CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 225Reading and Literacy DevelopmentBehavioral and Psychological StudiesEarly Childhood Education and Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Monitoring Early Reading Development in First Grade: Word Identification Fluency versus Nonsense Word Fluency

Fuchs, Lynn S., Fuchs, Douglas, Compton, Donald L.·2004·Exceptional Children
DOI 10.1177/001440290407100101
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study contrasts the validity of 2 early reading curriculum-based measurement (CBM) measures: word identification fluency and nonsense word fluency. At-risk children ( n = 151) were assessed (a) on criterion reading measures in the fall and spring of first grade and (b) on the 2 CBM measures each week for 7 weeks and twice weekly for an additional 13 weeks. Concurrent and predictive validity for CBM performance level and predictive validity for CBM slopes demonstrated the superiority of word identification fluency over nonsense word fluency. Findings are discussed in terms of the measures' utility for identifying children in need of intensive instruction and for monitoring children's progress through first grade.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/001440290407100101

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Fry E. B., 1968, Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 513
  2. McDonnell L. M., 1997, Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform
  3. McMaster K. N., Exceptional Children
  4. President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002, A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families
  5. Vellutino F. R., Scanlon D. M., Small S., Fanuele D. (2003, December). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between reading disabled and non-reading disabled children: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first grade intervention. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Response-To-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–225 of 225

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Exceptional Children
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-10
Volume
71
Issue
1
Pages
7-21
ISSN
  • 0014-4029 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-5560
DOI
10.1177/001440290407100101
OpenAlex
W2148539784
Cited by
225
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 23
FWCI
10.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Exceptional Children (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
Keywords
early reading development, first grade, nonsense word fluency, curriculum-based measurement, vulnerable children, predictive validity, concurrent validity, reading progress monitoring

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