As phoneme awareness deficits and resulting decoding weaknesses are increasingly addressed, there is heightened awareness of the role of fluency in reading. This paper reviews the history of fluency training, discusses the theoretical bases of such training, and summarizes the current knowledge about the efficacy of training procedures. We focus on Repeated Reading (RR), the most familiar and researched approach to fluency training. Outcome data on Repeated Reading, presented in the form of questions, is meant to answer practitioners" questions about implementation and efficacy and to provide a starting point for researchers interested in the topic. Although some answers are straightforward, others indicate the subtleties involved in answering the broad question, "Does Repeated Reading work?" In addition to a list of practical suggestions based on Repeated Readings findings, three new approaches to fluency training are introduced.

This study considers the differential predictive value of rapid naming tests for various aspects of later reading, where the differential is between nondisabled and poor readers. Two large-N longitudinal samples of students who have been evaluated from third through eighth grades are studied: (a) a randomly accessed, normally distributed group including students with varying degrees of reading ability (N = 154), and (b) a group of poor readers whose single-word reading in third grade is at or below the population 10th percentile (N = 64). Outcomes in fifth and eighth grade were measured in both groups. Single-word reading in both grades was strongly predicted from third-grade rapid naming only within the poor readers, even when IQ, socioeconomic status, and third-grade single-word reading were statistically controlled. Although rapid naming had predictive value within the large, normally distributed group, its predictive power was entirely absent in the average-reading nondisabled students who were between the 10th and 90th percentiles (n = 122). The fact that rapid naming has predictive power only for poor readers but not for average readers is interpreted as suggesting that impaired readers are qualitatively different from the normal-reading population and are not simply the "tail" of a normal distribution of reading ability. It also seems that it is the automaticity of retrieval, not the knowledge of names itself (as in confrontational naming tasks), that gives the predictive power in rapid naming. These data are considered in light of the one- and two-factor theories of the underlying processes involved in reading disability or dyslexia.

In this study, which is a continuation and an extension of an earlier study, we enrolled two new families (N=31) and recruited more individuals from the previously ascertained families (N=56). The eight multiplex families (N=171) presented in this study were ascertained from a sample of adult probands whose childhood reading history is well documented through archival information. Six phenotypes were constructed to span a range of dyslexia-related cognitive processes. These phenotypes were (1) phonemic awareness (of spoken words); (2) phonological decoding (of printed nonwords); (3) rapid automatized naming (of colored squares or object drawings); (4) single-word reading (orally, of printed real words); (5) vocabulary; and (6) spelling (of dictated words). In addition, the diagnosis of lifelong dyslexia was established by clinical means. Genotyping was done with nine highly polymorphic markers from the 6p22.3-6p21.3 region. The results of two- and multipoint identity-by-descent and identity-by-state analyses supported the importance of a putative locus in the D6S464-D6S273 region for a number of dyslexia-related cognitive deficits.

Phoneme awareness is a powerful conceptual achievement-both for the would-be reader and for the scientist seeking to understand the crucial links between spoken and written language. But it has long been recognized by both researchers and practitioners (1) that success in phoneme awareness depends crucially on other more basic factors; and (2) that other factors may also contribute to the reading difficulties of some children. We are pleased to publish this year four papers that consider correlates of reading difficulty that are not easily subsumed under the construct of phoneme awareness.Chapters 4 and 5 are longitudinal studies of rapid serial naming, which is one of the most reliable and consistent (if least understood) long-term predictors of reading disability. By tracking students through the elementary school years, both provide valuable information about the developmental course of rapid naming skills and the association between rapid naming and other literacy-related skills over time. The normative data on naming presented in chapter 4 by M. Meyers and her colleagues will serve as a valuable resource to clinicians; their kindergarten results should also add to our understanding of the factors that influence naming speed. In kindergarten, the letter/number naming advantage (over object/color naming) is strongly tied to alphabet recitation accuracy; by first grade the letter/number advantage is no longer a useful index of any literacy measure. The data from H. Scarborough make clear just how important and stable naming is as a predictor of reading success. Even when collected at Grade 2, individual differences in naming speed account for variability in 8th grade reading above and beyond what can be explained by phoneme awareness. Scarborough's and other recent studies suggest ways that assessment in schools can easily be expanded to more accurately predict who would benefit most from intervention.The Rapid Automatized Naming Test (Denckla and Rudel 1974) was studied cross-sectionally in an sample of kindergartners (n = 342) atrisk for reading disability (Study 1), and longitudinally in an n = 160 epidemiological normal sample of children tested in first, third, fifth, and eighth grades (Study 2). Study 1 showed faster absolute naming speeds for those with near perfect untimed alphabet recitation, but the stronger and more orderly relation (at r = .31, p < .0001) was between three levels of alphabet recitation accuracy and the relative number~letter naming speed advantage (ratio of mean number~letter naming speed minus mean color~object naming speed over mean color~object naming speed). In Study 2, the number~letter advantage was already strongly present by first grade, and did not increase significantly thereafter, but absolute naming times improved steadily across grades in an exponential decay function. In this sample, the relative number~letter advantage was not related to reading level. However, the absolute color~object naming speed was strongly related