During the last decades, rapid automatized naming (RAN) has been widely examined as a predictor of reading ability, but very few studies have examined the development of RAN itself. The present study followed children from ages 4 until 10, focusing on RAN performance in a developmental perspective. Relations within and between alphanumeric and nonalphanumeric RAN were investigated both concurrently and over time. The result shows that individual differences in RAN objects are stable between ages 4 and 10, with the most rapid growth of mean performance between ages 4 and 6. Early performance on RAN objects predicts both performance on RAN digits and RAN letters at age 8 and the further development between ages 8 and 10. Further, low‐performing children at age 4 develop their performance on RAN digits and RAN letters later compared with high‐performing children, and RAN digits performance reaches a plateau earlier than RAN letters performance.

This study had two overriding goals, (1) examine the stability of rapid automatized naming (RAN) in predicting reading achievement while taking into account two other frequently studied constructs, phonological awareness and fluid intelligence (Gf) and (2) examine the predictive power of RAN measured at age 4 on reading ability. The stable pattern of RAN development found in a previously reported growth model was challenged by relating phonological awareness and Gf to the model. Children (N = 364) were followed from age 4 to age 10. At age 4, Gf related strongly to phonological awareness, which in turn related strongly to RAN. The relations between the RAN measures over time was largely unaffected by the inclusion of Gf and phonological awareness. RAN, Gf and phonological awareness at age 4 independently predicted latent factors reflecting reading‐related abilities in grade 1 and grade 4. However, when scrutinizing type of reading measure in grade 4, Gf, phonological awareness and RAN at age 4 predicted both spelling and reading fluency, whereas RAN in grade 2 did not predict spelling but was the strongest predictor of reading fluency.