Meisinger et al., 2009). As Meisinger and colleagues (2009) explained, there

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 ELL Reading Fluency and Comprehension 549

may be a limitation of automatic word reading in terms of its contribution to reading comprehension
as the task of comprehending more complex texts in the upper elementary grades requires more
sophisticated vocabulary, background knowledge, and metacognitive skill. However, we also found
consistent and substantial decreases in the prevalence rates of fluent discrepant students across grade
levels, suggesting that students’ reading comprehension may begin to rebound when their reading
fluency rates reach proficient or advanced levels. Given the inherent complexity of reading fluency
(Schwanenflugel et al., 2006; Stanovich, 2000) and the multitude of supplemental reading skills
that contribute to reading comprehension, it was difficult to isolate the specific mechanisms that
might have contributed to the fluctuations found in the current investigation. Additional research is
needed to further clarify the underlying mechanisms that contribute to growing asymmetry between
reading fluency and comprehension as ELL students progress into the later elementary school
years.
We also found significant variations in the prevalence rates of fluency/comprehension profiles
across ELL students’ English language proficiency levels. Fewer students in the intermediate and
advanced stages of English language development were identified in the nondiscrepant struggling
and dysfluent discrepant groups. Conversely, more students were identified in the fluent discrepant
and nondiscrepant proficient groups as students’ English language proficiency increased. Taken
together, it appears that as ELL students become more proficient in English, their reading fluency
and reading comprehension skills both increase; however, we also found the highest rates of word
callers (18.0%) and fluent discrepant students (33.7%) at the Intermediate language proficiency
level. Similar to the findings across grade levels, this may suggest that students’ reading fluency is
developing at a more rapid rate than their reading comprehension until fluency reaches a ceiling,
which then allows for reading comprehension to rebound. The pattern found in this study is consistent
with previous research, suggesting that decoding skills develop more rapidly for ELL students than
comprehension skills (Nakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2007).
The prevalence rates of fluency/comprehension gaps found in the current study may be better
understood, in part, by an examination of previous research that has investigated ELL students’
English reading skill development. First, research has found that ELL and non-ELL students develop
language-independent literacy components (e.g., word-level reading) at a similar rate (Durgunoglu,
2002; Geva & Wang, 2001); however, ELL students tend to lag behind in language-dependent
areas, such as vocabulary and reading comprehension (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005;
Verhoeven, 2000). In addition, a study by Gottardo and Mueller (2009) found that ELL students’
reading comprehension in their second language (L2) was explained by both L2 decoding skill
and L2 oral language proficiency, which aligns with the widely supported simple view of reading
(Gough & Tunmer, 1986). However, research has also found evidence suggesting that given adequate
L2 decoding ability, ELL students’ L2 listening comprehension and L2 vocabulary knowledge are
particularly critical in explaining their L2 reading comprehension (Proctor et al., 2005). Therefore,
it appears that decoding skill contributes to reading comprehension in a similar manner for both
ELL and non-ELL students; however, ELL students may be at greater risk of experiencing L2
oral language proficiency deficits, which could negatively impact their L2 reading comprehension
independent of L2 decoding skill. Although we were unable to examine these relations specifically,
it is possible that relative deficits in ELL students’ English oral language proficiency may have
contributed to the higher rates of fluency/comprehension gaps found in the current study.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge factors related to ELL students’ English language
acquisition that may help to explain the fluency/comprehension gaps identified in this study. Research
has clearly established that time is a critical factor for ELL students to develop proficiency in a new
language (Collier, 1987; Collier & Thomas, 1989). Specifically, Cummins (1979) proposed that it
takes 5 to 7 years for ELL students to develop cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

550 Quirk and Beem

Therefore, the likelihood that an ELL student has the English language proficiency skills (CALP)
required to maintain adequate reading comprehension is dependent on the amount of time that she
or he has been exposed to the English language. In addition, Coady (1997) utilizes “the beginner’s
paradox” to describe the challenges that ELLs face when learning vocabulary in a new language.
It has been hypothesized that many children acquire new vocabulary through incidental learning
(Nagy & Herman, 1985) encountered in conversations and through wide reading; however, learning
new words through incidental exposure requires that the child have adequate knowledge of enough
contextual elements to make sense of novel words. Both the need for time in developing CALP
and the reliance on incidental learning for acquiring new vocabulary are only compounded by the
fact that texts become increasingly complex as children progress to more advanced grade levels.
Thus, ELL students face a complex web of underlying challenges that may help to explain why
the development of their reading comprehension skills tend to lag behind the development of their
reading fluency skills.

