The DOI matches its Crossref record; 134 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody, and Definitions of Fluency
Abstract
Over the past decade, fluent reading has come to be seen as a central component of skilled reading and a driving force in the literacy curriculum. However, much of this focus has centered on a relatively narrow definition of reading fluency, one that emphasizes automatic word recognition. This article attempts to expand this understanding by synthesizing several key aspects of research on reading fluency, including theoretical perspectives surrounding automaticity and prosody. It examines four major definitions of reading fluency and their relationship to accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. A proposed definition is presented. Finally, the implications of these definitions for current assessment and instruction are considered along with suggestions for reenvisioning fluency's role within literacy curriculum. عبر العقد الماضي أصبحت مرونة القراءة عنصراً محورياً لمهارة القراءة والقوة القائدة في المنهاج الدراسي المتعلق بمعرفة القراءة والكتابة. ومع ذلك تمحور كثيراً من هذا التركيز على تعريف ضيق نسبياً لدى المرونة القرائية وهو الذي يشدد على التعريف التلقائي على الكلمة. لذا تحاول هذه المقالة إلى توسيع هذا الفهم من خلال تضافر بضعة مظاهر رئيسية من الأبحاث المتعلقة بمرونة القراءة بما فيها أبعاد نظرية حول التلقائية والنثرية. وتفحص المقالة أربعة تعاريف رئيسية لمرونة القراءة وعلاقتها بالدقة والتلقائية والنثرية. ولقد تم تقديم تعريف محتمل وأخيراً يتم الأخذ بعين الاعتبار عواقب هذه التعاريف للتقييم والتعليم بالإضافة إلى إعادة النظر في دور المرونة في منهاج معرفة القراءة والكتابة الدراسي. 在过去十年期间,阅读流畅已被视为熟练阅读的主要部分,亦是读写能力课程的一种驱动力。然而,这种看法大部分聚焦于一个较为狭隘的阅读流畅定义上,只强调自动化识别单字。本文尝试综合处理有关阅读流畅研究的几个主要方面,包括与自动化程度及音韵表达相关的理论观点,藉以增加对阅读流畅的认识。本文检视四个主要的阅读流畅定义,及其与准确性、自动化程度、音韵表达之间的关系,并提出一个较为广阔的阅读流畅定义。最后,本文考量这些定义给目前的评估与教学带来的启示,以及建议重新展望阅读流畅在读写课程中所扮演的角色。 Au cours des dix dernières années, la lecture courante est devenue une composante centrale du savoir lire et une locomotive dans les programmes de littératie. Cependant, une large part de cet intérêt s'est centré sur une définition relativement étroite de la lecture courante, celle qui met l'accent sur la reconnaissance automatique des mots. Cet article se propose d'élargir cette compréhension en faisant la synthèse d'aspects majeurs des recherches relatifs à la lecture courante, notamment des perspectives théoriques concernant l'automaticité, et de la prosodie. Nous proposons une définition alternative. Nous considérons enfin les implications de ces définitions pour l'enseignement et l'évaluation actuels ainsi que des suggestions en vue d'un réexamen du rôle de la lecture courante dans les programmes de littératie. За последнее десятилетие беглость стала основным критерием качества чтения и краеугольным камнем учебных программ по становлению грамотности. Однако само представление о беглости зачастую выглядит достаточно однобоко: упор делается исключительно на автоматическое опознавание слов. Авторы статьи пытаются расширить это представление, синтезировав ключевые аспекты беглости, фигурирующие в различных исследованиях и теоретических работах. Авторы рассматривают четыре существующих определения беглого чтения и их связь с точностью, автоматизмом и просодией и предлагают свое, синтезированное определение. Затем обсуждается значение этих определений для подхода к обучению и оцениванию и предлагается пересмотреть роль такого параметра, как беглость чтения, в программах по развитию грамотности. En los últimos diez años, leer con fluidez se ha convertido en un componente central de la lectura hábil y una fuerza principal del currículo de alfabetización. Sin embargo, gran parte de este esfuerzo se ha enfocado en una definición muy restringida de la fluidez al leer: reconocer palabras automáticamente. Este artículo trata de expandir este entendimiento juntando varios aspectos claves de la investigación sobre la fluidez al leer, entre ellos perspectivas teóricas sobre la automaticidad y la prosodia. Se examinan cuatro definiciones fundamentales de la fluidez al leer y su relación a la precisión, la automaticidad, y la prosodia. Se sugiere una definición. Por último, se consideran las implicaciones de estas definiciones para la evaluación y la instrucción hoy día y se hacen sugerencias para volver a pensar sobre el rol de la fluidez en el currículo de alfabetización.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children
(1998) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/6023 · Cited by 5,337
Stanovich, K. E. (1986) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1598/rrq.21.4.1 · Cited by 5,222
Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print
Cairns, C., & Adams, M. J. (1991) · Language · doi:10.2307/415121 · Cited by 4,376
Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2 · Cited by 3,841
Toward an instance theory of automatization.
Logan, G. D. (1988) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.4.492 · Cited by 3,466
Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x · Cited by 2,555
Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-1069 · Cited by 2,521
Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension
Snow, C. E. (1998) · Cited by 1,813
Chall, J. S. (1983) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,739
Curriculum-Based Measurement: The Emerging Alternative
Deno, S. L. (1985) · Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/001440298505200303 · Cited by 1,667
Cited by
PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework
OECD (2019) · PISA · doi:10.1787/b25efab8-en · Cited by 1,614
The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1002/rrq.411 · Cited by 510
Toward Integrative Reading Science: The Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Reading
Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/0022219420908239 · Cited by 166
How Are Practice and Performance Related? Development of Reading From Age 5 to 15
van Bergen, E., Vasalampi, K., & Torppa, M. (2021) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1002/rrq.309 · Cited by 96
Reading among diverse DHH learners: what, how, and for whom?
Easterbrooks, S. R., Lederberg, A. R., Antia, S., Schick, B., Kushalnagar, P., Webb, M.-Y., Branum-Martin, L., & Connor, C. M. (2015) · American Annals of the Deaf · doi:10.1353/aad.2015.0002 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B.
- Venue
- Reading Research Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-04-06
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 230-251
- ISSN
- 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-2722
- OpenAlex
- W2151020007
- Cited by
- 648
- References
- 134
- FWCI
- 40.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody, and Definitions of Fluency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1598/rrq.45.2.4
- The paper
- Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody, and Definitions of Fluency. Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.45.2.4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.