Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Studies in Psychology
To cite this article: M. Carmen González-Trujillo, Nuria Calet, Sylvia Defior & Nicolás Gutiérrez-
Palma (2014) Scale of reading fluency in Spanish: measuring the components of fluency /
Escala de fluidez lectora en español: midiendo los componentes de la fluidez, Estudios de
Psicología, 35:1, 104-136, DOI: 10.1080/02109395.2014.893651
Download by: [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] Date: 25 April 2016, At: 13:25
Estudios de Psicología / Studies in Psychology, 2014
Vol. 35, No. 1, 104–136, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2014.893651
a
Universidad de Granada; bUniversidad de Jaén
(Received 28 May 2012; accepted 10 October 2012)
Abstract: The main purpose of this study was to design and validate a rating
scale to measure reading fluency. As well as speed and accuracy, different
dimensions of prosody were taken into account (volume, intonation, pauses
and phrasing), aspects hardly considered in reading assessment. In addition, a
measure of reading quality was included. 122 Spanish primary-school chil-
dren (74 in Year 2 and 48 in Year 4) read aloud a narrative text. Using inter-
rater criteria, children’s reading was assessed with this new rating scale (Scale
of Reading Fluency in Spanish, SRFS) (Escala de Fluidez Lectora en
Español, EFLE) and with the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Rasinski,
2004). Standardized reading comprehension and prosodic reading tests were
used as criterion measures. Results show acceptable reliability and validity
coefficients. We conclude that SRFS appears to be a useful instrument for
using in education and research contexts.
Keywords: reading fluency; assessment; rating scale; prosodic reading;
reading comprehension
complicated.
Currently, from the view that includes prosody as a component, two sorts of
measures are used to assess reading fluency: spectrographic measures and fluency
rating scales. The first visually represents and analyses sound waves to determine
prosodic features of reading. Studies using these types of measures (e.g., Miller &
Schwanenflugel, 2006, 2008) have found a relationship between distinguishing
prosodic features of the discourse — length of pauses, the fundamental frequency
profile and a decline in fundamental frequency at the end of sentences — and
reading comprehension skills such as word reading and text comprehension.
Research regarding the assessment of fluency via rating scales has been
conducted exclusively in English. Allington (1983) used a 6-point scale that
discriminates between word by word reading (1 point) to reading that follows
punctuation, that is syntactically and semantically correct and that is done with the
expressiveness that approximates oral language (6 points).
Along the same lines, Pinnell et al. (1995) developed a 4-point fluency scale.
The lowest level (1 point) corresponds to reading mostly word by word, with
occasional phrases made up of two or three words. At the highest level (4 points),
reading was fragmented into significant phrases with possible regressions, repeti-
tions, and deviations, but keeping the syntax. Additionally, expressiveness should
be a distinctive feature throughout most of the text.
In addition, Zutell and Rasinski (1991) created a rating scale consisting of
three components: phrasing (phrase grouping), continuity or reading without
interruption, and reading speed. Rasinski (2004) adapted this rating scale after-
wards by adding another component, constituted by expressiveness and volume
(see the description of this rating scale in the section Instruments). Recently,
Benjamin et al. (2013) have developed a new fluency rating scale in English
which include two subscales: Automaticity (speed and accuracy) and Prosody
(intonation and pauses).
There are no validity and reliability studies for these types of rating scales in
Spanish, especially for ones that consider prosodic or expressiveness components.
In contrast to spectrographic measures, rating scales are more accessible and
demand less time, two important aspects in an educational context. Moreover,
Cowie, Douglas-Cowie, and Wichmann (2002) found an objective concordance
between fluency measures obtained by spectrographic measures and those who
rated it by listening to individuals who had different reading levels.
108 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
Given the known similarity of results between rating scales and spectrographic
measures, our aim was to design a rating scale to assess reading fluency, in order
to provide education and clinical researchers and professionals with an easy to use
instrument that reliably measures the reader’s achievements and shortcomings in
this variable. It is also a useful instrument in intervention as it is can provide
guidance on components that are lacking in fluency. The purpose is to create a
rating scale that integrates speed, accuracy and prosody.