Implications for Practice

The results of this study raise questions about the validity of oral reading fluency measures as
a proxy for the reading comprehension skills of ELL students. Consistent with previous research
(Klein & Jimerson, 2005), the findings of this study suggest that using data from oral reading fluency
probes will overestimate the reading comprehension skills for a substantial number of ELL students.
In our sample, this practice would have resulted in the misidentification of reading problems for
more than 55.5% of students in Grades 2, 3, and 5.
The issue of misidentification is most problematic for the 15.8% of students who were iden-
tified as word callers, because their reading comprehension problems would have gone unnoticed.
However, there are also important practical implications for the 39.7% of additional students who
exhibited significant gaps between reading fluency and comprehension. Although the current in-
vestigation did not address the issue directly, it is likely that the dysfluent discrepant students
require a qualitatively different approach to reading intervention than those students identified as
nondiscrepant struggling (overall low achievers). In addition, there were many students in the fluent
discrepant group who had below-average reading comprehension scores. Similar to word callers,
the comprehension difficulties that these students were experiencing would go undetected if only
reading fluency data were used to identify students in need of supplemental instructional supports.
Thus, the results of this study suggest that, at a minimum, assessments of both fluency and com-
prehension are needed to more accurately identify the specific reading problems that ELL students
may be encountering. In addition, it may be necessary to collect data on other reading skills, such
as vocabulary and oral language proficiency, to more accurately identify ELL students in need of
supplemental instruction.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study makes important contributions to the emerging understanding of the relation between
reading fluency and comprehension for ELL students; however, there were a number of limitations
that could be addressed in future studies examining related issues. First, this study was cross-
sectional, which limited our ability to examine developmental trends. Specifically, cohort effects
may have influenced the analyses examining variations in the prevalence of fluency/comprehension
profiles across grade level. Longitudinal studies would allow for a more precise investigation of
how reading fluency and reading comprehension are developmentally related for ELL students,
particularly in terms of how reading development interfaces with students’ emerging skills in
the English language. Second, most of the students from our sample came from low-income

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 ELL Reading Fluency and Comprehension 551

families, which has been found to influence children’s reading development (Cooper, Nye, Charlton,
Lindsay, & Greathouse, 1996); therefore, it was impossible to determine the differential effects of
socioeconomic status and ELL status on students’ reading outcomes (see Roberts, Mohammed, &
Vaughn, 2010 for additional information on this topic). Third, we were limited in our ability to
examine the influence of supplemental skills and experiential factors on students’ reading fluency
and comprehension, such as length of exposure to English, vocabulary, and oral language skills. In
particular, it would have been useful to know how long students from our sample had been exposed
to the English language, as research found this to be a potentially important factor predicting ELL
students’ reading achievement (Betts, Bolt, Decker, Muyskens, & Marston, 2009). Future studies
would benefit from the collection of additional data in these (and potentially other) areas to examine
how fluctuations in a number of different reading skills and/or previous literacy related experiences,
both in English and in ELL students’ primary language, contribute to the developmental relation
between reading fluency and comprehension. Finally, we acknowledge that it would have been
important to examine the interactive effects of English language proficiency and grade level on the
prevalence of fluency/comprehension profile patterns; however, there were insufficient numbers of
students in our sample to conduct these analyses with adequate power. The relatively small numbers
of children at each developmental level also required us to combine students at adjacent stages in
their English language development. It is possible that certain fluency/comprehension patterns are
more prevalent for students at specific stages in their English language development and within each
grade level, which remain important questions to be addressed in future studies.

C ONCLUSIONS
We found that significant gaps between reading fluency and comprehension do exist in ap-
preciable numbers for ELL student populations. This finding raises questions about the validity of
oral reading fluency assessments alone to identify ELL students in need of supplemental reading
supports. Using fluency assessments in this way could overpredict the reading comprehension skills
of a significant proportion of these students. Additional research is needed to better understand best
practices in assessing the reading skills of ELL students, so that students are correctly identified and
the information from these assessments can accurately inform targeted interventions. Addressing
these gaps in the existent research is particularly critical, as an increasing number of teachers and
schools are facing the challenge of providing the necessary instructional supports for students who
are learning English as a new language.

R EFERENCES
Ardoin, S. P., & Christ, T. J. (2008). Evaluating curriculum-based measurement slope estimates using data from triannual
universal screenings. School Psychology Review, 37, 109 – 125.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language
learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 50 – 57. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x
Baker, S. K., & Good, R. H. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A
validation study with second grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561 – 578.
Betts, J., Bolt, S., Decker, D., Muyskens, P., & Marston, D. (2009). Examining the role of time and language type in reading
development for English language learners. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 143 – 166. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.12.002
California Department of Education. (2008). Technical report for the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT). Retrieved August, 2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/techreport.asp.
Coady, J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language
vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 225 – 237). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617 – 641.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English? Journal of
Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, 26 – 38.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

