Skip to main content

Understanding oral reading fluency among adults with low literacy: dominance analysis of contributing component skills

Reading and Writing volume 25, pages 1345–1364 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

This study extends the literature on the component skills involved in oral reading fluency. Dominance analysis was applied to assess the relative importance of seven reading-related component skills in the prediction of the oral reading fluency of 272 adult literacy learners. The best predictors of oral reading fluency when text difficulty was fixed at a single reading level was word reading efficiency. When text difficulty varied based on readers’ comprehension levels, word reading efficiency was also the best predictor with vocabulary and auditory working memory emerging as important predictors as well. Our findings suggest the merit of investigations into whether adults with low literacy may need vocabulary and auditory working memory strategy interventions to improve their reading fluency.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Adolf, S., Catts, H., & Little, T. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 933–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allington, R. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36, 556–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, J., Kutner, M., Sabatini, J., & White, S. (2009). Basic reading skills and the literacy of America’s least literate adults. Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) supplemental studies (Report No. NCES 2009–481). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, A., Catts, H., & Anthony, J. (2009). Component skills underlying reading fluency in adolescent readers: A latent variable analysis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 567–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, L., & Perfetti, C. (1994). Reading skill: Some adult comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 244–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Billingsley, F., & Nagy, W. (2001). Processes underlying timing and fluency of reading: Efficiency, automaticity, coordination, and morphological awareness. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 383–414). Timonium, MD: York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS). (2001). CASAS technical manual. San Diego, CA: CASAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowhower, S. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s unattended bedfellow. Theory into Practice, 30, 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. (1995). Stages of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 116–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. (2003a). Accuracy and fluency in list and context reading of skilled and RD groups: Absolute and relative performance levels. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(4), 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. (2003b). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kame’enui, E., & Simmons, D. (2001). Introduction to this special issue: The DNA of reading fluency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, T., Kim, Y., Wolf, M., O’Brien, B., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., et al. (2006). Reading fluency: The whole is more than the parts. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 51–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., & Baer, J. (2005). National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL): A first look at the literacy of America’s adults in the 21st century (Report No. NCES 2006–470). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., & Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (Report No. NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

  • LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory-3. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Examiner’s manual. Woodcock Johnson-III test of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellard, D., Fall, E., & Mark, C. (2009). Reading profiles for adults with low-literacy: Cluster analysis with power and speeded measures. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 975–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellard, D., Woods, K., & Fall, E. (2011). Assessment and instruction of oral reading fluency among adults with low literacy. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 5, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, R., & Stanovich, K. (1991). The causes and consequences of differences in reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30, 176–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Patterson, M. B. (2008). Learning disability prevalence and adult education program characteristics. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23, 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pikulski, J., & Chard, D. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinnell, G., Pikulski, J., Wixon, K., Campbell, J., Gough, P., & Beatty, A. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, T. (2010). Assessing reading fluency. Educational service material, Product # ES0414. Honolulu, HI: Pacific resources for educational and learning. Retrieved from http://www.prel.org/products/re_/assessing-fluency.htm.

  • Sabatini, J. (2002). Efficiency in word reading of adults: Ability group comparisons. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 267–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, S. J., & Farstrup, A. (Eds.). (2006). What research has to say about fluency instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, P. (1991). Understanding prosody’s role in reading acquisition. Theory into Practice, 30, 158–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2000). The effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for students with learning and behavior problems: An update and research synthesis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J., Rashotte, C., & Alexander, A. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 335–355). Timonium, MD: York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency (TOWRE). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. (2007). On the division of short-term and working memory: An examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher order abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1038–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. Office of Adult and Vocational Education. Division of Adult Education and Literacy. (2001). Measures and methods for the National Reporting System for adult education: Implementation guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (2006). Enrollment and participation in the State-Administered Adult Education Program 2004–2005 tables. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/aedatatables.html.

  • Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (1999). The comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1997). Manual for the wechsler adult intelligence scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederholt, J., & Bryant, B. (2001). Gray oral reading test-fourth edition (GORT-4). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999). The “Double-Deficit Hypothesis” for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., Bowers, P., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery tests—Revised: Examiner’s manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper reports findings from a study funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute for Literacy, and the U.S. Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education (Award # RO 1 HD 43775).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas, J. R. Pearson Hall, Room 517, 1122 West Campus Rd, Lawrence, KS, 66045-3101, USA

    Daryl F. Mellard & Kari L. Woods

  2. Children’s Learning Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Jason L. Anthony

Authors
  1. Daryl F. Mellard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason L. Anthony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kari L. Woods
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daryl F. Mellard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mellard, D.F., Anthony, J.L. & Woods, K.L. Understanding oral reading fluency among adults with low literacy: dominance analysis of contributing component skills. Read Writ 25, 1345–1364 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9322-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9322-y

Keywords

  • Adult literacy
  • Adult education
  • Oral reading fluency
  • Reading