Annals of Dyslexia

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 115–137 | Cite as

Training reading fluency among poor readers of German: many ways to the goal

  • Sini Huemer (née Hintikka)
  • Karin Landerl
  • Mikko Aro
  • Heikki Lyytinen


Outcomes of two training programs aimed at improving reading speed for 39 German-speaking poor readers in grades 2 and 4 were evaluated. During a 6-week training period, a specific target for children in a computer group was to improve reading of word-initial consonant clusters by practice in associating an orthographic unit with a corresponding phonological unit. Children in a paired reading group read books with an adult tutor. The results showed that, in reading words in which the computer-trained sublexical items were included, both groups exhibited similar improvement. A post hoc analysis suggested that computer training was associated with better reading skills with respect to the trained sublexical items; however, this improvement did not show large generalization effects to the words with the sublexical items. The paired reading group showed a more rapid gain in global word reading fluency than the computer group. Neither of the groups improved their pseudoword reading.


Computer-assisted training Consonant clusters Dyslexia Paired reading Reading fluency 



This paper is part of the first author’s doctoral thesis. This study was supported by the Finnish Center of Excellence Program of the Academy of Finland (44858 and 213486), the Finnish Graduate School of Psychology, Niilo Mäki Foundation, and Finland’s Slot Machine Association. The paired reading training was funded by the Austrian Ministry of Education. We tender our thanks to Minna Torppa for valuable comments on the first version of the manuscript and to Michael Freeman for polishing the language. We would also like to thank the schools and children who participated in the study.