552 Quirk and Beem

Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test
scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66, 227 – 268.
Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension:
Spanish speakers’ text-reading fluency in English. Reading and Writing, 23, 475 – 494. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9168-8
CTB/McGraw-Hill (2008). California English Language Development Test. Monterey, CA: Author.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational
Research, 49, 222 – 251.
De Ramirez, R. D., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of reading skills of Spanish-
speaking English Language Learners in bilingual education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 356 – 369.
Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals
of Dyslexia, 52, 189 – 204. doi:10.1007/s11881-002-0012-y
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Text fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical,
empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239 – 256. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503 3
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and
Special Education, 9, 20 – 27. doi:10.1177/074193258800900206
Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. R. (2005). Response to intervention as a framework for the identification of learning disabilities.
Trainer’s Forum: Periodical of the Trainers of School Psychologists, 25, 12 – 19.
Geva, E., & Wang, M. (2001). The development of basic reading skills in children: A cross-language perspective. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 21,182 – 204.
Gottardo, A.,& Mueller, J. (2009). Are first- and second-language factors related in predicting second-language reading
comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second
grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 330 – 344. doi:10.1037/a0014320
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6 – 10.
Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M. R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers’ judgments
of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32, 228 – 240.
Harcourt Brace & Company. (1997). Stanford Achievement Test Series–Ninth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Hintze, J. M., Callahan, J. E., Matthews, W. J., Williams, S. A. S., & Tobin, K. G. (2002). Oral reading fluency and prediction
of reading comprehension in African American and Caucasian elementary school children. School Psychology Review,
31, 540 – 553.
Howe, K. B., & Shinn, M. M. (2002). Standard reading assessment passages (RAPs) for use in general outcome measurement:
A manual describing development and technical features. Retrieved October, 2010, from www.aimsweb.com.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108 – 446.
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Epsin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading
comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719 – 729. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719
Klein, J. R., & Jimerson, S. R. (2005). Examining ethnic, gender, language and socioeconomic bias in oral
reading fluency scores among Caucasian and Hispanic students. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 23 – 50.
doi:10.1521/scpq.20.1.23.64196
Kranzler, J. H., Miller, M. D., & Jordan, L. (1999). An examination of racial/ethnic and gender bias on curriculum-based
measurement of reading. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 327 – 342. doi:10.1037/h0089012
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology,
6, 293 – 323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic back-
grounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 821 – 834. doi:0.1037/0022-
0663.99.4.821
MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., Dreyer, L. G., & Hughes, K. E. (2009). Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests,
Fourth Edition. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Meisinger, E. B., Bradley, B. A., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Kuhn, M. R. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of word callers and
related literacy concepts. School Psychology Review, 39, 54 – 68.
Meisinger, E. B., Bradley, B. A., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Kuhn, M. R., & Morris, R. D. (2009). Myth and reality of the word
caller: The relation between teacher nominations and prevalence among elementary school children. School Psychology
Review, 24, 147 – 159. doi:10.1037/a0017191
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1985). Incidental vs. instructional approaches to increasing reading vocabulary. Educational
Perspectives, 23, 16 – 21.
Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of English language learners’ word decoding
and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 20, 691 – 719. doi:10.1007/s11145-006-9045-7
Neddenriep, C. E., Fritz, A. M., & Carrier, M. E. (2011). Assessing for generalized improvements in reading comprehension
by intervening to improve reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 14 – 27. doi:10.1002/pits.20542

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 ELL Reading Fluency and Comprehension 553

PASW. (2010). PASW Statistics 17. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.

Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a
model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246 – 256. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.246
Pro-Ed Inc. (2008) Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Author.
Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as
an indicator of reading achievement: a meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47,
427 – 469. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001
Riedel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary in urban, ?rst grade students.
Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 460 – 466. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.4.5
Roberts, G., Mohammed, S. S., & Vaughn, S. (2010). Reading achievement across three language groups: Growth estimates
for overall reading and reading subskills obtained with the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 668 – 686. doi:10.1037/a0018983
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E. B., Wisenbaker, J. M., Kuhn, M. R., Strauss, G. P., & Morris, R. D. (2006). Becom-
ing a fluent and automatic reader in the early elementary school years. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 496 – 522.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.4.4
Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S., et al. (1999). Comprehension and
decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69 – 94.
doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0301 4
Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., Knutson, N., Tilly, W. D., & Collins, V. L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement reading
fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459 – 479.
Shinn, M. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). AIMS web training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-based
measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. Bloomington, MN: Pearson, Inc.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360 – 406.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford
Press.
Verhoeven, L. T. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4,
313 – 330.
Wiley, H., & Deno, S. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state
standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207 – 214. doi:10.1177/07419325050260040301
Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests (Rev. ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits