Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Artículo EFLE
Artículo EFLE
net/publication/275143705
CITATIONS READS
20 1,036
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Nicolás Gutiérrez Palma on 20 November 2015.
Abstract: The main purpose of this study was to design and validate a rating
scale to measure reading fluency. As well as speed and accuracy, different
dimensions of prosody were taken into account (volume, intonation, pauses
and phrasing), aspects hardly considered in reading assessment. In addition, a
measure of reading quality was included. 122 Spanish primary-school chil-
dren (74 in Year 2 and 48 in Year 4) read aloud a narrative text. Using inter-
rater criteria, children’s reading was assessed with this new rating scale (Scale
of Reading Fluency in Spanish, SRFS) (Escala de Fluidez Lectora en
Español, EFLE) and with the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Rasinski,
2004). Standardized reading comprehension and prosodic reading tests were
used as criterion measures. Results show acceptable reliability and validity
coefficients. We conclude that SRFS appears to be a useful instrument for
using in education and research contexts.
Keywords: reading fluency; assessment; rating scale; prosodic reading;
reading comprehension
Given the known similarity of results between rating scales and spectrographic
measures, our aim was to design a rating scale to assess reading fluency, in order
to provide education and clinical researchers and professionals with an easy to use
instrument that reliably measures the reader’s achievements and shortcomings in
this variable. It is also a useful instrument in intervention as it is can provide
guidance on components that are lacking in fluency. The purpose is to create a
rating scale that integrates speed, accuracy and prosody.
This scale was designed in part based on the Multidimensional Fluency Scale
(Rasinski, 2004), but also using as a reference the prosodic features most relevant
to reading, according to Miller and Schwanenflugel’s research (2006, 2008), such
as varying pitch at the end of sentences or the pattern of pauses. The prosodic
features of Spanish (Quilis, 2008) were also taken into account. Four main
components were considered in its design: speed, accuracy, prosody and reading
quality. Although there are quantitative measures for speed and accuracy, it was
considered that an evaluation of whether children had decoded the words properly
or whether the reading speed was adequate provided relevant information as part
of a reading fluency scale. Additionally, a secondary objective in the study was to
determine what kind of relationship existed between each of the fluency compo-
nents previously studied — speed, accuracy and prosody — and our assessment
of reading quality, in order to see whether reading quality is primarily determined
by one of these previously studied components.
In addition, reading comprehension, reading efficiency and other fluency mea-
sures were taken in order to examine the reliability and validity of the SRFS scale.
The objective was to confirm the scale’s quality and to analyse, at an exploratory
level, its performance in several primary classes. Two years were selected corre-
sponding to initial and intermediate reading levels. At the initial level decoding
ability has not yet been fully acquired children are at the ‘learning to read’ stage. At
the intermediate level, children are at the ‘reading to learn’ stage (Wolf, 2008).
In summary, the SRFS (Escala de Fluidez Lectora en Español, EFLE) was
designed as a necessary instrument to properly assess reading fluency in Spanish,
one of the critical components in skilled reading (e.g., Rasinski et al., 2006).
SRFS explicitly incorporates the three components of fluency — speed, accuracy
and prosody — integrating results from latest research. It also assesses reading
quality, an important component for compiling collected information.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 122 Spanish children in PE: 74 in Year 2, 42 boys and 32
girls (mean age in months = 90.5, SD = 4.79) and 48 in Year 4, 19 boys and 29
girls (mean age in months = 114.7, SD = 4.5) from a middle socioeconomic-
cultural background. Their first language was Spanish and none of them showed
delays in reading performance or intellectual ability. Two children were removed
because of that. Their participation required informed consent from parents and
verbal assent from the child.
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 109
Instruments
Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1996). This test
assesses nonverbal intellectual ability. It is a multiple choice reasoning test with
question listed in order of difficulty. The general scale was used. Participants had
to select the piece that best completes a series of drawings from five or six
alternatives. The manual states that Cronbach’s alpha reliability is .85.
Accuracy. It covers the range from numerous decoding errors to not making errors
and/or self-correction.
(1) Volume. It covers a range from reading very loudly or very quietly, to
reading with a volume appropriate to the text.
(2) Intonation. The range varies from monotonous reading, without marking
the end of sentences by increasing or decreasing intonation, to melodic
reading, according to the type of sentence, clearly stating dialogues and
changes in intonation at the end of sentences.
(3) Pauses. The assessment range includes making numerous intrusive
pauses, often in the middle of words, and a lack of concern for syntactic
units with repeated hesitations, to a constant awareness of punctuation
marks and syntactic boundaries when a pause is made. For example, the
meaning would be completely changed if a child missed the comma while
reading the following sentence: ‘Let’s eat, Grandma’.
