Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Automaticity Training on Reading Performance: A Meta-Analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Behavioral Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the overall effects of automaticity training of fundamental literacy component skills (i.e., letter names/sounds, individual words) on reading fluency and comprehension. Another purpose was to assess if the effects of automaticity training varied for reading fluency and comprehension. We identified 11 research studies involving students in Grades 1–6 that met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. A total of 83 effect sizes (Hedges g, corrected for sample size bias) were extracted from these studies. These studies were double-coded for specific features (e.g., student age, student grade, type of automaticity training). We meta-analyzed the effect sizes using a multi-level meta-analytic model and examined whether the outcome measure type (comprehension or fluency) moderated the effects of automaticity training. We also analyzed for publication bias. The overall effect size for automaticity training of fundamental literacy component skills on reading fluency and comprehension was 0.28, although it was not statistically significant. Shifting units of analysis approach indicated there was a statistically significant effect found for reading fluency outcomes [g = 0.48 (CI = .23, .72)] but not for reading comprehension (ES = 0.17 ns). Limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis

  • Allen, T. K. (1982). Automaticity of word identification and reading comprehension (Publication No. 8300417) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California-Berkley]. ProQuest Dissertations ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

  • Archwamety, T., & Samuels, S. J. (1973). A mastery based experimental program for teaching mentally retarded children word recognition and reading comprehension skills through use of hypothesis/test procedures. (Tech. Rep. No. 12). Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, United States Office of Education.

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begeny, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (2006). Assessing pre-service teachers’ training in empirically-validated behavioral instruction practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393163

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, C., Haughton, E. E., & Bateman, B., (2002). Fluency: Achieving true mastery in the learning process. Technical report, University of Virginia Curry School of Special Education, Professional Papers in Special Education

  • Bloom, B. S. (1986). Automaticity: ‘The hands and feet of genius.’ Educational Leadership, 43, 70–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, W. L., & Harter, N. (1897). Studies in the physiology and psychology of the telegraphic language. Psychological Review, 4, 27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chard, D. J., Simmons, D. C., & Kamé Enui, E. J. (1995). Word recognition: Curricular and instructional implications for diverse learners. National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators, College of Education, University of Oregon.

  • Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350050101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Dahl, P. J. (1974). An experimental program for teaching high speed word recognition and comprehension skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 099812) National Institute of Education, Office of Research.

  • Dougherty, K. M., & Johnston, J. M. (1996). Overlearning, fluency, and automaticity. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 289–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393171

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315, 629–634.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1995.tb00077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1979). The mnemonic value of orthography among beginning readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1983). Development of word identification speed in skilled and less skilled beginning readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.1.3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, E. S., & Worthington, L. A. (1994). Executive summary of research synthesis on effective teaching principles and the design of quality tools for educators. (Technical Report No. 6). National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators, College of Education, University of Oregon.

  • Engelmann, S. (1999). The benefits of direct instruction: Affirmative action for at-risk students. Educational Leadership, 57, 77–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Fiedorowicz, C. A. M., & Trites, R. L. (1987). An evaluation of the effectiveness of computer-assisted component reading subskills training. MGS Publication Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Fleisher, L. S., Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. (1979). Effects on poor readers’ comprehension of training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/747430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). What is scientifically-based research on progress monitoring? National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success (1st edn.). Little, Brown, and Company.

  • Goodman, K., & Goodman, Y. (1979). Learning to read is natural. Theory and Practice of Early Reading, 1, 137–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grissom, R. J., & Kim, J. J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: The evidence-base for how writing can improve reading. Alliance for Excellent Education (Manuscript commissioned by the Carnegie Corporation of New York).

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickman, F. M. (1978). A study to investigate the effects of automatic level word recognition training on oral reading achievement in second graders (Publication No. 7823271) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas] ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global

  • Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (2004). Speech recognition-based and automaticity programs to help students with severe reading and spelling problems. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-004-0017-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hudson, R. F., Isakson, C., Richman, T., Lane, H. B., & Arriaza-Allen, S. (2011a). An examination of a small-group decoding intervention for struggling readers: Comparing accuracy and automaticity criteria. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2011b). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58, 702–714. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.8.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kairaluoma, L., Ahonen, T., Aro, M., & Holopainen, L. (2007). Boosting reading fluency: An intervention case study at subword level. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 253–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S. G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking component skills of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S. G. (2020). Toward integrative reading science: The direct and indirect effects model of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53, 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420908239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49, 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubina, R. M., Jr., & Morrison, R. S. (2000). Fluency in education. Behavior and Social Issues, 10, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v10i0.133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Levy, B. A., Abello, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Transfer from word training to reading in context: Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 173–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowski, L., Begeny, J., & Rogers, C. (2006). Word-recognition training: Computer versus tutor. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560500455786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc.