  1. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 494–519. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.4.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berends, I., & Reitsma, P. (2006). Addressing semantics promotes the development of reading fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 247–265. doi:10.1017/S0142716406060279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruck, M., & Treiman, R. (1990). Phonological awareness and spelling in normal children and dyslexics: the case of initial consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 156–178.Google Scholar
  4. Bowers, P. G. (1993). Text reading and rereading: determinants of fluency beyond word recognition. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 133–153.Google Scholar
  5. Bulheller, S., & Häcker, H. (2002). Coloured progressive matrices—Deutsche Bearbeitung und Norminierung [German adaptation and norms]. Frankfurt: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  6. Compton, D. L., Olson, R. K., DeFries, J. C., & Pennington, B. F. (2002). Comparing the relations among two different versions of alphanumeric rapid automatized naming and word reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 343–368. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0604_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 51–77. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0601_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Filippo, G., de Luca, M., Judica, A., Spinelli, D., & Zoccolotti, P. (2006). Lexicality and stimulus length effects in Italian dyslexics: Role of the overadditivity effect. Child Neuropsychology, 12, 141–149. doi:10.1080/09297040500346571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erlbaum, B., Vaughan, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. M. (2000). How effective are the one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for the elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harm, M. W., McCandliss, B., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2003). Modeling the successes and failures of interventions for disabled readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 155–182. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0702_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hintikka, S., Aro, M., & Lyytinen, H. (2005). Computerized training of the correspondences between phonological and orthographic units. Written Language and Literacy, 8, 155–178. doi:10.1075/wll.8.2.07hin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hintikka, S., Landerl, K., Aro, M., & Lyytinen, H. (2008). Training reading fluency: is it important to practice reading aloud and is generalization possible? Annals of Dyslexia, 58, 59–79. doi:10.1007/s11881-008-0012-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holopainen, L., Ahonen, T., & Lyytinen, H. (2001). Predicting delay in reading achievement in a highly transparent language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 401–413. doi:10.1177/002221940103400502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Judica, A., De Luca, M., Spinelli, D., & Zoccolotti, P. (2002). Training of developmental surface dyslexia improves reading performance and shortens eye fixation duration in reading. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 12, 177–198. doi:10.1080/09602010244000002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (Eds.) (2001). The role of fluency in reading competence, assessment, and instruction: fluency at the intersection of accuracy and speed. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 203–210, special issue. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_1
  16. Klicpera, C., & Schabmann, A. (1993). Do German-speaking children have a chance to overcome reading and spelling difficulties? A longitudinal survey from the second until the eighth grade. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8, 307–334.Google Scholar
  17. Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 5, 831–843. doi:10.1038/nrn1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: a review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landerl, K., & Moser, E. (2006). Lesepartner: evaluierung eines 1:1 Tutoring Systems zur Verbesserung der Leseleistungen. Heilpädagogische Forschung, 32, 27–38. Paired reading: evaluation of a 1:1 tutoring system to improve reading skills.Google Scholar
  21. Landerl, K., & Willburger, E. (2008). Der Ein-Minuten Leseflüssigkeitstest—ein Verfahren zur Diagnose der Leistung im Wort- und Pseudowortlesen [One-minute reading fluency test: A method to evaluate word and pseudoword reading performance]. In W. Lenhard, W. Schneider, & H. Marx (Eds.), Tests und trends 2008. Jahrbuch der pädagogisch-psychologischen Diagnostik. Diagnose und Förderung von Leseleistungen und Leseverständnis. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  22. Landerl, K., & Wimmer, H. (2008). Development of word reading fluency and spelling in a consistent orthography: An eight-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 150–161. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Landerl, K., Wimmer, H., & Frith, U. (1997). The impact of orthographic consistency on dyslexia: A German-English comparison. Cognition, 63, 315–334. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00005-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landerl, K., Wimmer, H., & Moser, E. (2006). Salzburger Lese- und Rechtschreibtest [Salzburg Reading and Spelling Test] (2nd ed.). Bern: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
  25. Landi, N., Perfetti, C. A., Bolger, D. J., Dunlap, S., & Foorman, B. R. (2006). The role of discourse context in developing word form representations: A paradoxical relation between reading and learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 114–133. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lemoine, H. E., Levy, B. A., & Hutchinson, A. (1993). Increasing the naming speed of poor readers: Representations formed across repetitions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 297–328. doi:10.1006/jecp.1993.1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levy, B. A. (2001). Moving the bottom: Improving reading fluency. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 357–379). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  28. Levy, B. A., Bourassa, D. C., & Horn, C. (1999). Fast and slow namers: Benefits of segmentation and whole word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 115–138. doi:10.1006/jecp.1999.2497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lovett, M. W., & Steinbach, K. A. (1997). The effectiveness of remedial programs for reading disabled children of different ages: Does the benefit decrease for older children? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 189–210. doi:10.2307/1511308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lovett, M. W., Warren-Chaplin, P. M., Ransby, M. J., & Borden, S. L. (1990). Training word recognition skills of reading disabled children: treatment and transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 769–780. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyytinen, H., Ronimus, M., Alanko, A., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Taanila, M. (2007). Early identification of dyslexia and the use of computer game-based practice to support reading acquisition. Nordic Psychology, 59, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Magnan, A., Ecalle, J., Veuillet, E., & Collet, L. (2004). The effects of an audio-visual training program in dyslexic children. Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 10, 131–140. doi:10.1002/dys.270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martens, V. E. G., & de Jong, P. F. (2006). The effect of visual word features on the acquisition of orthographic knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 337–356. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin-Chang, S. L., & Levy, B. A. (2005). Fluency transfer: Differential gains in reading speed and accuracy following isolated word and context training. Reading and Writing, 18, 343–376. doi:10.1007/s11145-005-0668-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin-Chang, S. L., Levy, B. A., & O’Neil, S. (2007). Word acquisition, retention, and transfer: Findings from contextual and isolated word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 37–56. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayringer, H., & Wimmer, H. (2003). SLS 1–4: Das Salzburger Lese-Screening für die Klassenstufen 1–4 [Salzburg reading-screening for grade 1–4]. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.Google Scholar
