Pathways to word reading and decoding: The roles of automaticity and accuracy

School Psychology Review

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 284-295

  Cummings, Kelli D ^a   Dewey, Elizabeth N ^b   Latimer, Rachael J ^b   Good, Roland H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b THE MEASUREMENT GROUP   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051527481     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Cardoso-Martins, C. (2001). The reading abilities of beginning readers of Brazilian Portuguese: Implications for a theory of reading acquisition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 289-317.
2. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Dynamic Measurement Group. (2008). DIBELS 6th edition technical adequacy information (Tech. Report No. 6). Eugene, OR: Author. Available at dibels.org/pubs.html
4. Ehri, L. C. (2002). Phases of reading acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. In R. Stainthorp & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), Learning and teaching reading (pp. 7-28). London: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II.
5. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167-188. (Pubitemid 40758781)
6. Fien, H., Kame'enui, E. J., & Good, R. (2009). Schools engaged in school-wide reading reform: An examination of the school and individual predictors of kindergarten early reading outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 1-25.
7. Fien, H., Park, Y., Baker, S. K., Mercier-Smith, J. L., Stoolmiller, M., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2010). An examination of the relation of Nonsense Word Fluency initial status and gains to reading outcomes for beginning readers. School Psychology Review, 39(4), 631-653.
8. Good, R. H., Baker, S. K., & Peyton, J. A. (2009). Making sense of nonsense word fluency: Determining adequate progress in early first-grade reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 33-56.
9. Good III, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2003). DIBELS® (6th ed.). Administration and scoring guide. Eugene, OR: IDEA. Available at http://dibels.uoregon.edu/
10. Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Cummings, K. D., Dufour-Martel, C, Petersen, K., Powell-Smith, K., et al. (2011). DIBELS Next. Eugene, OR: DMG. Available at http://dibels.org/
11. Harcourt Brace. (1997). Stanford Achievement Test (9th ed.). San Antonio: Author.
12. Ham, B. A., Stoolmiller, M., & Chard, D. J. (2008). Measuring the dimensions of alphabetic principle on the reading development of first graders: The role of automaticity and unitization. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 143-157.
13. Hedges, L., & Hedberg, E. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in educational research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 60-87.
14. Johnson, E.S., Jenkins, J. R., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174-185.
15. Kame'enui, E. J., Carnine, D. W., Dixon, R. C, Simmons, D. C, & Coyne, M. D. (2002). Effective strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
16. Mcintosh, K., Homer, R. H., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Good, R. H. (2006). The use of reading and behavior screening measures to predict non-response to school-wide positive behavior support: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Review, 35, 275-291. (Pubitemid 44085501)
17. Moats, L. C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore: Brookes.
18. National Center for Education Statistics (2009). Common core of data: Public elementary/secondary school universe survey [data file and codebook). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.asp.
19. Perfetti, C. A., & Bolger, D. J. (2004). The brain might read that way. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 293-304. (Pubitemid 39056871)
20. Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Multilevel models for ORF in the DIBELS Data System (DDS): Variation by state, district, school and student (Technical Report). Eugene, OR: Center on Teaching and Learning.
21. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-Ed