  • Lipsey, M. W., Puzio, K., Yun, C., Hebert, M. A., Steinka-Fry, K., Cole, M. W., Roberts, M., Anthony, K. S., & Busick, M. D. (2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms. National Center for Special Education Research.

  • Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of automatization. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356970130203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-0668-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonagh, S. H. (2003). Developing automaticity at the component skill levels of letter-sound correspondence, letter combinations, word reading and connected text: An analysis of outcomes for children at risk for reading difficulties in grades two and three (Oregon).

  • Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge University Press.

  • National Reading Panel (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

  • Nelson, R. J., (2019, May 18). First steps to reading fluency [Google Play] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/first-steps-to-reading-fluency/id1356214665

  • Park, S., & Beretvas, S. N. (2019). Synthesizing effects for multiple outcomes per study using robust variance estimation versus the three-level model. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 152–171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., Dardick, W., & Tao, S. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 48. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., & Hogaboam, T. (1975). Relationship between single word decoding and reading comprehension skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., & Lesgold, A. M. (1979). Coding and comprehension in skilled reading and implications for reading instruction. Theory and Practice of Early Reading, 1, 57–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 8–38. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., McKeon, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., & Heim, P. (2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.49.1.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, D., Dahl, P., & Archwamety, T. (1974). Effect of hypothesis/test training on reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 835–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, S. J., & Flor, R. F. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356970130202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7(2), 112–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209508406961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Spring, C., Blunden, D., & Gatheral, M. A. (1981). Effect on reading comprehension of training to automaticity in word-reading. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 779–786. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1981.53.3.779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Strother, M. (1984). Effects of automaticity training strategies on word recognition, reading speed, and comprehension [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Arizona State University.

  • Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414528540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Tan, A., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K. (1986). Learning disabilities theory: Its current state and future prospects. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948601900708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treffinger, D. J., Davis, J. K., & Ripple, R. E. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook on teaching educational psychology. Academic Press.

  • van den Broek, P., Mouw, J. M., & Kraal, A. (2016). Individual differences in reading comprehension. In: Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 138–150).

  • Vevea, J. L., Coburn, K., & Sutton, A. (2019). Publication bias. In: H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.) The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3 edn, pp. 383–429). Russell Sage Foundation.

  • Viechtbauer, W., & Viechtbauer, M. W. (2015). Package ‘metafor’. In: The comprehensive R Archive network. Package ‘metafor’. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/metafor/metafor.pdf.

  • Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Ciullo, S. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing, 23, 889–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose.

  • *Weber, W. R., & Henderson, E. H. (1989). A computer-based program of word study: Effects on reading and spelling. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 10, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271890100204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, F. B., Flowers, L., & Grigorenko, E. (2001). On the functional neuroanatomy of fluency or why walking is just as important to reading as talking is. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 235–244). York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S., Burke, L., Kunzelmann, H., & Koenig, C. (1978). Functional criteria in basic math skill proficiency. Journal of Special Education Technology, 2, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264347800200205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yovanoff, P., Duesbery, L., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2005). Grade-level invariance of a theoretical causal structure predicting reading comprehension with vocabulary and oral reading fluency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(3), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00014

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, University of Nebraska, 124 Barkley Memorial Center, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0728, USA

    Samantha Cooper

  2. Department of Education, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

    Michael Hebert

  3. Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture, Texas A&M, College Station, TX, USA

    J. Marc Goodrich

  4. Department of Special Education, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Xin Lin & Peng Peng

  5. Deparment of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Sergio Leiva & J. Ron Nelson

Authors
  1. Samantha Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Hebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Marc Goodrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sergio Leiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xin Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peng Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. Ron Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samantha Cooper.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest with any of the interventions reported in this manuscript. Additionally, because this is a meta-analysis, there were no human participants and the informed consent process is not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cooper, S., Hebert, M., Goodrich, J.M. et al. Effects of Automaticity Training on Reading Performance: A Meta-Analysis. J Behav Educ 33, 23–52 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-022-09480-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-022-09480-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation