The Validity of Two Tests of Silent Reading Fluency: A Meta-Analytic Review

Wissinger, Daniel R.; Truckenmiller, Adrea J.; Konek, Amber E.; Ciullo, Stephen

doi:10.1080/10573569.2023.2175340

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both tests take 3 minutes to administer, and they may be given individually or to groups of students. A recent meta-analysis by Wissinger and colleagues (2023) found minimal standardized mean differences between the TOSWRF-2, TOSCRF-2, and other norm-referenced reading tests, thus supporting their validity as measures of reading competence. Because the silent reading format emphasizes word recognition (rather than retrieval) and bypasses constraints on speech output, scores on these tests are less likely to be confounded by problems with the lexical access (WFD) or the forward flow of speech.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Oral Reading Assessment: Four Conditions Where Caution Is Warranted

Zipoli,

Ramachandar

2023

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessments of oral reading are widely used for screening, progress monitoring, and comprehensive evaluations. Despite the utility and technical adequacy of these tools, there are subgroups of students for whom measures of oral reading may be inappropriate. The first section of this article focuses on how tests of oral reading may underestimate word reading ability and reading fluency among four subgroups of students with speech, language, or learning difficulties. These include school-age students who demonstrate word-finding difficulties (which are common among students with a learning disability or developmental language disorder), developmental stuttering, childhood apraxia of speech, and pediatric dysarthria. The second section offers practical recommendations for more accurate assessment procedures, correct placement decisions, relevant professional learning activities, and strategic interdisciplinary teaming.

show abstract

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 90%