Drawing on cognitive theory in reading comprehension, Sentence Order Fluency (SOF) is proposed as a method for monitoring progress in reading comprehension. In this article, we present results of a pilot study on SOF conducted between April and June 2023, with a group of 119 students in Grades 4, 5, and 6 in a charter school in the mid-Atlantic U.S. Students’ median SOF scores exhibited correlations between .59 and .67 with Gates-McGinitie IV comprehension extended scaled scores. While SOF on its own explained about 45% of the variance in comprehension after controlling for classroom membership and grade level, a combination of accuracy, fluency, and SOF scores together accounted for up to 62% of the variance in comprehension scores; between 14% and 16% of the variance in comprehension was explained uniquely by SOF after controlling for reading accuracy and fluency, as measured by easyCBM Passage Reading Fluency probes. Results suggest SOF exhibits potential utility as a progress monitoring technique for student reading comprehension.
AlbrechtJ. E.O’BrienE. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1061–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1061
2.
AlonzoJ.AndersonD. (2018). Supplementary report on easyCBM MCRC measures: A follow-up to previous technical reports (Technical Report #1807). Behavioral Research and Teaching.
3.
AlonzoJ.BasarabaD.TindalG.CarriveauR. S. (2009). They read, but how well do they understand? An empirical look at the nuances of measuring reading comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508408330082
4.
AndersonD.AlonzoJ.TindalG.FarleyD.IrvinP. S.LaiC. F.SavenJ. L.WrayK. A. (2014). Technical manual: EasyCBM. Technical Report# 1408. Behavioral Research and Teaching.
5.
BarthA. E.StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M.CirinoP. T.RomainM.FrancisD.VaughnS. (2012). Reliability and validity of oral reading fluency median and mean scores among middle grade readers when using equated texts. Reading Psychology, 33(1–2), 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.631863
6.
BurnsM. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response-to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(3), 297–313. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1045-3830.22.3.297
CarlsonS. E.SeipelB.McMasterK. (2014). Development of a new reading comprehension assessment: Identifying comprehension differences among readers. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.003
9.
CataldoM.OakhillJ. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 791–799. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663,92.4.791
10.
ClemensN. H.FuchsD. (2022). Commercially developed tests of reading comprehension: Gold standard or fool’s gold?Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.415
11.
CohenJ. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 1155–1159.
12.
CornoldiC.OakhillJ. V. (Eds.) (2013). Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and Intervention. Routledge. (Original work published 1996).
13.
CromleyJ. G.AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
DiggsC. R.ChristT. J. (2019). Investigating the diagnostic consistency and incremental validity evidence of curriculum-based measurements of oral reading rate and comprehension. Contemporary School Psychology, 23, 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-018-0194-x
16.
EndersC. K.BandalosD. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
17.
EspinC.WallaceT.LembkeE.CampbellH.LongJ. D. (2010). Creating a progress-monitoring system in reading for middle-school students: Tracking progress toward meeting high-stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00304.x
18.
FildermanM. J.StewartA. A.CramerA. M.Hughes-BerheimS. S.SwansonE. (2024). Intensification of a reading comprehension intervention using student data: A pilot study. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325241249767
19.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford Publications.
20.
FlynnL.McNamaraD.McCarthyK.MaglianoJ.AllenL. (2021). The appearance of coherence: Using cohesive properties of readers’ constructed responses to predict individual differences. Revista Signos. Estudios De Lingüística, 54(107), 1061–1088. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342021000301061
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. The Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 103–110.
25.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258800900206
26.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A.CummingsK.Dufour-MartelC.PetersenK.Powell-SmithK.StollarS.WallinJ. (2011). DIBELS next assessment manual. Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc.
27.
GouldthorpB.KatsipisL.MuellerC. (2018). An investigation of the role of sequencing in children’s reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.186.
28.
GroszB.JoshiA.WeinsteinS. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2), 203–225. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/211190.211198
29.
GuthrieJ. T.SeifertM.BurnhamN. A.CaplanR. I. (1974, November). The maze technique to assess, monitor reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 28, 161–168.
30.
JamgochianE.ParkB. J.NeseJ. F.LaiC. F.SáezL.AndersonD.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM grade 2 reading measures. Technical Report# 1004. Behavioral Research and Teaching.
31.
JanuaryS. A. A.ArdoinS. P. (2012). The impact of context and word type on students’ maze task accuracy. School Psychology Review, 41, 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087508
KimY. S. G.WagnerR. K. (2015). Text (oral) reading fluency as a construct in reading development: An investigation of its mediating role for children from grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375
34.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge university press.
35.
LaiC. F.NeseJ. F.JamgochianE. M.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM primary-Level Reading Measures (Grades K-1), 2009-2010 Version. Technical Report# 1003. Behavioral Research and Teaching.
MaglianoJ. P.TrabassoT.GraesserA. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 615–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.615
38.
MarcotteA. M.HintzeJ. M. (2009). Incremental and predictive utility of formative assessment methods of reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 47(5), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.003
39.
McNamaraD. S.KintschW. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975
40.
MercerS. H.DufreneB. A.Zoder-MartellK.HarpoleL. L.MitchellR. R.BlazeJ. T. (2012). Generalizability theory analysis of CBM maze reliability in third-through fifth-grade students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508411430319
41.
MuijselaarM. M.KendeouP.de JongP. F.Van den BroekP. W. (2017). What does the CBM-Maze test measure?Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1263994
42.
NeseJ. F.BiancarosaG.CummingsK.KennedyP.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2013). In search of average growth: Describing within-year oral reading fluency growth across Grades 1–8. Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 625–642.
43.
RevelleW. (2024). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.4.12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
44.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
45.
RoweM.OzuruY.McNamaraD. (2006). An analysis of standardized reading ability tests: What do questions actually measure? In 7th international conference of the learning sciences, ICLS 2006 (pp. 627–633).
46.
RoyerJ. M. (2001). Developing reading and listening comprehension tests based on the Sentence Verification Technique (SVT). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(1), 30–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40007629
47.
SaccentiE.HendriksM. H.SmildeA. K. (2020). Corruption of the Pearson correlation coefficient by measurement error and its estimation, bias, and correction under different error models. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 438–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57247-4
48.
SáezL.ParkB. J.NeseJ. F.JamgochianE. M.LaiC. F.AndersonD.KamataA.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM reading measures (Grades 3-7), 2009-2010 version (Vol. 1005) (Technical report #1005). Behavioral Research and Teaching.
49.
ShanahanT.KamilM. L.TobinA. W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 229–255. https://doi.org/10.2307/747485
50.
ShapiroE. S.FritschmannN. S.ThomasL. B.HughesC. L.McDougalJ. (2014). Concurrent and predictive validity of reading retell as a brief measure of reading comprehension for narrative text. Reading Psychology, 35(7), 644–665.
51.
ShinJ.McMasterK. (2019). 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
52.
ShinnM. R.KnutsonN.GoodR. H.IIITillyW. D.IIICollinsV. L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21(3), 459–479.
53.
SingerM.AndruslakP.ReisdorfP.BlackN. L. (1992). Individual differences in bridging inference processes. Memory & Cognition, 20(5), 539–548. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03199586
54.
TindalG. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement: A brief history of nearly everything from the 1970s to the present. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2013(1), 958530. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/958530
55.
TolarT. D.BarthA. E.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.VaughnS. (2014). Predicting reading outcomes with progress monitoring slopes among middle grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.11.001
56.
Van BuurenS.Groothuis-OudshoornK. (2011). Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45, 1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03
57.
Van den BroekP.EspinC. A. (2012). Connecting cognitive theory and assessment: Measuring individual differences in reading comprehension. School Psychology Review, 41(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087512
58.
Van den BroekP.HelderA.Van LeijenhorstL. (2012). Sensitivity to structural centrality: Developmental and individual differences in reading comprehension skills. In Reading-from words to multiple texts (pp. 132–146). Routledge.
59.
YsseldykeJ. E.ChaparroE. A.VanDerHeydenA. M. (2023). Assessment in special and inclusive education (14th ed.). Cengage Learning.
60.
YujianL.BoL. (2007). A normalized Levenshtein distance metric. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 29(6), 1091–1095. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2007.1078
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.