This scale was designed in part based on the Multidimensional Fluency Scale
(Rasinski, 2004), but also using as a reference the prosodic features most relevant
to reading, according to Miller and Schwanenflugel’s research (2006, 2008), such
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
as varying pitch at the end of sentences or the pattern of pauses. The prosodic
features of Spanish (Quilis, 2008) were also taken into account. Four main
components were considered in its design: speed, accuracy, prosody and reading
quality. Although there are quantitative measures for speed and accuracy, it was
considered that an evaluation of whether children had decoded the words properly
or whether the reading speed was adequate provided relevant information as part
of a reading fluency scale. Additionally, a secondary objective in the study was to
determine what kind of relationship existed between each of the fluency compo-
nents previously studied — speed, accuracy and prosody — and our assessment
of reading quality, in order to see whether reading quality is primarily determined
by one of these previously studied components.
In addition, reading comprehension, reading efficiency and other fluency mea-
sures were taken in order to examine the reliability and validity of the SRFS scale.
The objective was to confirm the scale’s quality and to analyse, at an exploratory
level, its performance in several primary classes. Two years were selected corre-
sponding to initial and intermediate reading levels. At the initial level decoding
ability has not yet been fully acquired children are at the ‘learning to read’ stage. At
the intermediate level, children are at the ‘reading to learn’ stage (Wolf, 2008).
In summary, the SRFS (Escala de Fluidez Lectora en Español, EFLE) was
designed as a necessary instrument to properly assess reading fluency in Spanish,
one of the critical components in skilled reading (e.g., Rasinski et al., 2006).
SRFS explicitly incorporates the three components of fluency — speed, accuracy
and prosody — integrating results from latest research. It also assesses reading
quality, an important component for compiling collected information.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 122 Spanish children in PE: 74 in Year 2, 42 boys and 32
girls (mean age in months = 90.5, SD = 4.79) and 48 in Year 4, 19 boys and 29
girls (mean age in months = 114.7, SD = 4.5) from a middle socioeconomic-
cultural background. Their first language was Spanish and none of them showed
delays in reading performance or intellectual ability. Two children were removed
because of that. Their participation required informed consent from parents and
verbal assent from the child.
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 109
Instruments
Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1996). This test
assesses nonverbal intellectual ability. It is a multiple choice reasoning test with
question listed in order of difficulty. The general scale was used. Participants had
to select the piece that best completes a series of drawings from five or six
alternatives. The manual states that Cronbach’s alpha reliability is .85.
multiple choice questions. The child reads several texts that increase difficulty as
they progress through the test. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicated by the
manual is .97.
Accuracy. It covers the range from numerous decoding errors to not making errors
and/or self-correction.
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
(1) Volume. It covers a range from reading very loudly or very quietly, to
reading with a volume appropriate to the text.
(2) Intonation. The range varies from monotonous reading, without marking
the end of sentences by increasing or decreasing intonation, to melodic
reading, according to the type of sentence, clearly stating dialogues and
changes in intonation at the end of sentences.
(3) Pauses. The assessment range includes making numerous intrusive
pauses, often in the middle of words, and a lack of concern for syntactic
units with repeated hesitations, to a constant awareness of punctuation
marks and syntactic boundaries when a pause is made. For example, the
meaning would be completely changed if a child missed the comma while
reading the following sentence: ‘Let’s eat, Grandma’.
(4) Phrasing. This sub-dimension is complementary to the sub-dimension of
pauses. It fluctuates between reading word by word, without regard to
syntactic boundaries that define the sentence meaning or the punctuation
marks, to awareness of these two variables. For example, in the sentence,
he thought, I’ll wash and feed the dog before going to the vet, if a child
segments this sentence erroneously, he thought, pause I’ll wash pause and
feed the dog before going to the vet, it does not capture the meaning of the
sentence. Even if the reader did acknowledge the pause indicated by the
comma, it would not be correctly segmented.
Reading Quality. This new overall indicator fluctuates between a boring read,
simply telling the words, and capturing the listener’s attention, producing the
feeling that you are listening to a story.
Two experts evaluated and confirmed that the items were well defined, clearly
written and were relevant to the study’s purpose. Each of the components and
dimensions are assessed on a numerical scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest
performance and 4 the highest. Each score is specifically described in order to
facilitate and ensure that the valuation is as objective as possible. Maximum score
is 28. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for SRFS was .91. See rating scale in
Appendix 1.