(4) Phrasing. This sub-dimension is complementary to the sub-dimension of
pauses. It fluctuates between reading word by word, without regard to
syntactic boundaries that define the sentence meaning or the punctuation
marks, to awareness of these two variables. For example, in the sentence,
he thought, I’ll wash and feed the dog before going to the vet, if a child
segments this sentence erroneously, he thought, pause I’ll wash pause and
feed the dog before going to the vet, it does not capture the meaning of the
sentence. Even if the reader did acknowledge the pause indicated by the
comma, it would not be correctly segmented.
Reading Quality. This new overall indicator fluctuates between a boring read,
simply telling the words, and capturing the listener’s attention, producing the
feeling that you are listening to a story.
Two experts evaluated and confirmed that the items were well defined, clearly
written and were relevant to the study’s purpose. Each of the components and
dimensions are assessed on a numerical scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest
performance and 4 the highest. Each score is specifically described in order to
facilitate and ensure that the valuation is as objective as possible. Maximum score
is 28. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for SRFS was .91. See rating scale in
Appendix 1.
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 111
Procedure
Participants were tested in two separate sessions, the application of the tests were
followed in the same order. Firstly, a group session lasting approximately half an
hour was conducted, applying the reading comprehension tests (TECLE and CLP
tests). The second session, about 15 minutes long, was conducted individually,
measuring Punctuation Marks (PROLEC-R Test). The Punctuation Mark subtext
reading was recorded in order to assess fluency by inter-rater agreement proce-
dure. The text was chosen for several reasons: a) it contains different kinds of
clauses (e.g., declarative, exclamatory, closed and open interrogatives), b) it was
created to measure intonation corresponding to 11 punctuation marks (four full
stops, two commas, three question marks and two exclamation marks), and c) the
complexity of the phrases is appropriated to the children’s reading level.
Participants were asked to read the story as well as they could and with proper
intonation. The recordings were performed in a quiet room at the school.
Afterwards, eight adult readers who were experienced with reading (primary
school teachers and researchers) assessed the children’s reading. They had been
previously given theoretical and practical explanations on the use of the scales.
Four of them evaluated reading fluency using the Multidimensional Fluency Scale
(Rasinski, 2004) and the other four evaluated it using SRFS. In the Rasinski’s
rating scale (2004), there was an inter-rater agreement ranging from between α =
.85 and α = .88. For the SRFS, the agreement of the other four raters was between
α = .93 and α = .96.
Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the intelligence measures, reading
comprehension (text and sentences) tests, punctuation marks and fluency rating
scales from Year 2 and 4. Participants scored in the upper middle range in all
measures.
Following the rules of the American Educational Research Association,
American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in
Education (1999), reliability and validity data are presented for each grade level
separately.
Item analysis
Descriptive statistics of the four SRFS’ components according to the school year
are shown in Table 2.
As can be seen, in general the asymmetry and kurtosis indexes are < /2/ in
Year 2, as recommended by Bollen and Long (1994), indicating similarity to the
normal curve. However, the volume item has a kurtosis and asymmetry value of
above /2/. In Year 4, the kurtosis indexes are similar to ones in Year 2, only the
volume item is above 2. The data suggests that volume is generally an acquired
dimension, children read adjusting their volume according to the text. The
accuracy item also presents asymmetry values above /2/ in both years, showing
112 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
that by Year 2 most children are already reading with proper accuracy. Regarding
asymmetry, in Year 4, values of above /2/ in fluency components were observed,
showing the development of these skills.
An analysis was performed on the internal structure of the scale to calculate
the construct validity. First, the correlations between the items that constitute the
prosody component were analysed: volume, intonation, pauses and phrasing (see
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the items that the Scale of Reading Fluency in Spanish
consists of and asymmetry and kurtosis indexes in Year 2 and 4.
Year 2 Year 4
Components M ZAsymmetry Zkurtosis M ZAsymmetry Zkurtosis
1. Speed 2.62 .10 –1.68 3.49 –2.89 –.38
(.91) (.62)
2. Accuracy 3.26 –3.36 .26 3.79 –4.02 .92
(.81) (.34)
3. Prosody
a. Volume 3.40 –4.96 3.80 3.61 –5.47 3.84
(.67) (.70)
b. Intonation 2.50 .71 –1.34 3.38 –2.21 .47
(.76) (.53)
c. Pauses 2.69 –.02 –1.28 3.52 –2.40 .72
(.83) (.48)
d. Phrasing 2.78 –.84 –1.57 3.69 –3.61 .96
(.89) (.43)
4. Quality 2.39 .90 –1.16 3.22 –1.17 –.16
(.84) (.61)
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 113
Table 3. Pearson’s inter-item correlations with items from the prosody dimension in Year
2 and 4.
a b c d
Year 2
a. Volume – .40(**) .36(**) .33(**)
b. Intonation – .77(**) .69(**)
c. Pauses – .85(**)
d. Phrasing –
Year 4
a. Volume – .29(**) –.12 –.18
b. Intonation – .30(**) .40(**)
c. Pauses – .44(**)
d. Phrasing –
Notes: *p < .05 **p < .01.
