1. Walden University
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
This is to certify that the doctoral study by
Kathy Jones
has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,
and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.
Review Committee
Dr. Thomas Schnick, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty
Dr. Barbara Bailey, Committee Member, Education Faculty
Dr. Brett Welch, University Reviewer, Education Faculty
Chief Academic Officer
David Clinefelter, Ph.D.
Walden University
2010
Abstract

2. The Relationship Between Oral Reading Fluency and Reading Proficiency
by
Kathy S. Jones
MA, Abilene Christian University, 2001
BS, Abilene Christian University, 1997
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Administration
Walden University
August 2010

3. Abstract
Students who struggle with reading in Grade 3 often fall behind their peers in reading
proficiency. Failure to meet minimum reading proficiencies of state-mandated tests can
negatively affect children’s success in subsequent grades. Educators have used oral
reading fluency tests as reliable indicators of students’ later reading proficiency. Studies
in 7 states found that oral reading fluency predicted performance on state reading
assessments. One aspect of the automaticity theory was used to explain why struggling
readers have insufficient attention to devote to reading proficiently. This
nonexperimental, quantitative study investigated whether a statistically significant
relationship existed between Grade 3 students’ oral reading fluency rates and their
reading proficiency when assessed by the state-mandated assessment. Pearson correlation
was used to compare the middle-of-year oral reading fluency rates, measured by the
Dynamics Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills oral reading fluency, and reading
proficiency, measured by the scale score Grade 3 Reading Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills, of 155 Grade 3 students for the 2008-2009 school year in a school
district. The results indicated a relationship between oral reading fluency and reading
proficiency. Study results may help elementary school administrators, teachers, and
reading specialists to identify at-risk readers and implement interventions to enable
students to gain greater reading proficiency and improve their performance on state-
mandated assessments.

5. The Relationship Between Oral Reading Fluency and Reading Proficiency
by
Kathy S. Jones
MA, Abilene Christian University, 2001
BS, Abilene Christian University, 1997
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Administration
Walden University
August 2010

6. UMI Number: 3423184
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3423184
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

7. Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to God. Throughout my life, He has prepared me for
what was coming next. At times, He prepared me for something before I even dared to
dream about it. My doctoral journey has been no exception. God first planted the dream
in me of pursuing a doctorate 15 years ago. I did not even have a bachelor’s degree at the
time, and the dream seemed impossible. Every time it was in danger of fading, God
would use someone to nudge me forward and place me back on track.
He has been with me through all the twists and turns of these past 5 years that I
have been enrolled in the doctoral program. He has molded me and made me into the
person I have become. I dedicate this honor to Him and trust that He will guide me as He
continues to use me to serve others with the talents with which He has blessed me.

8. Acknowledgments
God has used many people to encourage and inspire me on this doctoral journey. I
am thankful for the support of my family. My husband, Roy, has stood by my side
through all the ups and downs. He celebrated with me as I conquered hurdles and
encouraged me when I was discouraged. My adult children, Rachel, Benjamin, Timothy,
and Daniel, have showered me with comments, and I have especially been bolstered and
encouraged with their cries of “Way to go, Mom!” My parents, Bill and Anita Love,
planted the vision of setting goals and working hard to achieve them. My father has gone
on, but I treasure the memory of the crack in his voice as he proudly told others I was
working on my doctorate.
People in the field of academia have guided me on my journey as well. I
appreciate the support of my chair, Dr. Thomas L. Schnick. He has promptly reviewed
my work each time it was submitted and provided me with constructive criticism that
improved the quality of my dissertation. Dr. Barbara Bailey served as my methodologist.
I thank her for helping me see how the problem, purpose, and research questions
provided the foundation for the dissertation.
I am especially appreciative of my editor, Dr. Noelle Sterne, who coached me
from where I was to where I needed to be. She had a clear vision of what my dissertation
had to be and how to get me there. In addition to editorial changes, she encouraged me to
clearly describe my thoughts, to tell her more about what I was writing, and to find
additional sources to support my statements. This coaching was invaluable in my desire
to deepen and expand the substance of this dissertation.

9. I am grateful too for the bonds I have forged with fellow students. Because
Walden is an online university, I have not had the pleasure of meeting many of my peers.
Nonetheless, I was amazed at how deeply the bond of friendship developed. I especially
appreciate the friendship of Susan Myers. We met in our first online classes, roomed
together at two residencies, exchanged many emails, and talked on the phone. I am
confident that our professional relationship will continue even beyond graduation.
I appreciate and thank Keith Richardson, the superintendent of the district
involved in this study, for his cooperation. He supported me in signing the data use
agreement and letter of cooperation so that I could use the district archival data for the
study. I appreciate also the continued support and encouragement of Doug Doege, the
principal of the school for the study. He began working with me when the logistics of the
study were still a dream to me. As the details developed, he helped make them a reality. I
am also grateful for the cooperation of the Grade 3 teachers and students.
Finally, I give special thanks to Dynamics Measurement Group for giving me
permission to use the DIBELS ORF benchmark in the study and to the Texas Education
Agency for granting copyright permission for the use of the Grade 3 Reading TAKS in
the study.

10. i
Table of Contents
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v
Section 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1
Problem Statement.........................................................................................................3
Nature of the Study........................................................................................................4
Research Question and Hypothesis................................................................................6
Purpose of the Study......................................................................................................6
Theoretical Framework..................................................................................................7
Operational Definitions..................................................................................................8
Assumptions, Limitations, Scope, and Delimitations..................................................10
Significance of the Study.............................................................................................11
Transition Statement....................................................................................................13
Section 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................16
Introduction..................................................................................................................16
Automaticity Theory....................................................................................................16
Oral Reading Fluency ..................................................................................................21
Definition of Oral Reading Fluency ..................................................................... 22
The Role of Oral Reading Fluency in the Context of Learning to Read .............. 26
Fluency Instruction ............................................................................................... 29
Reading Proficiency.....................................................................................................30
Reading Proficiency and Automaticity Theory .................................................... 30

11. ii
Definition of Reading Proficiency........................................................................ 34
Vocabulary and Matthew Effects.......................................................................... 36
Comprehension ..................................................................................................... 38
Relationship Between Oral Reading Fluency and Reading Proficiency in
State-Mandated Assessments...........................................................................43
Studies of Grade 3 Only........................................................................................ 44
Studies of Reading First Schools.......................................................................... 44
Studies of Grade 3 and Other Grades ................................................................... 45
Limitations of State Studies.................................................................................. 47
Summary......................................................................................................................49
Section 3: Research Design ...............................................................................................52
Introduction..................................................................................................................52
Research Design...........................................................................................................52
Setting and Sample ......................................................................................................55
Setting ................................................................................................................... 55
Characteristics of the Sample................................................................................ 55
Sampling Method.................................................................................................. 57
Sample Size........................................................................................................... 57
Eligibility Criteria for Study Participants ............................................................. 58
Instrumentation and Materials .....................................................................................58
DIBELS ORF........................................................................................................ 59
TAKS ................................................................................................................... 67

12. iii
Data Collection and Analysis.......................................................................................71
Data Collection ............................................................................................................71
Data Analysis...............................................................................................................73
Researcher’s Role ........................................................................................................74
Protection of Participants’ Rights................................................................................74
Summary......................................................................................................................75
Section 4: Results of the Study.........................................................................................77
Introduction..................................................................................................................77
Research Question and Hypothesis..............................................................................77
Research Tools.............................................................................................................78
Data Analysis...............................................................................................................80
Summary......................................................................................................................87
Section 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations.............................................89
Overview......................................................................................................................89
Interpretation of Findings ............................................................................................89
Recommendations for Action ....................................................................................100
Recommendations for Further Study.........................................................................105
Quantitative Studies............................................................................................ 105
Qualitative Studies.............................................................................................. 108
Mixed-Method Studies........................................................................................ 109
Conclusion .................................................................................................................112
References........................................................................................................................116

13. iv
Appendix A: Permission to Collect Data.........................................................................133
Appendix B: Data Use Agreement ..................................................................................135
Appendix C: Permission to Use DIBELS........................................................................139
Appendix D: Permission to Use TAKS ...........................................................................141
Curriculum Vitae .............................................................................................................151

14. v
List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of Grade 3 Students in Texas Overall and the Research
Site .......................................................................................................................56
Table 2. Correlation of DIBELS ORF Rates and TAKS Scores for Grade 3 Students.....80
Table 3. Ranges and Categorization Cut Points of DIBELS ORF and Grade 3 TAKS ....82
Table 4. Comparison of Students’ Performance by Categories for DIBELS ORF and
Grade 3 Reading TAKS.......................................................................................84
Table 5. Studies Correlating State-Mandated Assessments to the DIBELS ORF.............90

15. 1
Section 1: Introduction to the Study
It is important for students to learn to read proficiently by the end of Grade 3.
From kindergarten through Grade 2, students focus on learning to read (Ehri, 2005). The
process of learning to read is a complex but systematic one. Many children learn to
recognize letters and words even before beginning formal school (Ehri, 2005). By the
end of Grade 3, students are expected not only to decode the words in a text, but also to
understand what they read (National Institute of Child, Health and Human Development
[NICHHD], 2000). Students who struggle with reading at the end of Grade 3 often
continue to fall farther behind their peers in terms of reading proficiency (Morgan,
Farkas, & Hibel, 2008). The failure to meet minimum reading proficiencies at the end of
Grade 3 can have negative consequences on children’s success in subsequent grades
(Jimerson, Anderson, & Whipple, 2002; Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan, & Jones, 2007).
After Grade 3, students transition from learning to read to reading to learn in other
subject areas (Musti-Rao, Hawkins, & Barkley, 2009). As a part of implementing the No
Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB, 2002), the federal government commissioned the
National Accessible Reading Assessment Project (NARAP, 2006) to define reading
proficiency. Their definition described reading as a process in which readers decode
words in order to make meaning. Readers understand text by using a variety of reading
strategies to determine the purpose of a passage and understand the context and nature of
the text. Once the NARAP established its working definition of reading proficiency,
states used this definition to write and assess curriculum objectives for reading. In section