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 111
Procedure
Participants were tested in two separate sessions, the application of the tests were
followed in the same order. Firstly, a group session lasting approximately half an
hour was conducted, applying the reading comprehension tests (TECLE and CLP
tests). The second session, about 15 minutes long, was conducted individually,
measuring Punctuation Marks (PROLEC-R Test). The Punctuation Mark subtext
reading was recorded in order to assess fluency by inter-rater agreement proce-
dure. The text was chosen for several reasons: a) it contains different kinds of
clauses (e.g., declarative, exclamatory, closed and open interrogatives), b) it was
created to measure intonation corresponding to 11 punctuation marks (four full
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
stops, two commas, three question marks and two exclamation marks), and c) the
complexity of the phrases is appropriated to the children’s reading level.
Participants were asked to read the story as well as they could and with proper
intonation. The recordings were performed in a quiet room at the school.
Afterwards, eight adult readers who were experienced with reading (primary
school teachers and researchers) assessed the children’s reading. They had been
previously given theoretical and practical explanations on the use of the scales.
Four of them evaluated reading fluency using the Multidimensional Fluency Scale
(Rasinski, 2004) and the other four evaluated it using SRFS. In the Rasinski’s
rating scale (2004), there was an inter-rater agreement ranging from between α =
.85 and α = .88. For the SRFS, the agreement of the other four raters was between
α = .93 and α = .96.
Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the intelligence measures, reading
comprehension (text and sentences) tests, punctuation marks and fluency rating
scales from Year 2 and 4. Participants scored in the upper middle range in all
measures.
Following the rules of the American Educational Research Association,
American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in
Education (1999), reliability and validity data are presented for each grade level
separately.
Item analysis
Descriptive statistics of the four SRFS’ components according to the school year
are shown in Table 2.
As can be seen, in general the asymmetry and kurtosis indexes are < /2/ in
Year 2, as recommended by Bollen and Long (1994), indicating similarity to the
normal curve. However, the volume item has a kurtosis and asymmetry value of
above /2/. In Year 4, the kurtosis indexes are similar to ones in Year 2, only the
volume item is above 2. The data suggests that volume is generally an acquired
dimension, children read adjusting their volume according to the text. The
accuracy item also presents asymmetry values above /2/ in both years, showing
112 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
(1.95) (1.69)
EFLEa (max = 28) 8.50 28 19.63 18 28 24.34
(4.68) (2.36)
EMFb (max = 16) 4 16 9.90 9.5 16 13.60
(3.23) (1.45)
Notes: a Scale of Reading in Spanish Fluency, b
Multidimensional Fluency Scale.
that by Year 2 most children are already reading with proper accuracy. Regarding
asymmetry, in Year 4, values of above /2/ in fluency components were observed,
showing the development of these skills.
An analysis was performed on the internal structure of the scale to calculate
the construct validity. First, the correlations between the items that constitute the
prosody component were analysed: volume, intonation, pauses and phrasing (see
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the items that the Scale of Reading Fluency in Spanish
consists of and asymmetry and kurtosis indexes in Year 2 and 4.
Year 2 Year 4
Components M ZAsymmetry Zkurtosis M ZAsymmetry Zkurtosis
1. Speed 2.62 .10 –1.68 3.49 –2.89 –.38
(.91) (.62)
2. Accuracy 3.26 –3.36 .26 3.79 –4.02 .92
(.81) (.34)
3. Prosody
a. Volume 3.40 –4.96 3.80 3.61 –5.47 3.84
(.67) (.70)
b. Intonation 2.50 .71 –1.34 3.38 –2.21 .47
(.76) (.53)
c. Pauses 2.69 –.02 –1.28 3.52 –2.40 .72
(.83) (.48)
d. Phrasing 2.78 –.84 –1.57 3.69 –3.61 .96
(.89) (.43)
4. Quality 2.39 .90 –1.16 3.22 –1.17 –.16
(.84) (.61)
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 113
Table 3. Pearson’s inter-item correlations with items from the prosody dimension in Year
2 and 4.
a b c d
Year 2
a. Volume – .40(**) .36(**) .33(**)
b. Intonation – .77(**) .69(**)
c. Pauses – .85(**)
d. Phrasing –
Year 4
a. Volume – .29(**) –.12 –.18
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
Table 3). The results generally showed average correlations, indicating the validity
of the composition of dimensions.
It is worth highlighting that the dimension of volume was not correlated with
phrasing and pauses in Year 4, showing that while reading at the appropriate
volume has been acquired, as suggested by the distribution of the children, more
complex dimensions such as phrasing and pauses require more reading experience
and hours for attainment. Furthermore, the highest correlations are observed
between phrasing and pauses in the two years. The two dimensions are theoreti-
cally complementary and dependent; grouping phrases by meaning has to be
accompanied by a pattern of appropriate pauses.
Secondly, the correlation between the total score of the prosody component
and the other components that make up the scale was examined: speed, accuracy
and quality (see Table 4). Correlations between the four components of the scale
show average to high values. The lack of correlation between speed and accuracy,
and accuracy and prosody in Year 4 appears to emphasize the progressive
independence of these components. At the beginning of the reading instruction,
speed, accuracy and prosody increase simultaneously. However, Year 4 children
have mostly acquired the components of speed and accuracy, while the acquisition
of prosody is more gradual. The high correlation between prosody and reading
quality in both years is noteworthy.
The discriminant validity provides positive results (see Table 5). Overall, all
items have a high discriminatory value in both years, being above .2 (García-
Cueto & Fidalgo, 2005). The less discriminant item is volume, both in Year 2 and
4, showing that children generally master this skill. It is worth noting that the
accuracy item loses discriminatory power in Year 4.
Furthermore, reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) is not substantially
modified by removing some of the items in Year 2. It should be pointed out
114 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
3. Prosody – .76(**)
4. Quality –
Notes: *p < .05 **p < .01.
cases. External validity results show SRFS as an effective instrument for assessing
reading fluency.
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to design a rating scale to assess reading fluency in
Spanish. The lack of this kind of instrument in Spanish and its relationship with
variables such as reading comprehension (Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2006, 2008),
a weakness in Spanish children reading skills (OECD, 2013), support its
usefulness.
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
(Marín & Carrillo, 1999), and text (CLP) (Alliende et al., 1991). An explicit
influence is observed between fluency and reading comprehension in both years.
The directionality of this influence is future studies aim.
In sum, SRFS is an appropriate tool for assessing reading fluency in Spanish,
suitable for use both in educational and research contexts because of its accessi-
bility and ease of use. Whereas until now the concept of fluency has been assessed
mainly by evaluating speed and accuracy, the addition of the prosody assessment
is a significant contribution. Schools have not yet given this component the
emphasis that it deserves. The importance of adding or enhancing the teaching
of aspects such as intonation, phrasing or the pattern of pauses is related to the
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
relación entre fluidez y lectura prosódica, además de una relación causal entre
lectura prosódica y comprensión lectora.
No obstante, la dirección de la relación entre fluidez y comprensión está aún
en debate (Kuhn et al., 2010). Dos trabajos han abordado el estudio de la
direccionalidad de tal relación. Por una parte, Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, Kuhn,
Wisenbaker, y Stahl (2004) evaluaron dos modelos de ecuaciones estructurales
que implicaban ambas direcciones. Encontraron que la lectura prosódica, uno de
los componentes de la fluidez, predecía la comprensión lectora, y no hallaron
evidencia de la reciprocidad de la relación. Por otra parte, Klauda y Guthrie
(2008) examinaron si los cambios en la lectura prosódica estaban relacionados
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
leer’. El otro era un nivel intermedio, en el que los niños están en la etapa de ‘leer
para aprender’, con una fluidez lectora más equiparable a un lector experto (Wolf,
2008).
En resumen, se diseñó la Escala de Fluidez Lectora en Español (EFLE), como
un instrumento necesario para recoger uno de los componentes definitorios de la
lectura experta (e.g., Rasinski et al., 2006). La EFLE incorpora explícitamente los
tres componentes de la fluidez —velocidad, precisión y prosodia— integrando los
resultados de las investigaciones más recientes. También incluye otro aspecto a
evaluar, la calidad de la lectura, que resulta un componente relevante para
compilar la información recogida.
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
Método
Participantes
La muestra estuvo formada por 122 niños españoles de EP: 74 de 2º, 42 niños y
32 niñas (edad media en meses = 90.5, DT = 4.79) y 48 de 4º, 19 niños y 29 niñas
(edad media en meses = 114.7, DT = 4.5), de nivel socio-económico-cultural
medio. Su lengua materna era el español y ninguno de ellos presentaba retraso en
el rendimiento lector ni en la capacidad intelectual, excepto dos niños de 2º que
fueron eliminados de la muestra. Su participación requirió el consentimiento
informado de los padres y asentimiento verbal del niño.
Instrumentos
Test de Matrices Progresivas de Raven (Raven, Court, y Raven, 1996). Este test
evalúa la capacidad intelectual no verbal. Consiste en un test de razonamiento de
respuesta múltiple de dificultad creciente. Se utilizó la escala general. Los parti-
cipantes tenían que seleccionar la pieza que mejor completara una serie de dibujos
de entre cinco o seis alternativas. El manual refiere que el Alfa de Cronbach
es .85.
Velocidad. Se puntúa desde una excesiva lentitud hasta una velocidad adecuada.
(1) Volumen. Abarca un rango desde la lectura con volumen muy alto o muy
bajo hasta la adecuación del volumen a la interpretación del texto.
(2) Entonación. El rango fluctúa entre la lectura monótona, sin marcación
final de frases con subidas o bajadas de tono hasta la lectura melódica,
acorde con el tipo de frase, señalando con claridad los diálogos y los
cambios de entonación al final de las frases.
(3) Pausas. La evaluación abarca desde la realización de numerosas pausas
intrusivas, muchas veces en mitad de las palabras y sin el respeto de
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 123
niño realizara una segmentación errónea tal como, No, pausa me gusta pausa
Ana–contestó, no captaría el significado de la frase. Aunque respetara la
pausa indicada por la coma, no estaría segmentado correctamente.
Procedimiento
Los participantes fueron evaluados en dos sesiones, siguiendo el mismo orden
de aplicación de las pruebas. En primer lugar se llevó a cabo una sesión
colectiva con una duración de aproximadamente ½ hora, aplicándose las pruebas
de comprensión lectora (test TECLE y test CLP). La segunda sesión, de unos 15
minutos, se realizó individualmente, midiendo Signos de Puntuación (Test
PROLEC-R). La lectura del texto de Signos de Puntuación fue grabada con
objeto de evaluar la fluidez mediante un procedimiento de acuerdo interjueces.
Este texto se eligió por varias razones: a) contiene diferentes tipos de oración
(e.g., declarativas, exclamativas, interrogativas cerradas y abiertas, exclamati-
vas), b) se creó para medir la entonación correspondiente a 11 signos de
puntuación (cuatro puntos, dos comas, tres signos de interrogación y dos signos
de exclamación), y c) la complejidad de las oraciones es adecuada al nivel lector
de los niños. Se pidió a los participantes que leyeran la historia con claridad y
buena entonación. Las grabaciones se realizaron en un recinto silencioso del
colegio.
124 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
Resultados
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
(.67) (.70)
b. Entonación 2.50 .71 –1.34 3.38 –2.21 .47
(.76) (.53)
c. Pausas 2.69 –.02 –1.28 3.52 –2.40 .72
(.83) (.48)
d. Segmentación 2.78 –.84 –1.57 3.69 –3.61 .96
(.89) (.43)
4. Calidad 2.39 .90 –1.16 3.22 –1.17 –.16
(.84) (.61)
sólo el ítem de volumen está por encima de 2. Los datos sugieren que el volumen
es, en general, una dimensión adquirida; los niños leen ajustando el volumen a la
interpretación del texto. También el ítem de precisión presenta valores de
asimetría por encima de /2/ en ambos cursos, señalando que en 2º la mayoría de
los niños leen ya con una precisión adecuada. En 4º, respecto a la asimetría cabe
destacar valores por encima de /2/ de los componentes de la fluidez, indicando el
desarrollo evolutivo de esas habilidades.
Para calcular la validez de constructo, se realizó un análisis de la estructura
interna de la escala. En primer lugar, se analizaron las correlaciones entre los
ítems que constituyen el componente de prosodia — volumen, entonación, pausas
y segmentación — (ver Tabla 3). Los resultados muestran en general correlaciones
medias, indicando la validez de esa composición de dimensiones.
Destacar que la dimensión de volumen no correlaciona con segmentación y
pausas en 4º curso, indicando que mientras la lectura con el volumen adecuado
está adquirida, como se observa en la distribución de los niños, dimensiones más
complejas como son la segmentación y las pausas necesitan más experiencia y
horas de lectura para su consecución. Señalar también que las correlaciones más
altas se producen entre segmentación y pausas en los dos cursos. Las dos
dimensiones son teóricamente complementarias y dependientes, la agrupación
de sintagmas con significado ha de ir acompañada de una pauta de pausas
adecuada.
En segundo lugar, se analizaron las correlaciones entre la puntuación total del
componente de prosodia y el resto de componentes que forman la escala, veloci-
dad, precisión y calidad (ver Tabla 4). Las correlaciones entre los cuatro compo-
nentes de la escala muestran valores medios altos. La pérdida de correlación entre
126 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
c. Pausas – .44(**)
d. Segmentación –
Notas: *p < .05 **p < .01.
Discusión
El propósito del estudio fue el diseño de una escala para evaluar la fluidez lectora
en español. La carencia de este tipo de instrumentos en castellano, y su relación
con variables como la comprensión lectora (Miller y Schwanenflugel, 2006,
2008), donde los niños españoles muestran más dificultades (OECD, 2013),
avalan su utilidad.
Se señala que la EFLE presenta propiedades psicométricas apropiadas, desta-
cando una alta fiabilidad. La validez de constructo muestra resultados satisfacto-
rios. El análisis de la estructura interna de la escala coincide con la composición
de la fluidez lectora por tres componentes: velocidad, precisión y prosodia. Es
128 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
Acknowledgements / Agradecimientos
The Scale of Reading Fluency in Spanish was designed as part of Nuria Calet’s doctoral
thesis. This research was partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation
projects PSI2010-21983-C02-01 and PSI2011-29155, University of Jaén project
UJA2009/14/03 from Caja Rural of Jaén and by the Junta of Andalusia research groups
HUM-820 and HUM-883. We would like to thank Luis Manuel Lozano Fernández for his
suggestions on data analysis. We also appreciate the cooperation given by the school
community at John XXIII (Zaidín) in Granada and their invaluable support. / La Escala de
Fluidez Lectora en español se diseñó como parte de la tesis doctoral de Nuria Calet. Esta
investigación ha sido parcialmente financiada por los proyectos del Ministerio de Ciencia
e Innovación PSI2010-21983-C02-01 y PSI2011-29155, el proyecto de la Universidad de
Jaén UJA2009/14/03 concedido por la Caja Rural de Jaén, y por los grupos de
investigación de la Junta de Andalucía HUM-820 y HUM-883. Nos gustaría agradecer
a Juan Manuel Lozano Fernández sus sugerencias sobre el análisis de datos.
Agradecemos también la cooperación de la comunidad escolar del colegio Juan XXIII
(Zaidín) en Granada, y su inestimable apoyo.
130 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
References / Referencias
Alliende, F., Condemarín, M., & Milicic, N. (1991). Prueba lectora de complejidad
lingüística progresiva. Madrid: CEPE.
Allington, R. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36,
556–561.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association &
National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). The Standards for educational
and psychological testing. Washington DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Barry, J. G., Harbodt, S., Cantiani, C., Sabisch, B., & Zobay O. (2012) Sensitivity to
Lexical Stress in Dyslexia: a Case of Cognitive not Perceptual Stress. Dyslexia, 18,
139–165. doi:10.1002/dys.1440
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
Benjamin, R. G., Schwanenflugel, P., Meisinger, E., Groff, C., Kuhn, M. R., & Steiner, L.
(2013). A spectrographically grounded scale for evaluating reading expressiveness.
Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 105–133. doi:10.1002/rrq.43
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1994). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Calet, N., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., & Defior, S. (2013a). Effects of fluency training on
reading ability in Spanish primary school children. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Calet, N., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., & Defior, S. (2013b). A Cross-sectional Study of Fluency
and Reading Comprehension in Spanish Primary School Children. Journal of
Research in Reading. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12019
Chard, D. J., Pikulski, J. J., & McDonagh, S. H. (2006). Fluency: The link between
decoding and comprehension for struggling readers. In T. Rasinski, C. Blanchowicz,
& K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 39–61).
New York: Guilford Press.
Cowie, R., Douglas-Cowie, E., & Wichmann, A. (2002). Prosodic characteristics of
skilled reading: Fluency and expressiveness in 8–10-year-old readers. Language and
Speech, 45, 47–82. doi:10.1177/00238309020450010301
Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B., Ruano, E., & Arribas, D. (2007). Batería de evaluación de los
procesos lectores, revisada [Assessment Battery of Reading Processes in Primary
Education Children. Revised Edition]. Madrid: TEA.
Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005).
Fourth-Grade Students Reading Aloud: NAEP 2002 Special Study of Oral Reading.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s unattended bedfellow. Theory
Into Practice, 30, 158–164. doi: 10.1080/ 00405849109543497
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of
Research in Reading, 18, 116–125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.1995.tb00077.x
García-Cueto, E., & Fidalgo, A. M. (2005). Análisis de los ítems. In J. Muñiz, A. M.
Fidalgo, E. García-Cueto, R. Martínez, & R. Moreno (Eds.), Análisis de los ítems
[Item analyses] (pp. 53–130). Madrid: La Muralla.
González-Trujillo, M. C. (2005). Comprensión lectora en niños: Morfosintaxis y Prosodia
en acción [Children’s reading comprehension: Morphosyntax and Prosody in action].
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Granada, Granada.
Holliman, A. J., Wood, C., & Sheehy, K. (2012). A cross-sectional study of prosodic
sensitivity and reading difficulties. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 32–48.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01459.x
Hudson, R. F., Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The complex nature of
reading fluency: A multidimensional view. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 4–32.
doi:10.1080/10573560802491208
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 131
Jiménez-Fernández, G., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., & Defior, S. (2013). Impaired lexical stress
awareness in Spanish children with dyslexia. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three component s of reading
fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 310–321.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.95.1.3
Kuhn, M., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and
assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and the definitions of fluency.
Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 230–251. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information proces-
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (2006). Fluency instruction: Research-based
best practices. New York: The Gilford Press.
Raven, J., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1996). Progressive Matrices [Raven’s Progressive
Matrices]. Madrid: TEA.
Samuels, S. J. (2006). Reading fluency: Its past, present & future. In T. Rasinsky, C.
Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices
(pp. 7–20). New York: The Guilford Press.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, A. M., Kuhn, M. R., Wisenbaker, J. M., & Stahl, S. A.
(2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral
reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 119–129.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.119
Serrano, F., & Defior, S. (2008). Speed problems in dyslexia in a transparent orthography.
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
exclamatory).
(Continued )
133
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
Appendix 1. (Continued).
134
Does not mark the end of Makes a few changes in Produces some changes in intonation at In general, clearly marks the dialogue.
phrases by increasing or intonation at the end of the end of phrases. The changes in intonation at the end
decreasing intonation as phrases. of phrases are noticeable.
appropriate.
1 2 3 4
Pauses
Makes many intrusive Makes intrusive pauses or Makes some intrusive pauses or Makes pauses in the right places almost
pauses in the middle of inappropriately elongates inappropriate elongations of all of the times, following
M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
words, breaking phonemes. phonemes, but generally respects the punctuation marks (commas, full
syntactic units. Many Frequent hesitations or place where they should be made stops, etc.) and syntactic boundaries.
hesitations. repetitions. (punctuation marks and syntactic
boundaries). Some hesitation.
1 2 3 4
Phrasing
Reads word by word, Breaks up semantic-syntactic Phrases sentences while reading, Phrases sentences while reading
ignoring the meaning of units while reading without concerning the meaning of the text, according to punctuation marks and
the phrases and regard to the meaning or however on some occasions does not semantic-syntactic units, concerning
punctuation marks. punctuation marks. group words into semantic-syntactic the meaning of the text consistently.
units.
1 2 3 4
QUALITY (General reading assessment)
Reading sounds like words Reading sounds like sentences It sometimes sounds like a story being It sounds like a story is being told.
have just simply been spoken independently. The told. The listener’s attention is Overall, the listener’s attention is
spoken independently. It listener’s attention is occasionally lost. captured.
is boring. occasionally captured.
1 2 3 4
Note: The scale design has been validated in Spanish children.
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
135
(Continúa )
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 13:25 25 April 2016
Apéndice 1. (Continuación).
136
No marca el final de las frases Realiza pocos cambios de Produce algunos cambios de En general, marca los diálogos con
con subidas o bajadas, entonación al final de las frases. entonación al final de las frases. claridad. Los cambios de
según corresponda. entonación al final de las frases son