Sources of Individual Differences in Reading Comprehension and Reading Fluency.

By J. Jenkins, Lynn S. Fuchs, Paul van den Broek, C. Espin, S. Deno. 2003

582 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e5fe6884d1eddbfe92cef8c515bf57d39bab9375

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Nonie K. Lesaux
2. Y. Kim
3. E. Geva
4. S. L. Klauda
5. W. Grabe
6. B. Hannon
7. J. R. García
8. Barbara J. Wendling

In Statistics and Probability

1. Nonie K. Lesaux
2. E. Geva
3. Y. Kim
4. B. Hannon
5. W. Grabe
6. Barbara J. Wendling
7. J. Carlisle
8. Fataneh Farnia

Citations in the corpus

• Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1 (2012, background): “The discrepancy in the conclusions may reflect methodological differences between the studies. Jenkins et al. (2003) did”
• The Components of the Simple View of Reading: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (2012, background): “Further strong associations between fluency measures and reading comprehension have been reported, depending on the types of testing materials (eg, Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003a , 2003b ; Riedel, 2007 ).”
• Cattell–Horn–Carroll cognitive‐achievement relations: What we have learned from the past 20 years of research (2010, result): “A strong relationship between RC and quick and automatic processing of letters and words (fluency) and word reading speed (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Jenkins et al., 2003) is consistent with the strong perceptual speed (Gs-P) and RC findings.”
• Relationships of Three Components of Reading Fluency to Reading Comprehension. (2008, background): “While Jenkins et al. (2003b) focused primarily on the semantic processes, we focus more on the role of syntactic processing of sentences as an individual constituent of fluency and contributor to comprehension.”
• Are Fluency Measures Accurate Predictors of Reading Achievement? (2007, background): “Although good readers tend to be fluent readers (in terms of speed and accuracy of oral reading), fluency does not ensure good comprehension (Jenkins et al., 2003).”
• Repeated Reading versus Continuous Reading: Influences on Reading Fluency and Comprehension (2007, background): “…students with reading difficulties have trouble recognizing words accurately (Rack, Snowling, & Olson, 1992) as well as recognizing them quickly (Jenkins et al., 2003), the most commonly recommended procedure for improving the reading rate of students with reading disabilities is repeated…”
• The Complex Nature of Reading Fluency: A Multidimensional View (2008, background): “They also found that the SFPs were significantly quicker and more accurate than the WCs (E.S.¼ 1.07).”
• Decoding and Reading Comprehension (2014, background): “First, better decoders will be able to devote greater cognitive resources to the processes involved in constructing meaning from text, because they have fast and efficient word recognition skills (e.g., Frederiksen & Warren, 1987; Jenkins et al., 2003; Just & Carpenter, 1987; Perfetti, 1985; Walczyk”