16. 2
2, I review literature that discussed reading in the context of students’ learning to read
and reading proficiency.
In compliance with NCLB (2002), federal legislators mandated that school
districts monitor students’ progress by identifying academic needs early in school, and
providing scientifically-based interventions. As NCLB requires, states have designed
curriculum standards and annual assessments to measure the number of students who
read proficiently. For example, Texas has used performance on high-stakes tests in
Grade 3 to determine promotion or retention of students (Texas Education Agency
[TEA], 2008). Given the legal mandates and the commitment of NCLB to leave no child
behind academically, it is important that local school districts identify nonproficient and
struggling readers before they fail in reading and later grades (Jenkins, Hudson, &
Johnson, 2007).
To ascertain students’ reading proficiency in the early grades, researchers have
established that oral reading fluency is a reliable predictor of reading proficiency (Fuchs,
Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Simmons et al., 2008). Section 2 contains additional
reports of researchers who found that oral reading fluency was a predictor of
performance on seven state-mandated reading assessments (Baker et al., 2008; Barger,
2003; Roehrig, Petscher, Nettles, Hudson, & Torgesen, 2008; Shapiro, Solari, &
Petscher, 2008; Vander Meer, Lentz, & Stollar, 2005; Wilson, 2005; Wood, 2006).
Section 2 also contains reviews of literature in which reading experts disagree on the
definition of fluency (Kame’enui & Simmons, 2001; Samuels, 2007). States define
reading proficiency by using curriculum standards rather than the verbal definitions of

17. 3
NARAP (2006), and the curriculum standards may differ from state to state (Colorado
Department of Education, 2009; Florida Department of Education, 2005; TEA, 2004).
Researchers have established positive correlations between oral reading fluency
rates and reading proficiency (Hosp & Fuchs, 2005; Simmons et al., 2008). Additional
research is needed to confirm the specific relationship between oral reading fluency
assessments and other state-mandated tests for reading proficiency (Roehrig et al.,
2008). The purpose of this research project was to determine if a relationship existed
between oral reading fluency of Grade 3 students in a West Texas school district and
their performance on the state-mandated assessment in Texas in the 2008-2009 school
year.
Problem Statement
In Texas, the site of the current research, in 2009, 33,462 students, approximately
15% of all Grade 3 students, were unable to read proficiently enough to pass the Grade 3
Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TEA, 2009c). According to the
Nation’s Report Card in Reading (U. S. Department of Education, 2007), 67% of the
fourth-grade students who took the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
in 2007 scored at the basic level or above. However, 33% of the tested students did not
read well enough to score at the basic level. The majority of students learn to read
proficiently (Chard et al., 2008; Ehri, 2005). Nevertheless, many students do not reach an
acceptable level of reading by Grade 3 and are considered struggling readers (Applegate,
Applegate, McGeehan, Pinto, & Kong, 2009; Pressley, Gaskins, & Fingeret, 2006;
Torgesen & Hudson, 2006).

18. 4
Educators have used oral reading fluency as a reliable indicator of students’
progress toward overall reading proficiency (Jenkins et al., 2007). The following
researchers have found significant correlations between oral reading fluency rates and
reading proficiency in seven states’ mandated reading assessments: Arizona (Wilson,
2005), Colorado (Shaw & Shaw, 2002; Wood, 2006), Florida (Buck & Torgesen, 2003;
Roehrig et al., 2008), North Carolina (Barger, 2003), Ohio (Vander Meer et al., 2005),
Oregon (Baker et al., 2008), and Pennsylvania (Shapiro et al., 2008). However, it is
unknown whether a similar connection exists in the Texas school system (Roehrig et al.).
An investigation of this possible relationship is important for providing evidence to aid
elementary school administrators, teachers, and reading specialists to identify at-risk
readers. Early identification of struggling readers in concurrence with research-driven
interventions can close the gap between these readers and their proficient peers before the
end of Grade 3 (Simmons et al., 2008).
Nature of the Study
To determine if a statistically significant (p < .05) relationship existed between
students’ oral reading fluency rates and their reading proficiency, this nonexperimental
quantitative study compared the middle-of-year oral reading fluency rates and reading
proficiency of 155 Grade 3 students for the 2008-2009 school year in a West Texas
school district. The students resided in a small West Texas town with a population of
6,821, and in which all Grade 3 students attended the same elementary school. The
demographics of the school district are similar to those of all Grade 3 students in Texas

19. 5
(TEA, 2009c). To obtain as wide a range of scores as possible, all of the Grade 3 students
in this district comprised the nonprobability convenience sample.
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Oral Reading Fluency
(DIBELS ORF) comprised the independent variable to measure students’ oral reading
fluency rates. The developers of DIBELS ORF found the assessments reliable and valid
(Good & Kaminski, 2002a). Additionally, other researchers have found DIBELS ORF
rates reliable (Baker et al., 2008; Buck & Torgesen, 2003; Roehrig et al., 2008; Shaw &
Shaw, 2002; Vander Meer et al., 2005; Wilson, 2005, Wood, 2006). However, some
researchers disagreed with the definition of fluency used by the developers of DIBELS
(Hudson, Lane, & Pullen, 2005; Young & Rasinski, 2009) and the reliability and validity
of the assessment (Samuels, 2007). Section 2 contains a review of the literature on
DIBELS ORF, including the controversy.
The Grade 3 Reading Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scale
scores (TEA, 2009b) comprised the dependent variable to measure students’ reading
proficiency. The TEA in conjunction with Pearson Education established the reliability
and validity of TAKS (TEA & Pearson, 2008). Staff members of these organizations
have worked regularly with teachers in Texas and national testing experts to ensure that
the TAKS is a quality assessment. Further information describing the reliability and
validity of TAKS is included in section 3.
To address the study problem, I used the middle-of-year 2008-2009 DIBELS ORF
benchmark rates of the Grade 3 sample from January 2009 and the scale score of the
2009 Grade 3 Reading TAKS. I applied the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

20. 6
(SPSS, 2009) software program, version 17.0, and conducted a Pearson correlation
analysis to determine if there was a statistically significant relationship (p < .05) between
oral reading fluency rates as measured by DIBELS ORF and reading proficiency as
measured by the scale score of the Grade 3 Reading TAKS.
Research Question and Hypothesis
The following research question guided this study: Is there a statistically
significant relationship between Grade 3 students’ oral reading fluency rates and their
reading proficiency? From this question, the following null and alternative hypotheses
were formulated:
H0: There is no statistically significant relationship between students’ oral reading
fluency rates, as measured by the students’ middle-of-year DIBELS ORF rates, and their
reading proficiency, as measured by their scale scores on the Grade 3 Reading TAKS for
the 2008-2009 school year.
H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between students’ oral reading
fluency rates, as measured by the students’ middle-of-year DIBELS ORF rates, and their
reading proficiency, as measured by their scale scores on the Grade 3 Reading TAKS for
the 2008-2009 school year.
Section 3 contains additional information regarding the research question,
hypotheses, methodology, and measurements.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this nonexperimental, quantitative study was to determine whether
a statistically significant relationship (p < .05) existed between Grade 3 students’ oral

21. 7
reading fluency rates and their reading proficiency. With a nonprobability convenience
sample of 155 Grade 3 students in a West Texas school district, I sought to determine if a
statistically significant relationship existed between oral reading fluency rates and
students’ reading proficiency on the summative, high-stakes reading assessment results
for the 2008-2009 school year. The independent variable was oral reading fluency, and
the dependent variable was reading proficiency. The outcome of the study identified
additional ways in which elementary teachers can screen struggling readers so that
interventions can take place to help these students to increase their reading ability.
Theoretical Framework
The automaticity theory developed by LaBerge and Samuels (1974) and expanded
upon by Samuels (2006) formed the theoretical basis of this study. The automaticity
theory explains the relationship between fluency and comprehension. When initially
proposing the automaticity theory, LaBerge and Samuels found that accurately reading
words alone was not sufficient for reading proficiency. They posited that for students to
devote attention to other aspects of reading, they must first accurately and fluently read
words.
In 2006, Samuels identified four components of the reading process: decoding,
comprehension, metacognition, and attention; the last he viewed as limited. When
students spend too much time trying to sound out words, they cannot comprehend what
they have read by the end of a line or a page. Unless students are able to fluently decode
the words in a text, they do not have sufficient attention to devote to comprehend what is
read or to use metacognitive strategies to improve their comprehension. This theory

22. 8
explains why slow readers who may accurately identify all or most of the words in a
passage may still not read proficiently enough to pass state-mandated reading
assessments.
Several researchers have tested the automaticity theory and found a relationship
between oral reading fluency and reading proficiency in general (Baker et al., 2008;
Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, & Oranje, 2005; Kuhn, 2005; Morgan & Sideridis,
2006; Riedel, 2007). However, scholars disagree on the definition of oral reading fluency.
Some define oral reading fluency as rate and accuracy alone (Kame’enui & Simmons,
2001; Riedel), and others include prosody and comprehension (Allington, 2009; Samuels,
2006). I will further discuss the automaticity theory, including controversies in the
literature, in section 2.
Operational Definitions
The following terms as defined were used throughout this study.
Automaticity theory: The four-component process by which proficient readers
decode words fluently, enabling them to focus attention on higher comprehension skills
of the passages read (Samuels, 2006).
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Short, 1-minute
assessments that educators use to measure the development of early literacy skills. These
assessments include oral reading fluency, retell fluency, and nonsense word fluency
(Good & Kaminski, 2002b).
Matthew effects: The gap between readers and struggling readers. Matthew
effects are based on the Biblical concept found in Matthew 25:29, a verse which refers to

23. 9
the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. In the context of reading, this
term indicates that students who read consistently increase their knowledge base and
vocabulary, and readers who read less will learn less and continue to be struggling
readers. The gap between proficient readers and struggling readers widens as they
progress through school (Morgan et al., 2008; Stanovich, 1998).
Oral reading fluency (ORF): The ability to read words accurately and quickly
(Fuchs et al., 2001; Roehrig et al., 2008) with proper expression (Eldredge, 2005; Hudson
et al., 2005) and comprehension (Marcell, 2007; Samuels, 2007). In the current study,
Grade 3 students’ DIBELS ORF rates were used as the independent variable (Good &
Kaminski, 2002b).
Proficiency level: A scale score of 2100 or more on the Grade 3 Reading TAKS
(TEA, 2009b). Out of the 36 questions, proficient readers answer at least 24 correctly to
demonstrate proficiency.
Reading proficiency: The ability of a reader to decode the words in a passage and
comprehend what it says. Proficient readers employ a variety of strategies to comprehend
a passage, such as determining the purpose for reading, using context clues and the nature
of the passage, and using background knowledge (Cline, Johnstone, & King, 2006).
Proficient readers demonstrate a basic understanding of reading, apply knowledge of
literary elements, use a variety of strategies to analyze a passage of text, and apply
critical-thinking skills to analyze a passage by scoring 2100 or more on the Grade 3
Reading TAKS (TEA, 2004). In the current study, I used students’ scale scores from the
Grade 3 Reading TAKS as the dependent variable to measure reading proficiency.

24. 10
Scale score: In 2009, the TEA measured performance on the TAKS using a scale
score. A raw score of zero had a scale score of 1399, and a perfect raw score of 36 had a
scale score of 2630. Students who achieved a scale score of 2100 or above were
considered proficient; students who received a scale score of 2400 or above received
commended performance (TEA, 2009b).
Struggling readers: Struggling readers have at least average intelligence, but they
read more slowly than other readers their age and may be at risk for long-term reading
difficulties (Pressley et al., 2006).
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS): The TAKS is a state-
mandated, summative, high-stakes assessment in Texas that assesses specific
proficiencies in Grades 3 to 11 in accordance with the state curriculum (TEA, 2009a).
The TAKS is scored with a scale score, defined above. For this study, I used the scale
score of the Grade 3 Reading TAKS to measure the dependent variable of reading
proficiency (TEA, 2006, 2009e).
Assumptions, Limitations, Scope, and Delimitations
In this study, I made four assumptions. First, the DIBELS ORF was a reliable
measure of oral reading fluency. Second, the Grade 3 Reading TAKS was a reliable
measurement of reading proficiency. Third, the Grade 3 students’ DIBELS ORF rates and
Grade 3 Reading TAKS scale scores reported for the target West Texas school district
were accurate and reliable. Finally, the statistical method chosen for this study was
appropriate.

25. 11
I acknowledged four limitations for this study. The first was the use of a
nonprobability convenience sample, and the second was the limitation of the study
population to students in Grade 3. Because of these factors, the results may not generalize
to students in other elementary grades. Third, the study took place in a single
geographical location, a small town in West Texas. Similarly, the results may not
generalize to other locations in Texas or other states. Finally, quantitative correlational
analysis does not prove the existence of relationships between variables. Rather, in
correlational studies, a statistical procedure may establish a relationship between two
variables, but neither the method nor results prove that one variable causes another
variable (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2005). Thus, study results do not prove the existence of a
relationship between oral reading fluency rates and reading proficiency or that low
fluency rates cause poor reading comprehension. Rather, results indicate whether a
statistically significant relationship exists between the two variables.
The scope focused on the oral reading fluency rates and reading proficiency of
Grade 3 students in a Western school district. I limited the study to 155 students in Grade
3 in a West Texas elementary school district. I investigated only the two variables of oral
reading fluency and reading proficiency for a single school year, 2008-2009. Each of the
variables was operationalized by a single state-mandated assessment, for oral reading
fluency the DIBELS ORF and for reading proficiency the Grade 3 Reading TAKS.
Significance of the Study
This study was significant in several ways. With regard to the literature, the study
filled a gap that existed regarding students’ oral reading fluency and reading proficiency.

26. 12
Researchers in seven states (Baker et al., 2008; Barger, 2003; Roehrig et al., 2008;
Shapiro et al., 2008; Vander Meer et al., 2005; Wilson, 2005; Wood, 2006) used DIBELS
ORF rates to determine if there was a significant relationship between oral reading
fluency rates and reading proficiency as measured by their states’ mandated reading
assessment. Although each of these studies found that oral reading fluency rates
correlated with reading proficiency, additional studies were needed for other states since
the curriculum standards that define reading proficiency differ from state to state
(Roehrig et al.). This study filled a gap in the literature on the assessment of struggling
readers by determining if such a relationship exists with Grade 3 students in Texas.
In addition, with regard to professional application of the study, the results can
help teachers in Texas. NCLB (2002) mandates that school districts must make adequate
yearly progress in students’ reading scores. In situations where the school or district has
not met adequate yearly progress for 2 consecutive years, state education agencies are
required to impose corrective actions, such as removing the principal, replacing the staff,
receiving advice from outside experts, or requiring the implementation of an entirely new
curriculum.
The study results can help Texas educators identify struggling readers before the
administration of the Grade 3 Reading TAKS. Educators can then provide interventions
designed to improve basic reading skills, such as decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension skills. Such interventions may help struggling readers’ possibilities of
scoring in the proficient range on the state-mandated assessment (Simmons et al., 2008).

27. 13
In turn, the school districts may increase the likelihood of meeting adequate yearly
progress.
Study results may also contribute to positive social change. Elementary educators
may more easily identify struggling readers so that interventions can take place before
students take the Grade 3 Reading TAKS. Such interventions would target basic literacy
skills and include greater oral reading fluency and decoding strategies to improve
struggling readers’ reading proficiency (Jenkins et al., 2007). Diagnosis of struggling
readers and skills implementation help reduce the risk of students’ failing the state tests
and increase their possibilities of academic success (Ehri, 2005; Shapiro et al., 2008).
Struggling readers who are identified and remediated before the end of Grade 3
are more likely to improve their reading skills, thus helping to close the academic gap
with more proficient peers (Simmons et al., 2008). When struggling readers experience
success in reading, they are more likely to continue academic achievement through the
grades and graduate from high school (Houge, Peyton, Geier, & Petrie, 2007; Rumberger
& Palardy, 2005). Graduation from high school with proficient reading skills increases an
individual’s opportunities for employment and contribution to society (Katsiyannis et al.,
2007).
Transition Statement
It is important for students to learn to read proficiently by the end of Grade 3
(Ehri, 2005; NCLB, 2002). Nationwide, most students learn to read before the fourth
grade (U. S. Department of Education, 2007); however, between 15% (TEA, 2009c) and
33% (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) of students do not read proficiently.

28. 14
Researchers in Arizona (Wilson, 2005), Colorado (Wood, 2006), Florida (Roehrig et al.,
2008), North Carolina (Barger, 2003), Ohio (Vander Meer et al., 2005), Oregon (Baker et
al., 2008), and Pennsylvania (Shapiro et al., 2008) have found that oral reading fluency
rates correlated with reading proficiency as assessed on their states’ mandated reading
assessment. The two variables have been studied only in these seven states.
This nonexperimental quantitative study, based on the automaticity theory
(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974) and using Pearson correlation, filled a gap in the literature to
determine with a sample of 155 Grade 3 students in Texas if a statistically significant
relationship (p < .05) existed between their oral reading fluency rates (middle-of-year
DIBELS ORF) and their reading proficiency (end-of-year TAKS). Study findings may
result in positive social change by providing Texas educators with a valuable tool for
identifying struggling readers in Grade 3 (Simmons et al., 2008). Once struggling readers
are identified, educators can provide scientifically-based reading interventions to
strengthen phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills
(Chard et al., 2008). The identification and assistance of struggling readers can help them
improve academically and increase their success later in life (Katsiyannis et al., 2007;
Shaw & Berg, 2009).
In section 2, I review pertinent literature on the automaticity theory, oral reading
fluency, reading proficiency, and related concepts. In section 3, I describe the study
methodology in greater detail. Aspects include the sample, instruments, protection of
participants’ rights, data collection, and data analysis. In section 4, I report the study
findings. In section 5, I analyze the findings and discuss data from the study in light of

29. 15
the previous studies that compared DIBELS ORF rates with student performance on
state-mandated assessments. Additionally, I make recommendations in section 5
regarding future actions and ideas for future studies.

