This brief report summarizes the development and psychometric properties of German reading fluency passages as compared to English reading fluency passages for immersion language learners. Results indicated that scores from German language reading fluency passages alone were (a) somewhat less reliable than scores from English publisher-developed passages, (b) similarly valid measures of reading when compared to scores from English reading fluency passages, and (c) more accurate than publisher-provided English cut-scores but not as accurate as locally developed English cut-scores in the identification of at-risk readers.
Al OtaibaS.PetscherY.PappamihielN. E.WilliamsR. S.DyrlundA. K.ConnorC. (2009). Modeling oral reading fluency development in Latino students: A longitudinal study across second and third grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.0.4.13/a0014698
2.
ArdoinS. P.SuldoS. M.WittJ.AldrichS.McDonaldE. (2005). Accuracy of readability estimates’ predictions of CBM performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.20.1.1.64193
3.
BakerD. L.ParkY.BakerS. K. (2012). The reading performance of English learners in grades 1–3: The role of initial status and growth on reading fluency in Spanish and English. Reading and Writing, 25(1), 251–281.
4.
BegenyJ. C.GreeneD. J. (2014). Can readability formulas be used to successfully gauge difficulty of reading materials?Psychology in the Schools, 51(2), 198–215.
5.
BjörnssonC. H. (1968). Lesbarkeit durch LIX [Readability via LIX]. Pedagogiskt centrum, Stockholms skolförvaltn.
6.
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2011). Directory of foreign language immersion programs in U.S. schools. http://webapp.cal.org/Immersion/
7.
ComptonD. L.AppletonA. C.HospM. K. (2004). Exploring the relationship between text-leveling systems and reading accuracy and fluency in second-grade students who are average and poor decoders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(3), 176–184.
8.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. The Council for Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232.
HakutaK.ButlerY. G.WittD. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Report, 2000–1). The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
11.
KilgusS. P.MetheS. A.MagginD. M.TomasulaJ. L. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (R-CBM): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology, 52(4), 377–405.
12.
KlareG. R. (1984). Readability. In David PearsonP. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 681–744). Longman.
13.
KrachS. K.McCreeryM. P.GuerardJ. (2017). Cultural-linguistic test adaptations: Guidelines for selection, alteration, use, and review. School Psychology International, 38(1), 3–21.
14.
Lindholm-LearyK.GeneseeF. (2014). Student outcomes in one-way, two-way, and indigenous language immersion education. Journal of Immersion and Content- Based Language Education, 2(2), 165–180. doi 10.1075/jicb.2.2.01linissn2212–8433
15.
LovettM. W.FrijtersJ. C.WolfM.SteinbachK. A.SevcikR. A.MorrisR. D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181
NewellK. W.CoddingR. S.FortuneT. W. (2020). Oral reading fluency as a screening tool with English learners: A systematic review. Psychology in the Schools, 57(8), 1208–1239. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22406
19.
PellegrinoF.CoupéC.MarsicoE. (2011). Across-language perspective on speech information rate. Language, 87(3), 539–558.
20.
PoncyB. C.SkinnerC. H.AxtellP. K. (2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute using curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 326–338.
21.
ShinJ.McMasterK. (2019, March). Relations between CBM (oral reading and maze) and reading comprehension on state achievement tests: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 73, 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.005
22.
Solano-FloresG.TrumbullE. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 3–13.
23.
Theodore J. Christ Colleagues. (2015). Formative assessment system for teachers: Benchmarks and norms for 2015–16. Author and FastBridge Learning, LLC.
24.
ValdesG.FigueroaR. A. (1996). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Ablex.
25.
WalterJ. (2008). Curriculumbasiertes Messen (CBM) als lernprozessbegleitende Diagnostik: Erste deutschsprachige Ergebnisse zur Validität, Reliabilität und Veränderungssensibilität eines robusten Indikators zur Lernfortschrittsmessung beim Lesen (Curriculum-based measurement as a progress monitoring tool: First German-language validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change evidence for a robust indicator measuring reading progress). Heilpädagogische Forschung, 34(2), 62–79.
26.
YeoS. (2011). Reliability generalization of curriculum-based measurement reading aloud: A meta-analytic review. Exceptionality, 19(2), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2011.562094
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
