To further explore contextual reading rate, an important aspect of reading fluency, we examined the relationship between word reading efficiency (WRE) and contextual oral reading rate (ORR), the degree to which they overlap across different comprehension measures, whether oral language (semantics and syntax) predicts ORR beyond contributions of word-level skills, and whether the WRE–ORR relationship varies based on different reader profiles. Assessing reading and language of average readers, poor decoders, and poor comprehenders, ages 10 to 14, ORR was the strongest predictor of comprehension across various formats; WRE contributed no unique variance after taking ORR into account. Findings indicated that semantics, not syntax, contributed to ORR. Poor comprehenders performed below average on measures of ORR, despite average WRE, expanding previous findings suggesting specific weaknesses in ORR for this group. Together, findings suggest that ORR draws upon skills beyond those captured by WRE and suggests a role for oral language (semantics) in ORR.

In recent years, researchers, educators, and policy makers have called for a new generation of reading comprehension assessments (e.g., Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008). Advocates of this movement argue for a deeper type of reading assessment, one that captures students’ ability to not only understand single texts in isolation but also to engage in purposeful, multisource integration of sources. While this shift in how we define and measure reading comprehension is laudable, assessments must also measure the fundamental reading skills that may impede higher‐level comprehension processes. This article presents data from two assessments that were designed to work in tandem to provide a more complete picture of reading comprehension. Middle school students were given a component skills battery which measured core reading skills such as word recognition, decoding, vocabulary, and morphology, as well a second assessment designed to measure reading comprehension. Reading comprehension was measured using a scenario‐based assessment approach, which required students to read a range of sources to fulfill a particular reading goal. The results indicate that students, including struggling readers, were able to read, understand, and problem solve in complex learning environments, but students’ ability to do so was often tempered by their basic reading skills. We argue that including a measure of component skills alongside a measure of higher‐level comprehension is beneficial in interpreting student performance. Accordingly, we present the results on the scenario‐based measure as a function of reading component skills and argue for the value of using this approach for struggling readers.

No abstract

In this research report, we describe the conceptual foundation and measurement properties of the Reading Inventory and Scholastic Evaluation (RISE). The RISE is a 6‐subtest, Web‐administered reading skills components battery. We review the theoretical and empirical foundations of each subtest in the battery, as well as item designs. The results included in this report feature a calibrated item pool based on a national sample of students, an extension of the vertical scale to span Grades 3–12, psychometric analyses of the data for each subtest, an item response theory scaling study for each of the subtests across the entire grade span, an evaluation of multidimensionality, an evaluation of differential item functioning for gender and race/ethnicity, and an expanded review of validity evidence.

Since its 1947 founding, ETS has conducted and disseminated scientific research to support its products and services, and to advance the measurement and education fields. In keeping with these goals, ETS is committed to making its research freely available to the professional community and to the general public. Published accounts of ETS research, including papers in the ETS Research Report series, undergo a formal peer-review process by ETS staff to ensure that they meet established scientific and professional standards. All such ETS-conducted peer reviews are in addition to any reviews that outside organizations may provide as part of their own publication processes. Peer review notwithstanding, the positions expressed in the ETS Research Report series and other published accounts of ETS research are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Officers