30. 16
Section 2: Literature Review
Introduction
In this section I review literature pertinent to this study in terms of the theory and
studies relevant to the variables. The section is organized as follows: (a) automaticity
theory; (b) oral reading fluency, including definitions, the role of oral reading fluency in
learning to read, and fluency instruction; (c) reading proficiency, including reading
proficiency and automaticity theory, definitions of reading proficiency, vocabulary and
Matthew effects, and comprehension; and (d) the relationship between oral reading
fluency and reading proficiency in state-mandated assessments, including studies of
Grade 3 only, of Reading First schools, and of Grade 3 and other grades, as well as
limitations of these studies. The section is concluded with a summary.
To investigate the literature for this study, I searched electronic databases, such as
Academic Search Premier, EBSCO, Dissertations and Theses, and ERIC, using the
keywords oral reading fluency/ORF, phonemic awareness, phonics, reading
comprehension, reading proficiency, and vocabulary. I also used bibliographies of
articles to search for additional literature and reviewed peer-reviewed articles. In
addition, I read several recently published books on the subject of oral reading fluency.
Automaticity Theory
LaBerge and Samuels (1974) used the automaticity theory to explain the
relationship between fluency and reading proficiency. They acknowledged that reading is
a complex skill that takes years to develop. Fluent readers are able to process the
necessary information in less than a second. However, some readers never reach a level at

31. 17
which they fluently read a text, even though they are able to adequately communicate
orally.
Reading is a complex skill with many subskills, in which readers must recognize
letters, spelling patterns, and words as well as attach meanings of words and context.
According to this theory, attention is a limited faculty, and when students are beginning
to learn to read, their attention is focused on factors other than meanings, such as shapes
of letters (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). In prekindergarten and kindergarten, students must
initially focus on the shapes within a letter, the length of lines, and the direction letters
are facing. As beginning readers, students have great difficulty distinguishing the
difference between letters. In addition, at first, students focus their attention on
recognizing and naming letters and do not have enough attention to focus on the sounds.
In addition to letter naming, LaBerge and Samuels (1974) found that a certain
amount of attention devoted to other subskills is also necessary for development of fluent
reading. Once beginning readers automatically recognize letters, they must learn to
associate sounds with the letters. Then they can focus their attention on reading parts of
words and entire words.
To test their theory of automaticity, LaBerge and Samuels (1974) designed an
experiment with eight college students. They measured the time the students took to
identify patterns of familiar and unfamiliar letters. The students were able to accurately
identify patterns of familiar letters more quickly than those of unfamiliar letters. Next, the
students received training on the unfamiliar letters. At the end of a 20-day period, they
were able to recognize the unfamiliar letters more accurately although still not as fast as

32. 18
the familiar letters. LaBerge and Samuels concluded that some degree of attention was
still needed for the students to make the association for unfamiliar letters.
From these results, LaBerge and Samuels (1974) expressed concerns regarding
their observations of teaching reading. They had found that teachers often directly teach
letter names until students are able to correctly identify the letters. Then teachers move to
direct instruction in other aspects of reading, such as letter sounds and blending.
However, students may still not be able to fluently identify letters. Because their attention
is focused on this task, they may not have adequate attention to devote to learning sounds
and how to blend them together to make words. Thus, LaBerge and Samuels
recommended that teachers continue teaching and testing letter naming until students
reach a level of automaticity. The researchers maintained that only when students can
automatically recognize letters can they focus a significant amount of attention on the
sounds the letters make.
In 1974, when LaBerge and Samuels first proposed the automaticity theory, they
focused on automaticity at the word level. Their study showed how readers who had not
reached a level of automatically decoding words would have trouble comprehending. At
that time, LaBerge and Samuels did not conceptualize that automaticity in other areas
was also important.
However, as researchers continued to develop the automaticity theory, they
recognized that metacognition also played an important role in comprehension and that
aspects of metacognition could be automaticized (Samuels, Ediger, Willcutt, & Palumbo,
2005). Metacognition is the readers’ awareness of what is being read and whether or not

33. 19
comprehension is taking place. Readers who use metacognition are thinking about
whether or not they are thinking about what the passage says. Factors such as readers’
motivation to read, their attitudes and beliefs about their reading ability, their interest in
the topic, and the amount of attention they devote to reading can affect how much they
comprehend. Whether or not readers are distracted by other factors, such as the
environment, noises, or other thoughts, can affect comprehension.
Metacognition also involves the insight readers bring to a text derived from
background knowledge. When readers read something with which they are highly
familiar, gaining new insights and adding to their cognitive repertoire of knowledge
seems easy (Samuels et al., 2005). However, when readers know very little about the
topic, they may have to work harder to comprehend the passage. Good readers learn to
recognize when cognitive aspects interfere with their ability to comprehend and to make
adjustments. Samuels et al. recommended that teachers instruct readers to be aware of
such factors by modeling thinking strategies and measuring students’ use through rubrics
until they automatically use metacognition strategies when reading.
According to automaticity theory, students who have low fluency rates struggle
with reading proficiency (Goffreda, Diperna, & Pedersen, 2009). In order to read
proficiently, students must be able to recognize words in context and use a variety of
strategies to comprehend a passage. Samuels (2006) summarized the automaticity theory
by identifying four components as elements of the relationship between oral reading
fluency and reading proficiency: decoding, comprehension, metacognition, and attention.

34. 20
First, a reader must decode the words in a text (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974).
Beginning or struggling readers may devote so much attention to decoding words that
comprehension is difficult, if not impossible (Samuels, 2006). However, proficient
readers are able to decode words and quickly attach meaning to them (Shaywitz, 2003).
Skilled readers can read a word and, within 150 milliseconds, less than the time it takes
for the heart to beat once, the brain has attached meaning to the word. However,
beginning and struggling readers process reading differently. Whereas skilled readers see
whole words, beginning and struggling readers, such as dyslexics, may only see a few
letters or sounds at a time (Samuels, 2006).
In 1974, LaBerge and Samuels could only presume that oral reading fluency
would affect comprehension. By 2006, Samuels had identified comprehension as another
component of the reading process. Fluent readers spend less attention on decoding words
and therefore can devote more attention to comprehending. Proficient readers combine
the information in a text with their background knowledge and critically analyze the text.
Samuels believed that readers must automatically decode before they can devote
sufficient attention to comprehension.
Samuel’s (2006) next component of the reading process is metacognition or one’s
own awareness of the thought processes. Proficient readers use metacognition when they
do not understand a text and make adaptations so they can comprehend it. Walczyk and
Griffith-Ross (2007) found that readers can comprehend by using metacognition to know
when they do not comprehend and adapt by using reading strategies such as slowing
down, reading out loud, rereading, or sounding out difficult words. Some readers use

35. 21
metacognition to improve their use of reading strategies until the strategies become
automatic. For example, readers can learn the skill of making inferences and use this skill
repeatedly until they automatically infer meaning while reading a passage. Proficient
readers use metacognition as they read and analyze text (Samuels, 2006).
Samuels’ (2006) final component of the reading process is attention. This is an
outcome of the previous three components, decoding, comprehension, and metacognition.
Beginning readers use excessive attention to decode words and have insufficient attention
remaining for comprehending or thinking about reading strategies they could use. As
readers become more proficient, they decode words automatically and devote more
attention to comprehension and metacognition. According to the automaticity theory,
readers are not proficient until they can apply their attention to decode, comprehend, and
use metacognition at the same time (Samuels, 2006).
Oral Reading Fluency
Originally LaBerge and Samuels (1974) used the automaticity theory to explain
why low reading fluency rates affect reading proficiency. The degree of expression can
indicate students’ understanding of the passage (Samuels, 2006). Most researchers
studying oral reading fluency and reading proficiency agree that oral reading fluency and
reading proficiency are related (Daane et al., 2005; Deeney, 2010; Miller &
Schwanenflugel, 2006). Researchers disagree, however, on how fluency is defined and
the validity of assessments used to assess it. To measure oral reading fluency, researchers
have developed assessments such as AIMSweb (Edformation, 2004), the DIBELS (Good
& Kaminiski, 2002a), the Reading Fluency Monitor (Read Naturally, 2002), and the

36. 22
Texas Primary Reading Inventory (University of Houston, 1999). In particular, Reading
First schools have widely used the DIBELS with more than 1,800,000 children
(Allington, 2009; Baker et al., 2008; Glenn, 2007; Manzo, 2005).
Some researchers have claimed that political reasons may have motivated the
widespread use of the DIBELS (Allington, 2009; Goodman, 2006; Manzo, 2005;
Pearson, 2006; Pressley, Hilden, & Shankland, 2005; Riedel, 2007). One of the
developers of DIBELS, Good from the University of Oregon, served on national
committees that developed Reading First. Critics (e.g., Glenn, 2007) have alleged that
Good personally benefitted when applications for Reading First grants were denied and
schools felt pressured by federal officials and consultants to include DIBELS in their
grant applications (Manzo, 2005). However, despite such claims, researchers recognize
DIBELS as a respected way of measuring oral reading fluency (Baker et al., 2008; Riedel
et al., 2007).
Definition of Oral Reading Fluency
Many researchers have focused on the definition of fluency used by the
developers of the DIBELS, although definitions vary (Hudson et al., 2005; Samuels,
2006). A fluent reader can read text with speed, accuracy, and proper expression
(NICHHD, 2000). Worthy and Broaddus (2002) defined fluency as “not only rate,
accuracy, and automaticity, but also of phrasing, smoothness, and expressiveness” (p.
334). Effective readers do more than just read the words; they understand what they read
(Marcell, 2007). Hudson et al. included accuracy, rate, and prosody in their definition of
fluency. Samuels (2007) and others (Allington, 2009; Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2008;

37. 23
Rasinski, 2006) contended that educators should consider prosody or the expression with
which students read a passage. Fuchs et al. (2001) found that prosody was difficult to
measure, so they chose to focus on rate and accuracy. The developers of the DIBELS
defined fluency as rate and accuracy (Good & Kaminski, 2002a).
Various researchers have asserted that the definition of fluency should include
comprehension (Kuhn, 2005; Marcell, 2007; Pikulski & Chard, 2005; Samuels, 2007).
Pikulski and Chard (2005) defined fluency as follows:
Reading fluency refers to efficient, effective word-recognition skills that permit a
reader to construct the meaning of text. Fluency is manifested in accurate, rapid,
expressive oral reading and is applied during, and makes possible, silent reading
comprehension. (p. 510)
Samuels (2006) not only agreed that the definition of fluency should include
comprehension but also stated that measures of fluency should assess reading and
comprehension at the same time. Samuels noted that beginning readers focus first on
decoding, and once they are able to decode automatically, they focus on comprehension.
Samuels emphasized that the automaticity theory, which he and LaBerge developed
(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974), requires students to decode words automatically so that they
can comprehend. He pointed out educators who assess fluency first and then assess
comprehension later or with a different assessment miss the point of automaticity.
Deeney (2010) included endurance in her definition of fluency. She agreed that
the definition of fluency consists of four components; accuracy, rate or speed, prosody,
and comprehension. However, in her work with students she saw the need to consider

38. 24
endurance. In her opinion, 1-minute fluency probes provide useful information for
identifying which students are struggling. However, Deeney pointed out that these
problems did not provide adequate information for determining why students struggle
and what can be done to address their academic needs. She agreed with Pikulski and
Chard (2005), who called for a deeper view of fluency. Deeney believed that such a
deeper view includes rate, accuracy, prosody, comprehension, and endurance.
The developers of DIBELS (Kame’enui & Simmons, 2001) and others (Francis et
al., 2005; Harn, Stoolmiller, & Chard, 2008; Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006; Jenkins et al.,
2007; Katzir et al., 2006) agreed with the definition of Roehrig et al. (2008) of oral
reading fluency as “accuracy and rate in connected text, or correct words per minute” (p.
345). Reading is a complex skill (Fuchs et al., 2001) that includes various components.
Kame’enui and Simmons discussed the simplicity and complexity of oral reading
fluency. They cited Watson (1968), the discoverer of DNA, who stated, “The idea is so
simple it had to be true” (as cited in Kame-enui & Simmons, p. 203). Like DNA, fluency
is a complex skill with many components, including phonemic awareness, alphabetic
principle, word reading, expression, and comprehension.
Fluency is also easily recognized. For example, a person listening to struggling
readers decoding words sound by sound can easily recognize they are not reading
fluently. Kame’enui and Simmons (2001) emphasized that even though educators have
debated the exact definition of oral reading fluency for decades, definition is not the
major point. Rather, as LaBerge and Samuels (1974) recognized when they developed the
automaticity theory, reading proficiency is a complex skill with many different aspects.

39. 25
Although LaBerge and Samuels focused only on rate and accuracy and the subskills of
letter and word recognition in 1974, they recognized that other aspects are involved.
When educators use only rate and accuracy to define fluency, they are measuring only the
subskill of fluency. Different assessments can be used to measure other subskills of
reading proficiency.
Skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics, and word reading are necessary
components of fluency that enable students to read passages expressively and with
understanding. However, by defining fluency as accuracy and rate, researchers gain a
measureable, workable definition to analyze the progress of beginning readers toward the
goal of adequately comprehending what they read. The National Reading Panel
(NICHHD, 2000) identified fluency as one of the main components of early reading
instruction. Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006) analyzed thousands of students’ oral reading
fluency rates in order to develop norms for Grades 1 through 8. Educators can listen to a
student read for as little as 1 minute and compare the fluency rate with thousands of other
students at the same grade level at the beginning, middle, or end of the school year. At
the conclusion of their research, Hasbrouck and Tindal recognized the complexity of
reading and recommended that educators consider fluency in the context of the other
components necessary for mastery.
In the present study, I defined oral reading fluency as the accuracy and rate at
which students read a grade level text (Francis et al., 2008; Harn et al., 2008; Hasbrouck
& Tindal, 2006; Jenkins et al., 2007; Katzir et al., 2006). This definition provided a
specific way to measure oral reading fluency so that I could determine if a relationship

40. 26
existed between oral reading fluency and reading proficiency. Although adopting the
limited definition of accuracy and rate (Roehrig et al. 2008), I also acknowledged that
prosody plays an important role in reading and fluency.
However, because prosody is difficult to measure (Fuchs et al., 2001;
Schwanenflugel et al., 2006), I chose to use the more measurable definition of oral
reading fluency. I also acknowledged that oral reading fluency is more that reading
quickly. Proficient readers are also able to comprehend what they read, as supported by
the research question, whether a relationship exists between oral reading fluency and
reading proficiency, as measured by Grade 3 students’ DIBELS ORF and the Grade 3
Reading TAKS.
The Role of Oral Reading Fluency in the Context of Learning to Read
As readers begin to read, fluency has a significant role (Harn et al., 2008).
Fluency for educators may be compared to temperature readings for physicians
(Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006). A physician considers a patient’s temperature, and if it is
above normal, the physician looks for possible causes and then determines an appropriate
treatment. In a similar way, educators examine oral reading fluency. If a student’s oral
reading fluency rate is below average, educators look for possible causes and then
determine appropriate interventions (Hasbrouck & Tindal).
Ehri (2005) studied the process by which students learn to read words. She
identified five phases: (a) the prealphabetic phase, (b) the partial-alphabetic phase, (c) the
full-alphabetic phase, (d) the consolidated-alphabetic phase, and (e) the automatic-

41. 27
alphabetic phase. These phases describe the process that beginning readers engage in as
they develop the skill of reading.
Phonemic awareness is one of the first skills beginning readers must learn. Ehri
(2005) discussed phonemic awareness in her first two phases: the prealphabetic and
partial-alphabetic phases. Beginning readers must learn to recognize that words they use
in their spoken vocabulary are constructed of individual sounds (Ehri & McCormick,
1998). Katzir et al. (2006) demonstrated the role of phonemic awareness in fluency. They
concluded that readers need phonemic awareness the most when decoding words they
have not seen before. After readers have developed a certain level of fluency, the brain
focuses less on phonemic awareness and more on other components of fluency, such as
the speed at which they are able to recognize letter patterns or word units. Researchers
have also found phonemic awareness in kindergarten to be a predictor of oral reading
fluency in later years (Katzir et al.).
As students learn phonemes, they begin to learn phonics, learning to associate the
phonemes to letters or graphemes (Ehri, 2005; Ehri & McCormick, 1998). Although
beginning readers focus on phonemic awareness, they deal only with the sounds of
language. When they begin to understand that letters represent sounds, they use phonics.
In Ehri’s second phase, the partial-alphabetic phase, children use the first and last letters
when identifying words. Children then learn to master the ability to sound out words.
Approximately half way through first grade, most readers enter what Ehri described in
her third phase as the full-alphabetic phase. During the first two phases, readers
laboriously sound out words. As they move into the full-alphabetic phase, they begin to

42. 28
recognize that certain letters work together to make certain sounds. Recognizing more of
these letter patterns, students are able to read faster. Over time, students learn to
recognize more letter patterns and words allowing them to read more words correctly
each minute (Ehri & McCormick).
Researchers have established a relationship between the knowledge of phonetic
elements and fluency (Chard et al., 2008; Eldredge, 2005; Harn et al., 2008). Chard et al.
documented that students who had demonstrated mastery in the alphabetic principal by
the end of Grade 1 were more fluent readers than their struggling peers at the end of
Grades 2 and 3. The readers who struggled with the alphabetic principle in Grade 1 did
not progress at the same rate as their peers who had mastered the alphabetic principle.
Chard et al. emphasized that teachers’ assuring that students have a good grasp of
phonetic knowledge by the end of Grade 1 is critical, because phonetic knowledge serves
as a predictor of how fluently they will read in later years. Mastery at the full-alphabetic
phase is essential before moving to the next two stages, the consolidated-alphabetic and
the automatic-alphabetic phases.
Usually during Grade 2, students progress to Ehri’s (Ehri & McCormick, 1998)
fourth phase, the consolidated-alphabetic phase. Readers begin to recognize more
combinations of letters within words (Harn et al., 2008). They begin to read words
syllable by syllable as well as to recognize prefixes and suffixes in words. This ability to
identify groups of letters helps to facilitate fluent reading as readers recognize more
words by sight (Ehri, 2005). However, readers may not completely develop the concepts
of the full-alphabetic phase until Grade 8 (Ehri & McCormick). In fact, some students

43. 29
learn to read and progress well until approximately Grade 4, when they begin to read
words with four or more syllables. As Ehri pointed out, educators may need to provide
further instruction to help these students see the syllabic units in larger words.
Fluency is the final phase, the automatic-alphabetic phase, in Ehri’s (Ehri &
McCormick, 1998) developmental sequence to early reading proficiency. During this
phase, students are able to read most words quickly and efficiently. When they encounter
a word they do not know, they use one or more of several methods they have developed
to ascertain meaning. Speece and Ritchey (2005) established that oral reading fluency
predicts reading comprehension. In their study with students in Grade 1 and Grade 2, a
significant gap was found between the oral reading fluency rates of students at risk for
reading difficulty and their peers who were not at risk. The researchers concluded that the
most unique variance for students’ second-grade increases in reading mastery and state
assessment achievement was predicted by increases in oral reading fluency for students in
the first grade.
Fluency Instruction
Oral reading fluency has been correlated with overall reading competence (Fuchs
et al., 2001), and studies have confirmed several strategies to improve reading fluency.
When students repeatedly read a passage, their fluency increases (Begeny, Daly, &
Valleley, 2006; Hiebert, 2005; Martens et al., 2007; Therrien, Gormley, & Kubina, 2006;
Therrien & Hughes, 2008). The repeated reading strategies can be implemented in a
variety of ways including readers’ theater, in which students repeatedly read a script as
they prepare to perform the reading for an audience (Corcorcan & Davis, 2005; Rasinski,

44. 30
2006). Although studies have found repeated readings effective, Kuhn (2005) found that
wide reading is just as effective, and Morgan and Sideridis (2006) found motivational
strategies were more effective than repeated readings. In addition, other strategies have
improved fluency. Nes Ferrera (2005) found that pairing struggling readers with more
experienced readers helped the struggling readers to read more fluently. Rasinski and
Stevenson (2005) found parents an effective resource when they helped their at-risk
students by working daily at home with them on reading.
Reading Proficiency
Reading proficiency involves more than mechanical reading of a passage. Based
on their review of literature, the National Reading Panel (NICHHD, 2000) captured the
essence of reading by identifying its five most important components. These are
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension.
Reading Proficiency and Automaticity Theory
Several researchers (Baker et al., 2008; Kuhn, 2005; Morgan & Sideridis, 2006;
Therrien & Hughes, 2008) have confirmed a relationship between reading proficiency
and automaticity. Baker et al. found that the DIBELS ORF rates of 4,696 Grade 3
students in Oregon significantly predicted their performance on the state-mandated
assessment. Students who read fluently also comprehended well enough to attain scores
of proficient on the state assessment.
Kuhn (2005) also confirmed the automaticity theory in a study of 24 Grade 2
students in a southeastern United States city with three student groups. The first group
participated in the repeated reading condition, in which students read the same story

45. 31
repeatedly over a 3-day period using strategies such as modeling, repetition, choral
reading, and pair reading. Over the 6-week period, this procedure was followed with six
books.
The second group participated in the nonrepetitive reading condition, in which
students read each book one time. The students read the same six stories as the ones used
in the repeated reading condition, with an additional 12, so that a new story was available
at each session. The third group participated in the listening only condition, in which the
researcher expressively read the books aloud to the students. Over the 6-week period,
these students listened to the same 18 stories as the students in the nonrepetitive group
read. The fourth group was the control group, in which students received no interventions
outside of the normal classroom instruction (Kuhn, 2005).
Kuhn (2005) found that the repeated reading and nonrepetitive reading
intervention groups were a more effective way to help students decode words than simply
listening or providing no intervention. Thus, Kuhn’s work confirmed the automaticity
theory. The students in the repeated reading and nonrepetitive reading groups
demonstrated that they automaticized the knowledge of words and sounds better than the
students in the listening only and control groups. Students in the first two groups
demonstrated greater gains in their ability to read both real and nonsense words and their
oral reading fluency rates.
Therrien and Hughes (2008) studied the effects of repeated reading and question
generation on students’ reading fluency and comprehension. During a 2-week period,
students who read at Grade 2 or 3 instructional levels were randomly divided into two

46. 32
groups. One group received the repeated reading intervention. Students were asked to
read a passage repeatedly until they reached the desired fluency level. On average,
students reached the fluency goal after 2.42 readings. The other group received the
question-generation intervention. Students read the passage once and received questions
to cue them to better comprehend the narrative passage, such as the following: (a) Who is
the main character?, (b) Where and when did the story take place?, and (c) What did the
main character do?
In both groups after the intervention was completed, tutors asked both factual and
inferential questions. Results documented that repeated reading improves fluency:
students in the repeated reading group read 22.5 more correct words per minute than
students in the question-generation group, who only read the passage one time.
Additionally, the students in the repeated reading group comprehended more factual
questions than the students in the question-generation group. There was no significance
difference in the two groups when they answered inferential questions (Therrien &
Hughes, 2008).
Therrien and Hughes (2008) concluded that repeated reading improved both
fluency and comprehension. However, they recommended that additional research be
conducted to determine the effects of text difficulty. Oral reading fluency rates are
important to consider when students are reading passages in which they cannot read a
significant percentage of the words. For example, in this study the researchers considered
instructional level to be one at which students correctly read 85% to 95% of the words.
Therefore, the students in the question-generation group may not have been able to

47. 33
understand 5% to 15% of the words in the text. When students do not know 5% to 15%
of the words in a passage, their comprehension can be affected. The situation can be
further compounded when students read at their level of frustration, less than 85% of the
words in the passage.
Therrien and Hughes (2008) recommended that other research studies focus on
how comprehension is affected by readers’ levels of difficulty. The researchers also
recommended that studies with longer intervention time be conducted to indicate whether
more than 2 weeks of intervention would enable the students in the question-generation
group to use cued questions to answer the inferential questions. This study demonstrated
that repeated reading does improve both fluency and comprehension.
In contrast to these and other studies that found repeated reading to be an effective
intervention (Begeny et al., 2006; Hiebert, 2005; Hudson et al., 2005; Rasinski, 2006;
Therrien et al., 2006; Therrien & Kubina, 2007), Morgan and Sideridis (2006) found that
repeated reading was not as effective as other strategies. They conducted a meta-analysis
of 30 studies that used single-subject research designs to determine “the effectiveness of
different types of interventions on fluency for students with or at risk for learning
disabilities” (p. 200). The researchers categorized the interventions by the following
strategies: (a) keywords and previewing, (b) listening and repeated readings, (c) goal
setting plus performance feedback, (d) contingent reinforcement, (e) goal setting plus
feedback and reinforcement, (f) word recognition, and (g) tutoring.
According to Morgan and Sideridis’ (2006) findings, the most effective
interventions were reinforcement, goal setting plus feedback, and goal setting plus

48. 34
feedback and reinforcement. When the researchers analyzed the students’ improvements
over time, the goal setting interventions showed significant growth, and the listening and
repeated readings interventions did not. Although Morgan and Sideridis’ findings did not
concur with other researchers’ findings regarding repeated readings, their results
nevertheless substantiate the automaticity theory. They found that when students were
motivated to set goals and were positively reinforced, they were able to improve their
automaticity, as demonstrated by increases in their oral reading fluency rates.
Definition of Reading Proficiency
After the authorization of NCLB (2002), the U.S. Department of Education
formed the NARAP to define reading and reading proficiency (2006). Since NCLB
mandated that all students be proficient in reading by 2013-2014, states and test
developers needed a definition of reading proficiency to create appropriate measurement
assessments. This task was not a simple one. The definition had to capture the essence of
reading and encompass the developmental attributes of reading across grade levels
(NARAP).
Each of the 50 states defines reading proficiency at each grade level in terms of
their curriculum expectations, as measured by the state’s reading assessment. NARAP’s
(2006) definition also had to include students with disabilities who access texts
differently from nondisabled students. For example, blind students access texts through
braille. Hearing-impaired students may not decode the words of a text in the same
manner as nonhearing-impaired students. Furthermore, students with learning disabilities

49. 35
such as dyslexia may require accommodations, including extra time in order to read a
passage proficiently.
Thus, the national definition of reading proficiency had to allow for differences in
states’ definitions, curriculum differences, students’ ages and grades, and conditions of
handicap. After NARAP (2006) convened a panel of experts who were discussing
working definitions with focus groups, NARAP formulated the following definition of
reading proficiency:
Reading is the process of deriving meaning from text. For the majority of readers,
this process involves decoding written text. Some individuals require adaptations
such as braille or auditorization to support the decoding process. Understanding
text is determined by the purposes for reading, the context, the nature of the text,
and the readers’ strategies and knowledge. (Cline et al., 2006, para. 8)
Following from this definition, states were able to use it as a guide to examine
their curriculum expectations at each grade level and design assessments to measure
reading proficiency. Under the NCLB (2002), implementation means that 50 different
states are assessing reading proficiency at Grades 3, 5, 8, and exit level. Consequently,
200 definitions could exist for defining reading proficiency (four grades times 50 states).
Many states also give assessments of reading proficiency in more grades. In Texas, for
example, assessments are given in eight grades, Grades 3 through 10 (TEA, 2009d).
Definitions vary among states. TEA, for example, requires proficient readers in
Grade 3 to have a basic understanding of reading, apply knowledge of literary elements,
use a variety of strategies to analyze text, and apply critical-thinking skills to analyze the

50. 36
passage (TEA, 2004). Florida’s state assessment that measures reading proficiency
contains four areas of assessment: (a) word phrases in context; (b) main idea, plot, and
purpose; (c) comparison and cause/effect; and (d) reference and research (Florida
Department of Education, 2005). In Colorado, the definition of reading proficiency
includes requiring students to “locate, select, and make use of relevant information from
a variety of media, reference, and technological sources” and to “read and recognize
literature as a record of human experience” (Colorado Department of Education, 2010,
para.7). Even though NARAP (2006) provided states with a general definition of reading
proficiency, as these examples show, each state assesses reading proficiency with its
own definition, based on their curriculum standards.
As the definition of reading proficiency in Texas shows, reading proficiency is a
complex skill. Proficient readers, as noted earlier, must attach meaning to the words they
read to understand what the author is communicating (NARAP, 2006). Proficient readers
not only read the words on a page, but they use strategies to read between the lines and
beyond the lines. Thus, a review of literature relating to vocabulary and comprehension is
warranted.
Vocabulary and Matthew Effects
Vocabulary is one of the National Reading Panel’s five essential components for
effective reading programs (NICHHD, 2000). Vocabulary is comprised of the words an
individual knows (Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008). People may identify words by the way they
sound, the way they are used in context, or the way they are spelled. New words are
introduced either through words that are heard or read. Thus, readers can read more

51. 37
proficiently when they decode unknown words and attempt to determine the meaning of
unknown words (NICHHD, 2000). Ouellette (2006) found that readers are more likely to
decode an unknown word if it exists in their spoken vocabulary. When readers know 90%
to 95% of the words in a text, they are able to figure out the meaning of the other
unknown words (Hirsch, 2003).
Struggling readers have difficulty decoding words. Because reading is difficult for
them, they become frustrated (Ehri & McCormick, 1998). They must work hard to read
and often find numerous ways to avoid reading. Consequently, they do not want to read
widely, and their vocabulary does not increase. Conversely, proficient readers have a
larger vocabulary than struggling readers because they have read more. Proficient readers
are able to use their vocabulary to decode and determine the meaning of even more
unknown words. The more they read, the more they know. Stanovich (1998) referred to
this gap between proficient readers and their struggling peers as Matthew effects—a
reference to the Biblical passage, Matthew 25:29, that refers to the rich becoming richer
and the poor becoming poorer (p. 10). For struggling readers, the gap widens as they
progress through the grades (Morgan et al., 2008; Stanovich, 1998).
Several studies support Matthew effects. Katz, Stone, Carlisle, Corey, and Zeng
(2008) studied the difference in growth of reading skills between Grade 1 proficient
readers and struggling readers. The researchers reported that not only did the struggling
readers have lower oral reading fluency rates than the proficient readers, but they
improved at a slower rate. A study with students in kindergarten to Grade 3 in Oregon
and Texas documented the presence of Matthew effects for students in all four grades

52. 38
(Chard et al., 2008). Rosenthal and Ehri (2008) studied the acquisition of new vocabulary
with students in Grades 2 and 5. For students at both grade levels, the researchers
documented the gap between struggling readers and proficient readers and its effect on
students’ learning of new words.
Consequently, struggling readers’ vocabulary is limited when compared to their
proficient peers (Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008). Struggling readers’ limited vocabulary hinders
them from learning as many new words as their proficient fellow students. Struggling
readers who have a limited vocabulary have difficulty understanding texts that they read,
decoding and learning new words, and developing skills that allow them to become
proficient readers.
Comprehension
The final component for effective reading programs identified by the National
Reading Panel is comprehension (NICHHD, 2000). Comprehension and oral reading
fluency rates are related, and researchers continue to examine the relationship from
various perspectives. These include questions such as the following: Are oral reading
fluency rates and comprehension related only in the beginning stages of reading? Do all
readers with low reading fluency rates struggle with comprehension? Are there readers
with high oral reading fluency rates who are unable to comprehend? The following
researchers have asked these questions.
Fuchs et al. (2001) were among the first to establish oral reading fluency as an
accurate and reliable measure that served as a predictor of general reading
comprehension. Other researchers (Baker et al., 2008; Chard et al., 2008; Katz et al.,

53. 39
2008; Simmons et al., 2008) have since correlated oral reading fluency rates and
comprehension at different grade levels and on a variety of assessments. As beginning
readers progress through the various phases of learning to read (Ehri, 2005), teachers
design instructional strategies to meet their needs and help them improve their reading
skills. By the middle of first grade, a connection is established between how many words
a minute students read and how much they comprehend (Hosp & Fuchs, 2005).
For students in Grades 1 through 4, researchers (Hosp & Fuchs, 2005; Simmons
et al., 2008) have found that oral reading fluency correlated with reading performance on
the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (Woodcock, 1973). For these same grades,
other researchers have studied the relationship between oral reading fluency and
comprehension (Daane et al., 2005). Baker et al. (2008) and Chard et al. (2008) found a
relationship between oral reading fluency rates and performance on SAT-10. The results
of Pressley et al. (2005) confirmed a relationship between oral reading fluency and
reading performance on the TerraNova. Speece and Ritchey (2005) also demonstrated the
relationship between oral reading fluency and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological
Processing (CTOPP) and the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE).
Researchers have also studied the relationship between oral reading fluency and
comprehension in older students. With students above Grade 4, Therrien and Hughes
(2008) as well as Therrien and Kubina (2007) found that oral reading fluency and
comprehension were significantly related. In work with middle and junior high school
students, Fuchs et al. (2001) established a correlation between oral reading fluency and
reading proficiency as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. However, for

54. 40
students at various grade levels, additional research should be conducted to examine
whether a statistically significant relationship exists between oral reading fluency and
reading proficiency as defined by specific state reading assessments, such as the TAKS.
The current study filled this gap for Grade 3 students in Texas.
Older struggling readers with low oral reading fluency rates can learn to use
certain learning strategies to improve their comprehension (Walczyk & Griffith-Ross,
2007). Walczyk and Griffith-Ross worked with students in Grades 3, 5, and 7 to
determine if struggling readers at these grade levels could develop compensatory
strategies to help them read text. The researchers found that struggling readers sometimes
slowed down in order to facilitate their comprehension. For example, to compensate for
decoding unknown words, struggling readers would sound out unknown words or simply
skip them. When the students realized they were not comprehending, they might pause,
look back, or reread the text.
In addition, factors other than familiarity or understanding of words can affect
comprehension. These factors include degree of readers’ motivation or feelings of time
pressure. Walczyk and Griffith-Ross (2007) found that students who had low motivation
read slowly, but those who were interested in the text could comprehend by using
compensation strategies. Stage of maturation also seemed to play a role in the effect of
time pressure on comprehension. Students in Grade 3 comprehended less when under
time constraints than students in Grade 7. However, students in Grade 5 performed at
generally the same level with and without time constraints.

55. 41
Walczyk and Griffith-Ross (2007) conjectured that the readers’ engagement made
the difference. The students in Grade 3 seemed to be engaged in the text as they tried to
decode the words, and time pressure negatively affected their comprehension. In contrast,
by Grade 7 many of the students had become less engaged with routine reading
assignments, but their engagement increased when they were timed. The students in
Grade 5 appeared to be in transition between the two modes of reading text. Thus,
Walczyk and Griffith-Ross demonstrated that students with low fluency rates can
comprehend text by using metacognitive strategies to compensate, such as sounding out
words, and engaging with greater motivation when experiencing time pressure.
Researchers indicate that oral reading fluency rates predict comprehension (Chard
et al., 2008; Daane et al., 2005) not because readers can read a passage quickly but
because fluent readers are able to use mental energy comprehending rather than
struggling with decoding (Fuchs et al., 2001; Samuels, 2006). Kuhn et al. (2005)
indicated that when the readers in their study focused on how fast they read the passage,
their comprehension was not as effective as those who focused on the passage itself.
Samuels (2007) reiterated that when readers focus too intensely on how fast they are
reading, their ability to comprehend suffers.
Fluency is only one component of reading (NICHHD, 2000). When Hasbrouck
and Tindal (2006) developed the oral reading fluency norms, they observed that once
readers reached the 50th percentile, teachers should not encourage them to read faster.
The researchers recommended that teachers only provide intervention for those students
who read 10 words per minute below the 50th percentile. This advice was based on the

56. 42
principle that fluency intervention is reading fluently enough to focus on comprehension
rather than a race for readers of the most words in a minute.
Some readers read fluently but have trouble comprehending (Harrison, 2008;
Samuels, 2006). If readers are not actively engaged in the reading process, they can
mechanically read a passage but not understand what the author is saying (Schnick &
Knickelbine, 2000). Readers who are intrinsically motivated to read can understand what
the author is saying because they are curious and want to read more. In contrast, readers
who are not motivated to read are often not engaged and fail to make the necessary
connections for comprehension.
Marcell (2007) reported on a student who was able to read a passage fluently at
120 words correct per minute but could not retell what he had read. This student needed
further instruction in comprehension strategies in order to become a proficient reader.
Samuels (2006) pointed out that students whose second language is English may
successfully decode passages although they have very little comprehension. His work
with among students in St. Paul, Minnesota, revealed that although about 20% could read
fluently, they could not comprehend what they read. Furthermore, some high-
comprehending readers have low fluency rates (Samuels, 2006).
The goal of reading is to comprehend or understand text (Applegate et al., 2009;
NICHHD, 2000), and the studies in this section indicate a relationship between students’
oral reading fluency rates and comprehension at various stages of reading and grade
levels. Oral reading fluency rates are important not because of how fast students read but

57. 43
because fluency demands little conscious attention and enables them to focus on
comprehension (Samuels, 2006).
Relationship Between Oral Reading Fluency and Reading Proficiency in State-
Mandated Assessments
Since LaBerge and Samuels’ (1974) development of the automaticity theory,
many studies (Daane et al., 2005; Kuhn, 2005; Riedel, 2007) have confirmed a
relationship between how fluently students read and how proficiently they comprehend
text at various grade levels. However, fewer studies have considered oral reading fluency
rates with the DIBELS ORF and reading proficiency as measured by state-mandated
assessments. Many school districts use the DIBELS ORF assessment to identify students
at risk for failing (Cusumano, 2007; Fletcher, Francis, Morris, & Lyon, 2005; Gersten &
Dimino, 2006; Jenkins et al., 2007; Katz et al., 2008; Stecker, Lembke, & Foegen, 2008;
Wood, Hill, Meyer, & Flowers, 2005). Studies have been conducted for only seven states
for positive correlations between students’ oral reading fluency rates, measured by the
DIBELS ORF, and reading proficiency, using their states’ mandated reading assessments.
These states are as follows: Arizona (Wilson, 2005), Colorado (Shaw & Shaw, 2002;
Wood, 2006), Florida (Buck & Torgesen, 2003; Roehrig et al., 2008), North Carolina
(Barger, 2003), Ohio (Vander Meer et al., 2005), Oregon (Baker et al., 2008), and
Pennsylvania (Shapiro et al., 2008).

