The validity of reading comprehension rate: Reading speed, comprehension, and comprehension rates

Abstract

This article describes a secondary analysis of a brief reading comprehension rate measure, percent comprehension questions correct per minute spent reading (%C/M). This measure includes reading speed (seconds to read) in the denominator and percentage of comprehension questions answered correctly in the numerator. Participants were 22 4th-, 29 5th-, and 37 10th-grade students. Results showed that reading speed accounted for much of the variance in Broad Reading Cluster scores and subtest scores of the Woodcock -Johnson III Tests of Achievement across all grade levels. Converting reading speed to the rate measure %C/M increased Broad Reading Cluster variance accounted for in the 4th-and 5th-grade sample, but decreased the Broad Reading Cluster variance accounted for in the 10th-grade sample. Discussion focuses on the importance of reading speed and the failure to enhance validity of a brief rate measure in more skilled readers by incorporating a direct measure of comprehension. C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Words correct per minute: The variance in standardized reading scores accounted for by reading speed

“…In both studies much of the variance in broad reading scores accounted for by WC/M could be accounted for by reading speed. These results support the Skinner and colleagues (2009) investigation, which indicated that the measure of reading speed embedded within an RCR could account for most of the broad reading skill variance and have theoretical implications. Various causal models explain how reading speed is related to reading skill development, and reading, cognitive, and behavioral researchers have recommended implementing procedures designed to enhance reading speed (Adams, 1990; Binder, 1996, LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Perfetti, 1977; Rasinski, 2004, Skinner, 1998; Stanovich, 1986).…”

“…When reading speed was combined with words read correctly and converted to WC/M, it accounted for less than 8% additional reading composite score variance. Although this analysis is the first investigation of WC/M designed to parse the variance in global reading skills accounted for by reading speed, results support the only similar investigation: the Skinner and colleagues (2009) investigation of reading speed embedded within an RCR measure.…”

“…WC/M includes no direct assessment of comprehension; instead accurate, aloud word reading (word calling) is assessed. WC/M incorporates a measure of reading speed, however, and previous researchers have shown that the measure of reading speed embedded within an RCR measure could account for most of the variance in global reading skills (Skinner et al, 2009), suggesting what is measured may be less important than incorporating a measure of reading speed in the measure. Although WC/M may be the most thoroughly investigated brief rate measure (Poncy, McCallum, & Skinner, in press), researchers have not determined how much global reading variance can be accounted for by the measure of reading speed embedded within WC/M.…”

“…A recent follow‐up study, however, suggests that the direct measure of comprehension (the numerator in the RCR measure) accounts for little broad reading skill variance. Specifically, a secondary analysis of the Neddenriep and colleagues (2007) data revealed that reading speed alone accounted for most of the BRC score variance (Skinner et al, 2009). Thus, supplementing reading speed by including the reading comprehension measures (numerator) and converting these two measures to an RCR measure caused only small increases in BRC variance accounted (relative to reading speed alone) for in the 4th‐ and 5th‐grade samples, and no increase in the 10th‐grade sample.…”

Can We Learn From Student Mistakes in a Formative, Reading Comprehension Assessment?

“…The National Reading Panel (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002) defined fluency in terms of accuracy, appropriate rate, and good expression. Although the definition refers to appropriate rate, rather than a fast rate per se, measures of fluency use scores such as correct words per minute in which faster is better, other things being equal (e.g., Cianco, Thompson, Schall, Skinner, & Foorman, 2015;Hale et al, 2011;McCane-Bowling, Strait, Guess, Wiedo, & Muncie, 2014;Skinner et al, 2009;Skinner, Neddenriep, Bradley-Klug, & Ziemann, 2002). As a result, we are interested in whether response rate on comprehension items answered correctly can be used to monitor progress in attaining automaticity.…”