Table 3). The results generally showed average correlations, indicating the validity
of the composition of dimensions.
It is worth highlighting that the dimension of volume was not correlated with
phrasing and pauses in Year 4, showing that while reading at the appropriate
volume has been acquired, as suggested by the distribution of the children, more
complex dimensions such as phrasing and pauses require more reading experience
and hours for attainment. Furthermore, the highest correlations are observed
between phrasing and pauses in the two years. The two dimensions are theoreti-
cally complementary and dependent; grouping phrases by meaning has to be
accompanied by a pattern of appropriate pauses.
Secondly, the correlation between the total score of the prosody component
and the other components that make up the scale was examined: speed, accuracy
and quality (see Table 4). Correlations between the four components of the scale
show average to high values. The lack of correlation between speed and accuracy,
and accuracy and prosody in Year 4 appears to emphasize the progressive
4
cases. External validity results show SRFS as an effective instrument for assessing
reading fluency.
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to design a rating scale to assess reading fluency in
Spanish. The lack of this kind of instrument in Spanish and its relationship with
variables such as reading comprehension (Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2006, 2008),
a weakness in Spanish children reading skills (OECD, 2013), support its
usefulness.
SRFS shows appropriate psychometric properties, emphasizing high reliability.
Construct validity shows satisfactory results. The internal structure analysis of the
rating scale matches the reading fluency composition for three components: speed,
accuracy and prosody. It is interesting to note how the volume dimension loses its
informative capacity in Year 4, suggesting that children at this level generally
understand what reading aloud volume should be made at, according to the text
meaning. In general, there is a progressive development in the control of each
component of fluency.
Also it is relevant to mention the high correlation between reading quality and
the prosody component. To emphasize that, experts confer greater weight to
prosody in the quality judgement, a component not usually considered in reading
assessment. It seems that quality is influenced by aspects such as intonation, the
ability to phrase properly or a pattern of pauses consistent with the text structure,
and not by speed and accuracy.
Furthermore, correlations between the dimensions of prosody are midrange,
except between phrasing and pauses, which have very high correlations. This
result confirms that these dimensions are two sides of the same coin: there can be
no syntactic grouping with meaning if the appropriate pauses within and between
sentences are not performed. However, having separate measures of the two
dimensions can provide valuable information about what is missing and what
should be focused on when considering a possible intervention. For instance, a
child may use proper pauses for a text, following punctuation marks, but inap-
propriate phrase segmentation, breaking semantic-syntactic units. In that case,
specific intervention to improve phrasing could consist of using graphical cues
to separate the phrases.
Otherwise, discriminant validity analysis of the components and scale dimensions
confirms the relevance of each item in both Year 2 and 4. However, the volume item is
the one that least discriminates in both years, although it can provide interesting
information regarding the progressive development of this dimension during PE.
In addition, SRFS shows adequate external validity, showing a high correlation
with both the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Rasinski, 2004) and with the
PROLEC-R Punctuation Marks Subtest (Cuetos et al., 2007). The fact that this
Punctuation Marks test is standardized in Spanish supports more strongly the
convergent validity of SRFS. Along the same line, the criterion validity sustains
the high correlations found with reading comprehension, both in phrases (TECLE)
116 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
(Marín & Carrillo, 1999), and text (CLP) (Alliende et al., 1991). An explicit
influence is observed between fluency and reading comprehension in both years.
The directionality of this influence is future studies aim.
In sum, SRFS is an appropriate tool for assessing reading fluency in Spanish,
suitable for use both in educational and research contexts because of its accessi-
bility and ease of use. Whereas until now the concept of fluency has been assessed
mainly by evaluating speed and accuracy, the addition of the prosody assessment
is a significant contribution. Schools have not yet given this component the
emphasis that it deserves. The importance of adding or enhancing the teaching
of aspects such as intonation, phrasing or the pattern of pauses is related to the
improvement of reading efficiency (e.g., Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2008), and
reading comprehension (Hudson et al., 2009). This is supported by recent inter-
vention studies with PE Spanish children (Calet, Gutiérrez-Palma, & Defior,
2013a: González-Trujillo, 2005).
For example, Calet, Gutiérrez-Palma, and Defior (2013b) show that the
expressiveness component is a predictor of reading comprehension even in Year
2 children, who are in the automation phase of the decoding processes. This
finding supports the importance of including fluency, particularly the prosody
component, in reading instruction in early PE years.