  37. Morgan, R., & Lyon, E. (1979). “Paired Reading”: A preliminary report on a technique for parental tuition of reading-retarded children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 20, 151–160. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1979.tb00495.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Connor, R. E., White, A., & Swanson, H. L. (2007). Repeated reading versus continuous reading: influences on reading fluency and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 74, 31–46.Google Scholar
  39. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–173). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36, 321–339. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(83)90036-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schulte-Körne, G., Deimel, W., Hülsmann, J., Seidler, T., & Remschmidt, H. (2001). Das Marburger Rechtschreib-Training—Ergebnisse einer Kurzzeit-Intervention. Zeitschrift fur Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 29, 7–15. Marburg spelling training: Results of a short-term intervention. doi:10.1024//1422-4917.29.1.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95–129. doi:10.1006/jecp.1998.2481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shany, M. T., & Biemiller, A. (1995). Assisted reading practice: Effects on performance for poor readers in Grades 3 and 4. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 382–395. doi:10.2307/747622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2005). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Biological Psychiatry, 1301–1309. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.043
  47. Snowling, M. J. (1981). Phonemic deficits in developmental dyslexia. Psychological Research, 43, 219–234. doi:10.1007/BF00309831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spinelli, D., de Luca, M., Di Filippo, G., Mancini, M., Martelli, M., & Zoccolotti, P. (2005). Length effect in word naming latencies: Role of reading experience and reading deficit. Developmental Neuropsychology, 27, 217–235. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2702_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406. doi:10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stock, C., Marx, P., & Schneider, W. (2003). Basiskompetenzen für Lese- und Rechtschreibleistungen, BAKO 1–4 [Basic competencies for reading and writing skills]. Göttingen: Beltz.Google Scholar
  51. Tewes, U., Rossmann, P., & Schallberger, U. (Eds.) (2000). HAWIK-III: Hamburg-Wechsler—Intelligenztest für Kinder—Dritte Auflage [Hamburg–Wechsler—Intelligence test for children—third edition]. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  52. Thaler, V., Ebner, E. M., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (2004). Training reading fluency in dysfluent readers with high reading accuracy: word specific effects but low transfer to untrained words. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 89–113. doi:10.1007/s11881-004-0005-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Torgesen, J., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 1–21. doi:10.1006/jecp.1996.0040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Torgesen, J., Rashotte, C., & Alexander, A. W. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 333–355). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  55. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Treiman, R. (1991). Children’s spelling errors on syllable-initial consonant clusters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 346–360. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van der Leij, A., & van Daal, V. H. P. (1999). Automatization aspects of dyslexia: Speed limitations in word identification, sensitivity to increasing task demands, and orthographic compensation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 417–428. doi:10.1177/002221949903200507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vellutino, F. M., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 45, 2–40. doi:10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wentink, W. M. H., van Bon, W. H. J., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Training poor readers’ phonological decoding skills: Evidence for syllable bound processing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 163–192. doi:10.1023/A:1007921805360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wimmer, H. (1993). Characteristics of developmental dyslexia in a regular writing system. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wimmer, H., & Mayringer, H. (2002). Dysfluent reading in the absence of spelling difficulties: A specific disability in regular orthographies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 272–277. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Poor reading: A deficit in skill automatization or a phonological deficit? Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 321–340. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0204_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–239. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yap, R., & van der Leij, A. (1993). Word processing in dyslexics: An automatic decoding deficit? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 261–279. doi:10.1007/BF01027391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquistion, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., My-Wyatt, A., Ladner, D., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2003). Developmental dyslexia in different languages: Language-specific or universal? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 169–193. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00139-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zoccolotti, P., De Luca, M., Di Pace, E., Judica, A., Orlandi, M., & Spinelli, D. (1999). Markers of developmental surface dyslexia in a language (Italian) with high grapheme–phoneme correspondence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 191–216. doi:10.1017/S0142716499002027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Dyslexia Association 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sini Huemer (née Hintikka)
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Karin Landerl
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mikko Aro
    • 1
  • Heikki Lyytinen
    • 4
  1. 1.Niilo Mäki InstituteUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.University of SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  3. 3.University of TübingenTübingenGermany
  4. 4.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations