Monitoring Early Reading Development in First Grade: Word Identification Fluency versus Nonsense Word Fluency

256 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Complex Nature of Reading Fluency: A Multidimensional View (2008, background): “Fuchs et al. (2004) also found that the slope of improvement in word identification fluency explained significantly more variance in oral reading rate and accuracy than DIBELS NWF did.”
Evaluating Curriculum-Based Measurement Slope Estimates Using Data From Triannual Universal Screenings (2008, background): “There are more than 150 published articles on the psychometric properties of CBM and CBM-R (Fuchs et al., 2004).”
Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading. NCEE 2016-4000. (2015, unknown): “Gilbert et al. (2013); Vadasy, Jenkins, and Pool (2000); D.”
Literature Synthesis on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading (2007, background): “Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton (2004) compared the validity of a word-ID task and nonsense word fluency (NWF) task for first graders at risk in reading.”
Reading Fluency as a Predictor of Reading Proficiency in Low-Performing, High-Poverty Schools (2008, background): “Only a handful of studies have examined slope on ORF, and most of these suggest that steeper slopes are desirable (Fuchs et al. 1993; Speece & Ritchey, 2005). On a measure like ORF, there is inherent justification for attempts to increase slope. Developing reading fluency is an important goal on its”