Finally, we would like to comment that in future studies we intend to standar-
dize the scale at Year 1 to 6, in order to observe the evolution of reading fluency
from the initial reading acquisition stages to advanced ones, and thus obtain
normative data. This would facilitate detecting which children have difficulty
with each of the components of fluency, and in turn would support the design
of more effective interventions. The rating scale might also be used for a more
accurate assessment of disorders such as dyslexia, which describes difficulties in
sensitivity to prosody (Barry, Harbodt, Cantiani, Sabisch, & Zobay, 2012;
Holliman, Wood, & Sheehy, 2012; Jiménez-Fernández, Gutiérrez-Palma, &
Defior, 2013; Leong, Hämäläinen, Soltész, & Goswami, 2011) and deficiencies
in speed and accuracy (Serrano & Defior, 2008), or those in the autism spectrum,
in which prosody is a deficit.
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 117
relación entre fluidez y lectura prosódica, además de una relación causal entre
lectura prosódica y comprensión lectora.
No obstante, la dirección de la relación entre fluidez y comprensión está aún
en debate (Kuhn et al., 2010). Dos trabajos han abordado el estudio de la
direccionalidad de tal relación. Por una parte, Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, Kuhn,
Wisenbaker, y Stahl (2004) evaluaron dos modelos de ecuaciones estructurales
que implicaban ambas direcciones. Encontraron que la lectura prosódica, uno de
los componentes de la fluidez, predecía la comprensión lectora, y no hallaron
evidencia de la reciprocidad de la relación. Por otra parte, Klauda y Guthrie
(2008) examinaron si los cambios en la lectura prosódica estaban relacionados
con los cambios en la comprensión lectora de manera recíproca en niños de 5º
curso. Sus datos apoyaron tal reciprocidad. La lectura prosódica al inicio del
estudio predijo un crecimiento en comprensión lectora doce semanas después,
sugiriendo una relación causal. Sin embargo, la comprensión al principio del
estudio predijo crecimientos en lectura prosódica doce semanas después, sugi-
riendo a su vez una relación causal sobre la lectura prosódica. En su conjunto,
estos resultados sugieren la necesidad de más estudios para comprender mejor la
direccionalidad de la relación entre estos dos constructos.
La investigación sobre fluidez ha conducido a un interés simultáneo por las
áreas de evaluación e instrucción (e.g., Pikulski y Chard, 2005). En consonancia
con las definiciones de fluidez, su evaluación se ha centrado tradicionalmente
tanto en la velocidad (número de palabras correctamente leídas por minuto), como
en la precisión en el reconocimiento de palabras. Esto probablemente se deba a la
relativa facilidad para medir estos dos componentes, mientras que medir la
prosodia presenta más dificultades.
Actualmente, desde la perspectiva que incluye el componente de prosodia, se
manejan dos tipos de medidas para la fluidez lectora: los índices espectrográficos
y las escalas. Los primeros representan visualmente y analizan las ondas sonoras
para determinar las características prosódicas de la lectura. Estudios que han
utilizado este tipo de medidas (e.g., Miller y Schwanenflugel, 2006, 2008) han
encontrado una relación entre los indicadores prosódicos distintivos del discurso
—la duración de las pausas, el perfil de la frecuencia fundamental y la declinación
de la frecuencia fundamental al final de las frases— y las habilidades lectoras
entendidas como lectura de palabras y comprensión de textos.
En cuanto a la evaluación de la fluidez a través de escalas, las investigaciones
se han realizado exclusivamente en lengua inglesa. Allington (1983) utilizó una
escala de 6 puntos que discrimina entre la lectura hecha palabra a palabra (1
punto) hasta la lectura que respeta los signos de puntuación, que es correcta
sintáctica y semánticamente, y que se realiza con una expresividad que se
aproxima al lenguaje oral (6 puntos).
En la misma línea, Pinnell et al. (1995) elaboraron una escala de fluidez más
reducida. El nivel más bajo (1 punto) corresponde a la lectura hecha mayorita-
riamente palabra a palabra, con sintagmas ocasionales de dos o tres palabras. En el
nivel más alto (4 puntos), sitúan la lectura fragmentada en sintagmas significativos
120 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
leer’. El otro era un nivel intermedio, en el que los niños están en la etapa de ‘leer
para aprender’, con una fluidez lectora más equiparable a un lector experto (Wolf,
2008).
En resumen, se diseñó la Escala de Fluidez Lectora en Español (EFLE), como
un instrumento necesario para recoger uno de los componentes definitorios de la
lectura experta (e.g., Rasinski et al., 2006). La EFLE incorpora explícitamente los
tres componentes de la fluidez —velocidad, precisión y prosodia— integrando los
resultados de las investigaciones más recientes. También incluye otro aspecto a
evaluar, la calidad de la lectura, que resulta un componente relevante para
compilar la información recogida.
Método
Participantes
La muestra estuvo formada por 122 niños españoles de EP: 74 de 2º, 42 niños y
32 niñas (edad media en meses = 90.5, DT = 4.79) y 48 de 4º, 19 niños y 29 niñas
(edad media en meses = 114.7, DT = 4.5), de nivel socio-económico-cultural
medio. Su lengua materna era el español y ninguno de ellos presentaba retraso en
el rendimiento lector ni en la capacidad intelectual, excepto dos niños de 2º que
fueron eliminados de la muestra. Su participación requirió el consentimiento
informado de los padres y asentimiento verbal del niño.
Instrumentos
Test de Matrices Progresivas de Raven (Raven, Court, y Raven, 1996). Este test
evalúa la capacidad intelectual no verbal. Consiste en un test de razonamiento de
respuesta múltiple de dificultad creciente. Se utilizó la escala general. Los parti-
cipantes tenían que seleccionar la pieza que mejor completara una serie de dibujos
de entre cinco o seis alternativas. El manual refiere que el Alfa de Cronbach
es .85.
Velocidad. Se puntúa desde una excesiva lentitud hasta una velocidad adecuada.
(1) Volumen. Abarca un rango desde la lectura con volumen muy alto o muy
bajo hasta la adecuación del volumen a la interpretación del texto.
(2) Entonación. El rango fluctúa entre la lectura monótona, sin marcación
final de frases con subidas o bajadas de tono hasta la lectura melódica,
acorde con el tipo de frase, señalando con claridad los diálogos y los
cambios de entonación al final de las frases.
(3) Pausas. La evaluación abarca desde la realización de numerosas pausas
intrusivas, muchas veces en mitad de las palabras y sin el respeto de
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 123
Procedimiento
Los participantes fueron evaluados en dos sesiones, siguiendo el mismo orden
de aplicación de las pruebas. En primer lugar se llevó a cabo una sesión
colectiva con una duración de aproximadamente ½ hora, aplicándose las pruebas
de comprensión lectora (test TECLE y test CLP). La segunda sesión, de unos 15
minutos, se realizó individualmente, midiendo Signos de Puntuación (Test
PROLEC-R). La lectura del texto de Signos de Puntuación fue grabada con
objeto de evaluar la fluidez mediante un procedimiento de acuerdo interjueces.
Este texto se eligió por varias razones: a) contiene diferentes tipos de oración
(e.g., declarativas, exclamativas, interrogativas cerradas y abiertas, exclamati-
vas), b) se creó para medir la entonación correspondiente a 11 signos de
puntuación (cuatro puntos, dos comas, tres signos de interrogación y dos signos
de exclamación), y c) la complejidad de las oraciones es adecuada al nivel lector
de los niños. Se pidió a los participantes que leyeran la historia con claridad y
buena entonación. Las grabaciones se realizaron en un recinto silencioso del
colegio.
124 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
Resultados
La Tabla 1 muestra los estadísticos descriptivos de las medidas de inteligencia,
comprensión lectora (texto y frases), signos de puntuación y escalas de fluidez
lectora de 2º y 4º curso. Los participantes puntúan en la mitad superior en todas
las medidas.
Siguiendo las normas de la American Educational Research Association,
American Psychological Association y National Council on Measurement in
Education (1999), se ofrecen datos de fiabilidad y validez en función del curso.
sólo el ítem de volumen está por encima de 2. Los datos sugieren que el volumen
es, en general, una dimensión adquirida; los niños leen ajustando el volumen a la
interpretación del texto. También el ítem de precisión presenta valores de
asimetría por encima de /2/ en ambos cursos, señalando que en 2º la mayoría de
los niños leen ya con una precisión adecuada. En 4º, respecto a la asimetría cabe
destacar valores por encima de /2/ de los componentes de la fluidez, indicando el
desarrollo evolutivo de esas habilidades.
Para calcular la validez de constructo, se realizó un análisis de la estructura
interna de la escala. En primer lugar, se analizaron las correlaciones entre los
ítems que constituyen el componente de prosodia — volumen, entonación, pausas
y segmentación — (ver Tabla 3). Los resultados muestran en general correlaciones
medias, indicando la validez de esa composición de dimensiones.
Destacar que la dimensión de volumen no correlaciona con segmentación y
pausas en 4º curso, indicando que mientras la lectura con el volumen adecuado
está adquirida, como se observa en la distribución de los niños, dimensiones más
complejas como son la segmentación y las pausas necesitan más experiencia y
horas de lectura para su consecución. Señalar también que las correlaciones más
altas se producen entre segmentación y pausas en los dos cursos. Las dos
dimensiones son teóricamente complementarias y dependientes, la agrupación
de sintagmas con significado ha de ir acompañada de una pauta de pausas
adecuada.
