CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140Reading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLiteracy and Educational Practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Relations Among Oral and Silent Reading Fluency and Comprehension in Middle School: Implications for Identification and Instruction of Students With Reading Difficulties

Open access
Denton, Carolyn A., Barth, Amy E., Fletcher, Jack M., Wexler, Jade, Vaughn, Sharon, Cirino, Paul T., Romain, Melissa, Francis, David J.·2011·Scientific Studies of Reading
DOI 10.1080/10888431003623546PMC PMC3104321
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relations among oral and silent reading fluency and reading comprehension for students in Grades 6 to 8 (n = 1,421) and the use of fluency scores to identify middle school students who are at risk for failure on a high-stakes reading test. Results indicated moderate positive relations between measures of fluency and comprehension. Oral reading fluency (ORF) on passages was more strongly related to reading comprehension than ORF on word lists. A group-administered silent reading sentence verification test approximated the classification accuracy of individually administered ORF passages. The correlation between a maze task and comprehension was weaker than has been reported for elementary students. The best predictor of a high-stakes reading comprehension test was the previous year's administration of the grade-appropriate test; fluency and verbal knowledge measures accounted for only small amounts of unique variance beyond that accounted for by the previous year's administration.

Overview

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 · 10.1080/10888431003623546

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 47 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Barth , A. E. , Denton , C. A. , Cirino , P. T. , Fletcher , J. M. and Francis , D. 2010 . The diagnostic utility of oral reading fluency measures for middle school students , Manuscript in preparation .
  2. Biancarosa , G. and Snow , C.E. 2004 . Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie of New York , Washington, DC : Alliance for Excellence in Education .
  3. Hammill , D. D. , Wiederholt , J. L. and Allen , E. A. 2006 . Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency , Austin, TX : Pro-Ed. .
  4. Jenkins J. R. (2003). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students . Paper presented at the Conference on Response to Treatment as Learning Disabilities Identification Kansas City MO. http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/jenkins/index.html (http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/jenkins/index.html)
  5. Shinn , M. R. and Shinn , M. M. 2002 . AIMSweb training workbook , Eden Prairie, MN : Edformation .
  6. University of Houston . 2008 . Texas Middle School Fluency Assessment , Houston, TX : Author .
  7. Vander Meer , C. D. , Lentz , F. E. and Stollar , S. 2005 . The relationship between oral reading fluency and Ohio proficiency testing in reading , Eugene, OR : University of Oregon .
  8. Williams , K. T. 2001 . Group Reading Assessment Diagnostic Evaluation , Shoreview, MN : Pearson AGS Globe .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–139 of 139

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Denton, C. A., Barth, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Romain, M., & Francis, D. J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • University of Houston (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Denton, Carolyn A.
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Studies of Reading
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-01-13
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
109-135
ISSN
  • 1088-8438 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-799X
DOI
10.1080/10888431003623546
PMC
PMC3104321
OpenAlex
W2065223846
Cited by
140
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
20.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Studies of Reading (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD052117, K08HD068545)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
Keywords
oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, junior high school students, reading difficulties, maze task, verbal knowledge, reading achievement prediction

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