CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 569Reading and Literacy DevelopmentLiteracy and Educational PracticesNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate

Open access
Brysbaert, Marc·2019·Journal of Memory and Language
DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Based on the analysis of 190 studies (18,573 participants), we estimate that the average silent reading rate for adults in English is 238 words per minute (wpm) for non-fiction and 260 wpm for fiction. The difference can be predicted by taking into account the length of the words, with longer words in non-fiction than in fiction. The estimates are lower than the numbers often cited in scientific and popular writings. The reasons for the overestimates are reviewed. The average oral reading rate (based on 77 studies and 5965 participants) is 183 wpm. Reading rates are lower for children, old adults, and readers with English as second language. The reading rates are in line with maximum listening speed and do not require the assumption of reading-specific language processing. Within each group/task there are reliable individual differences, which are not yet fully understood. For silent reading of English non-fiction most adults fall in the range of 175–300 wpm; for fiction the range is 200–320 wpm. Reading rates in other languages can be predicted reasonably well by taking into account the number of words these languages require to convey the same message as in English.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047

Cites

412 of 412 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An estimated reading time of 1 minute for 238 words gives an exposure time of 18 minutes for three readings of a 1,500 word story.

    “Allowing that each story would need to be read several times, this meant an estimated reading time of 1 minute for 238 words gave an exposure time of 18 minutes for three readings of a 1,500 word story [49].”

    From Five studies evaluating the impact on mental health and mood of recalling, reading, and discussing fiction (2022) · cites this paper as [49]

    The General discussion (page not supplied) gives 238 words per minute for nonfiction, but 260 for fiction. The cited paper does not calculate exposure for three readings of a 1,500-word story; at 238 words per minute, that would take about 19 minutes, not 18. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Brysbaert (2019) shows that scanning a text and reading a text occur in very different results in words-per-minute metrics.

    “Nevertheless, his results do show that scanning a text and reading a text occurs in give very different results in words-per-minute metrics.”

    From Five studies evaluating the impact on mental health and mood of recalling, reading, and discussing fiction (2022) · cites this paper as Brysbaert (2019)

  • Informed consent is often undermined by lengthy and complex privacy policies, which in this review averaged 6113 words and would take approximately 26 min to read.

    “Informed consent-a cornerstone of ethical data collection-is often undermined by lengthy and complex privacy policies, which in this review averaged 6113 words and would take approximately 26 min to read 55 .”

    From Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers (2025) · cites this paper as [55]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 417 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Almuhajri, M. (2013). *Arabic E-reading: studies on legibility and readability for personal digital assistants. Doctoral dissertation. Concordia University Available at https:// spectrum.library.concordia.ca/978284/1/Almuhajri_MCompSc_S2014.pdf.
  2. Biedert, R., Hees, J., Dengel, A., & Buscher, G. (2012). A robust realtime reading-skim- ming classifier. Proceedings of the symposium on eye tracking research and applications, March (pp. 123-130). .
  3. Boije, S. S., & Gustafsson, M. (2012). *Evaluation of reading eye movements and comfort on different paper design. Master Thesis. Karolinska Institute Available at http:// whitelines.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Utv%C3%A4rdering-av-l%C3% A4sning-p%C3%A5-Whitelines-skrivpapper.pdf.
  4. Buari, N. H., & Chen, A. H. (2017). *Buari-Chen Malay Reading Chart (BCMRC): Contextual sentence and random words 2-in-1 design in Malay language. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, 25, 135-150.
  5. Heij, M. L. (2014). *The (in) effectiveness of pdf reading. Bachelor's thesis. University of Twente Available at http://essay.utwente.nl/65734/1/Heij,%20M.L.%20-% 20s1189026%20(verslag).pdf.
  6. Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  7. Mackensen, G., & Stichler, H. (1963). *Untersuchungen der Lesegeschwindigkeit in Abhängigkeit vom Bildungsgrad. Albrecht von Graefes Archiv für Ophthalmologie, 166(1), 81-86.
  8. Marx, T. (2015). *Vergleich zweier deutschsprachiger, standardisierter Lesetafeln zur Bestimmung der Lesegeschwindigkeit. PhD Thesis. University of Tuebingen Available at https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/63560/
  9. Monteiro de Castro, C. T., Kallie, C. S., & Salomão, S. R. (2005). *Development and va- lidation of the MNREAD reading acuity chart in Portuguese. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, 68(6), 777-783.
  10. Morrice, E. (2017). *Validation of the international reading speed texts in a Canadian sample. Master Thesis. Concordia University Available at https://spectrum.library.concordia. ca/982587/1/Morrice_MA_F2017.pdf.
  11. Niple, M. L. D. (1968). *The relationship of different study methods to immediate and delayed comprehension. Doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University Available at https://etd. ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu148664631137524&disposition=inline.
  12. Otten, M. (2015). *Evaluation of the workshop Effectief studeren and the online course Snellezen. Master Thesis. University of Twente Available at https://docplayer.nl/ 19192070-Evaluation-of-the-workshop-effectief-studeren-and-the-online-course- snellezen.html.
  13. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford Press.
  14. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. NJ Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
  15. Sekey, A., & Tietz, J. (1982). *Text display by" saccadic scrolling". Visible Language, 16(1), 62-77.
  16. Smith, M. C., & Pourchot, T. (Eds.). (1998). Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
  17. Stoll, F. (1974). *Évaluation de trois types d'exercices de lecture rapide. Le Travail Humain, 37(2), 249-262.
  18. Subbaram, V. M. (2004). *Effect of display and text parameters on reading performance. Doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University Available at https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_ etd/document/get/osu1089408221/inline.
  19. Yaworski, J. (2005). Getting ahead: Fundamentals of college reading. Pearson/Longman.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Brysbaert, M.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Brysbaert, Marc
ORCID
Brysbaert, Marc
Venue
Journal of Memory and Language
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
109
Pages
104047
ISSN
0749-596X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047
OpenAlex
W2966983573
Cited by
553
References
417
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 152 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
9.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Memory and Language (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Universiteit Gent
  • Max Planck Instituut voor Psycholinguïstiek
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
reading speed, silent reading, reading aloud, words per minute, nonfiction reading, fiction reading, word length, English as a second language, children's reading

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review