En segundo lugar, se analizaron las correlaciones entre la puntuación total del
componente de prosodia y el resto de componentes que forman la escala, veloci-
dad, precisión y calidad (ver Tabla 4). Las correlaciones entre los cuatro compo-
nentes de la escala muestran valores medios altos. La pérdida de correlación entre
126 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
Discusión
El propósito del estudio fue el diseño de una escala para evaluar la fluidez lectora
en español. La carencia de este tipo de instrumentos en castellano, y su relación
con variables como la comprensión lectora (Miller y Schwanenflugel, 2006,
2008), donde los niños españoles muestran más dificultades (OECD, 2013),
avalan su utilidad.
Se señala que la EFLE presenta propiedades psicométricas apropiadas, desta-
cando una alta fiabilidad. La validez de constructo muestra resultados satisfacto-
rios. El análisis de la estructura interna de la escala coincide con la composición
de la fluidez lectora por tres componentes: velocidad, precisión y prosodia. Es
128 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
Acknowledgements / Agradecimientos
The Scale of Reading Fluency in Spanish was designed as part of Nuria Calet’s doctoral
thesis. This research was partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation
projects PSI2010-21983-C02-01 and PSI2011-29155, University of Jaén project
UJA2009/14/03 from Caja Rural of Jaén and by the Junta of Andalusia research groups
HUM-820 and HUM-883. We would like to thank Luis Manuel Lozano Fernández for his
suggestions on data analysis. We also appreciate the cooperation given by the school
community at John XXIII (Zaidín) in Granada and their invaluable support. / La Escala de
Fluidez Lectora en español se diseñó como parte de la tesis doctoral de Nuria Calet. Esta
investigación ha sido parcialmente financiada por los proyectos del Ministerio de Ciencia
e Innovación PSI2010-21983-C02-01 y PSI2011-29155, el proyecto de la Universidad de
Jaén UJA2009/14/03 concedido por la Caja Rural de Jaén, y por los grupos de
investigación de la Junta de Andalucía HUM-820 y HUM-883. Nos gustaría agradecer
a Juan Manuel Lozano Fernández sus sugerencias sobre el análisis de datos.
Agradecemos también la cooperación de la comunidad escolar del colegio Juan XXIII
(Zaidín) en Granada, y su inestimable apoyo.
130 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
References / Referencias
Alliende, F., Condemarín, M., & Milicic, N. (1991). Prueba lectora de complejidad
lingüística progresiva. Madrid: CEPE.
Allington, R. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36,
556–561.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association &
National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). The Standards for educational
and psychological testing. Washington DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Barry, J. G., Harbodt, S., Cantiani, C., Sabisch, B., & Zobay O. (2012) Sensitivity to
Lexical Stress in Dyslexia: a Case of Cognitive not Perceptual Stress. Dyslexia, 18,
139–165. doi:10.1002/dys.1440
Benjamin, R. G., Schwanenflugel, P., Meisinger, E., Groff, C., Kuhn, M. R., & Steiner, L.
(2013). A spectrographically grounded scale for evaluating reading expressiveness.
Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 105–133. doi:10.1002/rrq.43
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1994). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Calet, N., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., & Defior, S. (2013a). Effects of fluency training on
reading ability in Spanish primary school children. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Calet, N., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., & Defior, S. (2013b). A Cross-sectional Study of Fluency
and Reading Comprehension in Spanish Primary School Children. Journal of
Research in Reading. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12019
Chard, D. J., Pikulski, J. J., & McDonagh, S. H. (2006). Fluency: The link between
decoding and comprehension for struggling readers. In T. Rasinski, C. Blanchowicz,
& K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 39–61).
New York: Guilford Press.
Cowie, R., Douglas-Cowie, E., & Wichmann, A. (2002). Prosodic characteristics of
skilled reading: Fluency and expressiveness in 8–10-year-old readers. Language and
Speech, 45, 47–82. doi:10.1177/00238309020450010301
Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B., Ruano, E., & Arribas, D. (2007). Batería de evaluación de los
procesos lectores, revisada [Assessment Battery of Reading Processes in Primary
Education Children. Revised Edition]. Madrid: TEA.
Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005).
Fourth-Grade Students Reading Aloud: NAEP 2002 Special Study of Oral Reading.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s unattended bedfellow. Theory
Into Practice, 30, 158–164. doi: 10.1080/ 00405849109543497
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of
Research in Reading, 18, 116–125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.1995.tb00077.x
García-Cueto, E., & Fidalgo, A. M. (2005). Análisis de los ítems. In J. Muñiz, A. M.
Fidalgo, E. García-Cueto, R. Martínez, & R. Moreno (Eds.), Análisis de los ítems
[Item analyses] (pp. 53–130). Madrid: La Muralla.
González-Trujillo, M. C. (2005). Comprensión lectora en niños: Morfosintaxis y Prosodia
en acción [Children’s reading comprehension: Morphosyntax and Prosody in action].
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Granada, Granada.
Holliman, A. J., Wood, C., & Sheehy, K. (2012). A cross-sectional study of prosodic
sensitivity and reading difficulties. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 32–48.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01459.x
Hudson, R. F., Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The complex nature of
reading fluency: A multidimensional view. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 4–32.
doi:10.1080/10573560802491208
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español 131
Jiménez-Fernández, G., Gutiérrez-Palma, N., & Defior, S. (2013). Impaired lexical stress
awareness in Spanish children with dyslexia. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three component s of reading
fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 310–321.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.95.1.3
Kuhn, M., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and
assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and the definitions of fluency.
Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 230–251. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information proces-
sing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)
90015-2
Leong, V., Hämäläinen, J., Soltész, F., & Goswami, U. (2011). Rise time perception and
detection of syllable stress in adults with developmental dyslexia. Journal of Memory
and Language, 64, 59–73. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.09.003
Marín, J., & Carrillo, M. S. (1999). Test Colectivo de Eficacia Lectora (TECLE).
Unpublished manuscript, Universidad de Murcia, Dpto. Psicología Básica y
Metodología.
Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2006). Prosody of syntactically complex sentences in
the oral reading of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 839–853.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.839
Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2008). A longitudinal study of the development of
reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency in early elementary school
children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 336–354. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.4.2
Muñiz, J., & Hambleton, R. K. (2000). Adaptación de los tests de unas culturas a otras
[Cross-cultural adaptation of the tests]. Metodología de las Ciencias del
Comportamiento, 2, 129–149.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: an evidence based assessment
of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/
Documents/report.pdf.
OECD (2013). PISA 2012 Results. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/
spain/PISA-2012-results-spain.pdf
Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: bridge between decoding and reading
comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519. doi:10.1598/RT.58.6.2
Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A.
S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Oral fluency. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Plante, E., Holland, S. K., & Schmithorst, V. J. (2006). Prosodic processing by children:
An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 97, 332–342. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.004
Quilis, A. (2008). Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas [Treatise of Spanish phonol-
ogy and phonetics]. Madrid: Gredos.
Raban, B. (1982), Text display effects on the fluency of young readers. Journal of
Reading Research, 5, 7–28. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.1982.tb00126.x
Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Assessing reading fluency. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for
Education and Learning. Adapted from ‘Training Teachers to Attend to Their
Students’ Oral Reading Fluency,’ J. Zutell & T. V. Rasinski, 1991, Theory Into
Practice, 30, 211–217. Retrieved from http://www.prel.org/products/re_/assessing-flu-
ency.htm
132 M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (2006). Fluency instruction: Research-based
best practices. New York: The Gilford Press.
Raven, J., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1996). Progressive Matrices [Raven’s Progressive
Matrices]. Madrid: TEA.
Samuels, S. J. (2006). Reading fluency: Its past, present & future. In T. Rasinsky, C.
Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices
(pp. 7–20). New York: The Guilford Press.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, A. M., Kuhn, M. R., Wisenbaker, J. M., & Stahl, S. A.
(2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral
reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 119–129.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.119
Serrano, F., & Defior, S. (2008). Speed problems in dyslexia in a transparent orthography.
Annals of Dyslexia, 58, 81–95. doi:10.1007/s11881-008-0013-6
Wolf, M. (2008). Cómo aprendemos a leer. Historia y ciencia del cerebro y la lectura
[Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain]. Barcelona:
Ediciones B.
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 5, 211–238. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_2
Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral
reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30, 211–217.
Appendix 1. Scale of Reading Fluency in Spanish.
SPEED:
General assessment of text reading speed, understood as a qualitative measure of a subjective estimation (not like the objective measure of the
number of words per minute, which can be assessed with standardized tests)
Very slow. Slow or fast. Adequate, but occasionally reads fast or Adequate.
slow.
1 2 3 4
ACCURACY:
General evaluation of how the words have been read.
Numerous errors in Frequent decoding errors. Very few decoding errors. No decoding errors. There are some
decoding words. errors but these are almost always
self-corrected.
1 2 3 4
PROSODY (EXPRESSIVENESS)
Volume
Tends to read very quietly Inconsistently alternates loud and The volume is adequate. However, In general, the volume is adequate,
or very loudly. quiet reading. sometimes reads too loudly or too equivalent to a conversation. Is able
quietly. to adjust the volume so it is
appropriate to the text.
1 2 3 4
Intonation
Reads in a monotone with Reading is almost flat, except for Reads with good intonation, following Consistently reads in a melodic manner,
flat intonation. some attempt to mark different the melodic curve in many of the changes intonation while reading the
types of sentences, such as sentences. text according to the type of sentence
interrogative or exclamatory. (declarative, absolute interrogative
and interrogative pronouns and
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español
exclamatory).
(Continued )
133
Appendix 1. (Continued).
134
Does not mark the end of Makes a few changes in Produces some changes in intonation at In general, clearly marks the dialogue.
phrases by increasing or intonation at the end of the end of phrases. The changes in intonation at the end
decreasing intonation as phrases. of phrases are noticeable.
appropriate.
1 2 3 4
Pauses
Makes many intrusive Makes intrusive pauses or Makes some intrusive pauses or Makes pauses in the right places almost
pauses in the middle of inappropriately elongates inappropriate elongations of all of the times, following
M.C. González-Trujillo et al.
words, breaking phonemes. phonemes, but generally respects the punctuation marks (commas, full
syntactic units. Many Frequent hesitations or place where they should be made stops, etc.) and syntactic boundaries.
hesitations. repetitions. (punctuation marks and syntactic
boundaries). Some hesitation.
1 2 3 4
Phrasing
Reads word by word, Breaks up semantic-syntactic Phrases sentences while reading, Phrases sentences while reading
ignoring the meaning of units while reading without concerning the meaning of the text, according to punctuation marks and
the phrases and regard to the meaning or however on some occasions does not semantic-syntactic units, concerning
punctuation marks. punctuation marks. group words into semantic-syntactic the meaning of the text consistently.
units.
1 2 3 4
QUALITY (General reading assessment)
Reading sounds like words Reading sounds like sentences It sometimes sounds like a story being It sounds like a story is being told.
have just simply been spoken independently. The told. The listener’s attention is Overall, the listener’s attention is
spoken independently. It listener’s attention is occasionally lost. captured.
is boring. occasionally captured.
1 2 3 4
Note: The scale design has been validated in Spanish children.
Apéndice 1. Escala de Fluidez Lectora en Español.
VELOCIDAD:
Apreciación general de la velocidad de lectura del texto, entendida como una medida cualitativa de estimación subjetiva (no como la medida
objetiva de nº de palabras/minuto, que puede tomarse con tests estandarizados).
Muy lenta. Lenta o rápida. Adecuada, pero en ocasiones lee Adecuada.
rápido o lento.
1 2 3 4
PRECISIÓN:
Apreciación general sobre cómo ha leído las palabras.
Muchos errores en la Frecuentes errores de Apenas errores de decodificación. Ausencia de errores de
decodificación de las decodificación. decodificación. Si tiene alguno, se
palabras. autocorrige casi siempre.
1 2 3 4
PROSODIA (EXPRESIVIDAD)
Volumen
Tiende a leer con un volumen Alterna inconsistentemente El volumen es adecuado. Sin En general, el volumen es adecuado,
muy bajo, o muy alto. volumen alto y bajo. embargo, algunas veces lee con un equivalente al de una conversación.
volumen alto o bajo. Es capaz de ajustarlo a la
interpretación del texto.
1 2 3 4
Entonación
Generalmente lee con una La lectura es casi plana, salvo por La lectura se realiza con buena Tiene una lectura melódica de forma
entonación monótona, algún intento de marcar entonación, marcando la curva consistente, cambia la entonación a
plana. determinados tipos de oraciones, melódica en muchas de las lo largo del texto de acuerdo al tipo
Scale of reading fluency in Spanish / Escala de fluidez lectora en español
(Continúa )
Apéndice 1. (Continuación).
136
No marca el final de las frases Realiza pocos cambios de Produce algunos cambios de En general, marca los diálogos con
unidades sintácticas. vacilaciones o repeticiones. respeta el lugar donde debe de puntuación (comas, puntos, etc.)
Muchas vacilaciones. hacerlas (los signos de puntuación y los límites sintácticos.
y los límites sintácticos). Algunas
vacilaciones.
1 2 3 4
Segmentación
Lee palabra a palabra, Lee rompiendo las unidades Lee segmentando las frases, Lee segmentando las frases de
ignorando el significado de semántico-sintácticas, sin respetando el significado del texto, acuerdo con los signos de
la frase o los signos de atender al significado o a los aunque en reiteradas ocasiones no puntuación y las unidades
puntuación. signos de puntuación. agrupa las palabras en unidades semántico-sintácticas, respetando el
semántico-sintácticas. significado del texto, de modo
consistente.
1 2 3 4
CALIDAD (Valoración general de la lectura)
La lectura suena como si La lectura suena como si lanzara Algunas veces, la lectura suena como La lectura suena como si contara un
simplemente lanzara las las frases. En algunas ocasiones si contara un cuento. En ocasiones, cuento. En general, capta la
palabras. Es aburrida. capta la atención del oyente. hace perder la atención del oyente. atención del oyente.
1 2 3 4
Nota: El diseño de la escala ha sido validado con niños españoles.