58. 44
Studies of Grade 3 Only
Researchers have conducted two studies with Grade 3 students only. In Colorado,
Shaw and Shaw (2002) conducted research using 52 Grade 3 students from a Colorado
elementary school to determine if the DIBELS ORF benchmarks were a predictor of
success on the Colorado State Assessment Program. The researchers found the DIBELS
ORF to be strongly correlated, .80, the highest correlation of the studies reviewed here.
For Florida Grade 3 students, Buck and Torgesen (2003) compared the DIBELS
ORF rates of 1,102 students in 13 elementary schools to their performance on the Florida
Comprehension Assessment Test. The researchers found a significant correlation, .70.
They thus concluded that for this sample the DIBELS ORF rate was a predictor of
success on the Florida Comprehension Assessment Test.
Studies of Reading First Schools
For studies in three states, the researchers (Baker et al., 2008; Roehrig et al.,
2008; Wilson, 2005) used the large databases from Reading First schools to determine if
DIBELS ORF correlated with state-mandated assessments. To identify and monitor the
progress of struggling readers, over 90% of the Reading First schools used DIBELS oral
reading fluency (Glenn, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). With an Arizona
Reading First school, Wilson conducted a study with 241 Grade 3 students. He found a
moderately large correlation (.74) between the DIBELS ORF and the Arizona Instrument
to Measure Standards. Roehrig et al. conducted a similar study with Florida students, in
which the DIBELS ORF rates of 35,207 Grade 3 students were compared to their
performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment. Correlations were also

59. 45
moderately large, ranging from .70 to .71. In Oregon, Baker et al. used 34 randomly
selected Oregon Reading First schools located in 16 different school districts. The
researchers compared the DIBELS ORF rates of 4,696 Grade 3 students with their
performance on the Oregon State Reading Assessment. The correlations ranged from
0.58 to 0.68, somewhat lower than the Arizona and Florida studies.
Pressley et al. (2005) suggested that studies on the DIBELS should be conducted
by researchers not associated with Reading First. In response, Barger (2003) compared
the DIBELS ORF rates of 38 students to the North Carolina End of Grade 3 Test. Barger
also found a moderately large correlation (.73), similar to those found by Wilson (2005)
and Roehrig et al. (2008). These researchers documented the positive relationship
between the DIBELS ORF and four different state-mandated reading assessments for
Grade 3 students.
Studies of Grade 3 and Other Grades
However, Fuchs et al. (2001) suggested that the correlation between oral reading
fluency and comprehension may be stronger in Grade 3 than in other grades, for which
assessments measure higher levels of comprehension. Three groups of researchers
(Shapiro et al., 2008; Vander Meer et al., 2005; Wood, 2006) studied this issue by using
students in Grades 3, 4, and 5. For Colorado schools, Wood (2006) used 82 Grade 3
students, 101 Grade 4 students, and 98 Grade 5 students to determine if the DIBELS ORF
consistently predicted performance on the Colorado Student Assessment Program across
grade levels. Wood found significant correlations at all three levels: for Grade 3 at .70,

60. 46
Grade 4 at .67, and Grade 5 at .75. These values were similar to those found by Wilson
(2005), Roehrig et al. (2008), and Barger (2003) for Reading First schools.
For two grade levels with students in Ohio, Vander Meer et al. (2005) correlated
the end-of-year Grade 3 DIBELS ORF with performance on the reading portion of the
Ohio Proficiency Test. A total of 318 Grade 4 students from three elementary schools
comprised the sample. Vander Meer et al. (2005) found a significant correlation, .65,
between the end-of-year Grade 3 ORF scores and the Grade 4 Ohio Proficiency Test
scores. Because this study considered the same students across two successive grades, the
researchers concluded that oral reading fluency was an accurate predictor of performance
on the reading portion of the Ohio Proficiency Test.
With students in Pennsylvania across grade levels, Shapiro et al. (2008) compared
the DIBELS ORF rates of 401 Grade 3 students, 394 Grade 4 students, and 205 Grade 5
students with their performance on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment. The
researchers found significant correlations for all three grades: Grade 3 at.67, Grade 4 at
.64, and Grade 5 at.73. Again, these results were similar to those of the previous studies.
The findings of Wood (2006) and Shapiro et al. support the use of the DIBELS ORF as a
consistent predictor of performance on state-mandated reading assessments not only for
Grade 3 but also across grade levels.
Thus, for seven states of the 50 that require state-mandated assessments of
reading proficiency, studies have found significant positive relationship between the
DIBELS ORF and the state measures. However, because definitions of reading
proficiency differ across states and grade levels, the need existed for researchers to

61. 47
determine if DIBELS ORF correlates significantly with state-mandated assessments in
other states and at other grade levels (Roehrig et al., 2008). The present study focused on
Grade 3 students in Texas. No similar study has been conducted to determine if a
significant relationship existed for Grade 3 students between DIBELS ORF rates
(independent variable) and reading proficiency (dependent variable), as measured by the
scores on the Grade 3 Reading TAKS.
Limitations of State Studies
In the studies reviewed above, the researchers all reported significant
relationships between the DIBELS ORF in relation to Grade 3 students and reading
proficiency as assessed on state-mandated assessments. However, the researchers also
recognized limitations of their studies. One limitation was sample composition and size.
For example, the Colorado sample (Wood, 2006) consisted of primarily White students.
The North Carolina sample (Barger, 2003) had only 38 students. On the other hand, the
Oregon sample (Baker et al., 2008) and one of the Florida samples (Roehrig et al., 2008)
had large statewide samples from students in Reading First schools. One of the criteria
for being a Reading First school was a high population of students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds, and thus these samples were not representative of the
general Grade 3 population. In all these studies, researchers recommended future research
that would include wider cross-sections of students as well as non-Reading First schools
for greater generalizability of results to other school settings.
Another limitation of these studies was recognition of other variables that might
affect the relationship between oral reading fluency and reading proficiency. In the

62. 48
Oregon study, Baker et al. (2008) singled out diversity as a factor. The Reading First
sample schools had large poverty rates and low reading achievement, and Baker et al.
recommended additional research that focused on specific ethnic backgrounds as well as
subpopulations, such as special education students. In Arizona, Wilson (2005)
recommended future studies after Arizona implemented the 2005 Arizona’s Instrument to
Measure Standards Dual Purpose Assessment (AIMS DPA) measurement scale and
performance levels. Wilson posited that the relationships between scores would be
different with the new standards. When Wilson published his results, it was not clear
whether the expected performance levels would be higher or lower than the ones used in
his study.
For the Pennsylvania study, Shapiro et al. (2008) used data from the 4Sight
assessments in addition to DIBELS. They used the 4Sight assessments to provide further
information on students’ reading comprehension to predict reading proficiency. The
4Sight assessments are short tests similar in format and other aspects to state assessments
and are used throughout the school year to produce overall scores that may predict
students’ scores on state assessments. Many states use the 4Sight assessments, including
California, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas (Success for All Foundation, 2010).
In the Pennsylvania study (Shapiro et al., 2008), the 4Sight benchmark
assessments were administered to students as a group rather than individually. Whole
group administration enabled researchers to assess many students in approximately 1
hour. However, some reading skills, such as oral reading fluency, are best tested when

63. 49
administered individually so educators can monitor the rate and accuracy with which a
student reads.
Shapiro et al. (2008) recommended future studies in other states to determine if
their findings could be replicated. Additional studies over time and in various locations
would help generalize the findings to larger populations. Shapiro et al. also noted that the
schools in their samples represented varying demographic characteristics but were similar
in their levels of poverty. The researchers recommended additional studies in other
schools with different poverty levels to eliminate poverty as a factor and for greater
generalization.
As a result of these limitations and recommendations, researchers indicate the
need for additional studies on the DIBELS ORF and state-mandated assessments, in
Grade 3 and other grades. Roehrig et al. (2008) pointed out this need especially in other
states. I responded to this need with this study to determine if a statistically significant
relationship existed between the DIBELS ORF and the TAKS for Grade 3 students in
Texas.
Summary
In section 2, literature regarding the automaticity theory, oral reading fluency, and
reading proficiency was reviewed. LaBerge and Samuels (1974) developed the
automaticity theory to explain why readers who struggle with low oral reading fluency
rates also struggle with comprehension. La Berge and Samuels and other researchers that
followed (Baker et al., 2008; Kuhn, 2005; Morgan & Sideridis, 2006) demonstrated that
readers have a limited amount of attention to devote to reading. When too much attention