Text Reading and Rereading: Determinants of Fluency beyond Word Recognition

Abstract

Factors related to the slower reading of text by reading disabled compared to average readers were studied. Thirty-seven children selected as poor and average readers in Grade 2 were followed through Grade 4; each year they reread text passages at a level of difficulty appropriate for each child. Phonological awareness (phoneme deletion) and digit-naming speed were consistently related to speed and errors on initial reading of a text and on reading it for the fourth time. After controlling for word-recognition skill, only digit-naming speed contributed significant additional variance to reading speed before and especially after practice, even over more than a 2-year period. Such independent relationship to fluency suggests that current theories stressing the role of phonemic sensitivity in fluent as well as accurate reading need to be modifed to include the role of processes indexed by simple symbol-naming speed.

Are Phonological Processes Separate from the Processes Underlying Naming Speed in a Shallow Orthography?

“…This is especially true for studies on other Latin languages in which the focus was on predictors of word-level reading rather than connected- ing of a specific text in a single session (Bowers, 1993;Bowers & Kennedy, 1993;Young, 1997). Along the same line, work by Torgesen, Rashotte, Alexander, Alexander, and MacPhee (2003) showed that training in phonemic awareness affects accuracy of later decoding, but has a much lower effect upon fluency.…”

Does Training in Syllable Recognition Improve Reading Speed? A Computer-Based Trial With Poor Readers From Second and Third Grade

“…For instance, various studies have indicated that children with naming speed deficits show less of a response to reading instruction (Berninger et al, 2002; and benefit less from repeated reading than children without naming speed deficits (Bowers, 1993;. However, the response to fluency training has not always been merely affected by slow naming speed , particularly after the initial reading level has been controlled for (Berends & Reitsma, 2006).…”

“…Most importantly, the gains in RAN have also had an effect on reading fluency; even the effect has not been of very long duration (Fugate, 1997). Finally, in several studies RAN has had an effect on the results of reading interventions: the response to a reading intervention has been smaller for children with slow naming speed compared to children with higher RAN scores (Berninger et al, 1999;2002;Bowers, 1993;Fletcher et al, 2011; Mathes et al, 30 2005; Vadasy, Sanders, & Abbott, 2008; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003; for reviews, see Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002, and Bowers, 2001). In their review, Nelson, Benner, and Gonzalez (2003) identified RAN as the factor that had most effect on treatment responsiveness; the same result has also been confirmed in a transparent language (Dutch: Scheltinga, van der Leij, & Struiksma, 2010, for a review, see also van der Leij, 2013).…”

Remediation of Fluency: Word Specific or Generalised Training Effects?

“…It has been suggested that a subgroup of reading disabled children suffer from a rapid naming deficit which might be the cause of their inability to create multiletter orthographic patterns (Bowers & Wolf, 1993;Wolf et al, 2002). Thus, children with slow naming speed would benefit less from repeated reading training than children without a RAN deficit (Bowers, 1993;Levy, Bourassa, & Horn, 1999). The present study aims to re-examine the influence of RAN skill on increases in reading fluency resulting from reading practice.…”