↓ Skip to main content

Preliminary validation of FastaReada as a measure of reading fluency

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preliminary validation of FastaReada as a measure of reading fluency
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01634
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zena Elhassan, Sheila G. Crewther, Edith L. Bavin, David P. Crewther

Abstract

Fluent reading is characterized by speed and accuracy in the decoding and comprehension of connected text. Although a variety of measures are available for the assessment of reading skills most tests do not evaluate rate of text recognition as reflected in fluent reading. Here we evaluate FastaReada, a customized computer-generated task that was developed to address some of the limitations of currently available measures of reading skills. FastaReada provides a rapid assessment of reading fluency quantified as words read per minute for connected, meaningful text. To test the criterion validity of FastaReada, 124 mainstream school children with typical sensory, mental and motor development were assessed. Performance on FastaReada was correlated with the established Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA) measures of text reading accuracy, rate and comprehension, and common single word measures of pseudoword (non-word) reading, phonetic decoding, phonological awareness (PA) and mode of word decoding (i.e., visual or eidetic versus auditory or phonetic). The results demonstrated strong positive correlations between FastaReada performance and NARA reading rate (r = 0.75), accuracy (r = 0.83) and comprehension (r = 0.63) scores providing evidence for criterion-related validity. Additional evidence for criterion validity was demonstrated through strong positive correlations between FastaReada and both single word eidetic (r = 0.81) and phonetic decoding skills (r = 0.68). The results also demonstrated FastaReada to be a stronger predictor of eidetic decoding than the NARA rate measure, with FastaReada predicting 14.4% of the variance compared to 2.6% predicted by NARA rate. FastaReada was therefore deemed to be a valid tool for educators, clinicians, and research related assessment of reading accuracy and rate. As expected, analysis with hierarchical regressions also highlighted the closer relationship of fluent reading to rapid visual word recognition than to phonological-based skills. Eidetic decoding was the strongest predictor of FastaReada performance (16.8%) followed by phonetic decoding skill (1.7%). PA did not make a unique contribution after eidetic decoding and phonetic decoding skills were accounted for.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 23%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Linguistics 4 8%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,718,666
of 23,317,888 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,869
of 31,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,121
of 285,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#455
of 488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,317,888 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 488 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.