Assessing

Reading
Fluency
Timothy V. Rasinski, Ph.D.

Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

Assessing Reading Fluency is intended to assist practitioners in monitoring students fluency development. Assessments are discussed in terms
of three components of fluency:
Accuracy, or accurate decoding of words in text;
Automaticity, or decoding words with minimal use of
attentional resources; and
Prosody, or the appropriate use of phrasing and expression to
convey meaning.
Assessing Reading Fluency is written by Dr. Timothy V. Rasinski (Ph.D.,
Ohio State University), a professor of education in the Department of
Teaching, Leadership, and Curriculum Studies at Kent State University.
He has published over 100 articles and 10 books on various aspects of
reading education, including The Fluent Reader: Oral Reading Strategies
for Building Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension. Dr.
Rasinski recently served on the Board of Directors of the International
Reading Association and is an editor for the Journal of Literacy
Research.
The Regional Educational Laboratory at Pacific Resources for Education
and Learning would like to express sincere thanks to the following
reviewers:
Dr. David J. Chard, University of Oregon
Dr. Melanie R. Kuhn, Rutgers University
Dr. Wayne M. Linek, Texas A&M University Commerce

Cover photo by Jennifer Padua

Assessing Reading Fluency is published by Pacific Resources for

Education and Learning, Honolulu, Hawaii. Additional copies may be
downloaded at www.prel.org/programs/rel/rel.asp.

Copyright 2004 by Timothy V. Rasinski

This product was funded by the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. ED) under the Regional Educational Laboratory
program, award number ED01CO0014. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. ED or any
other agency of the U.S. government.

Assessing Reading Fluency

imberly and Thomass fourth grade teacher, Mr. Lee,

cant quite pin down what is going on with these students. Both are good at reading words; they are able

to decode all the words they encounter and seem to have a pretty good understanding of them as well. Moreover, they appear to
be of average to above average intelligence and are knowledgeable about the world around them. But, Mr. Lee also knows that
both Kimberly and Thomas do not comprehend what they read.
When he asks them questions about what they read, they usually respond I dont know, I dont remember, or give an incorrect or incomplete answer. Interestingly, when Mr. Lee reads to
the class, both children seem to have a good understanding of
what is read.
Mr. Lee refers Kimberly and Thomas to the school reading specialist, Mrs. Pearce, for further testing. Mrs. Pearce works with
Kimberly and Thomas separately. She asks each of them to read
aloud for her, after which she asks them to retell what they read.
Mrs. Pearce confirms Mr. Lees observations about accuracy in
decoding and poor comprehension. She also notes something
else that may be the cause of their reading comprehension problems: both read without appropriate phrasing or interest.
Thomas reads in a slow and labored word-by-word manner. His
reading rate is 56 words correct per minute. Kimberly buzzes
through the passage; she reads the words, but pays little attention to sentence juncture or other punctuation. Her reading rate
is 178 words correct per minute. Mrs. Pearce thinks she has
found the source of Kimberly and Thomass difficulty in reading
reading fluency.

Assessing Reading Fluency 1

For years teachers thought that if students could learn to decode

words accurately, they would be successful in reading printed text.
While it is true that accuracy in decoding is important for fluency, it
is not the entire story. Readers not only need to decode the words
accurately; they also need to decode them effortlessly or automatically. The ability to read with appropriate phrasing and expression
(interpretation) is also important for fluency. In essence, reading fluency refers to accurate and automatic decoding of the words in the
text, along with expressive interpretation of the text, to achieve optimal comprehension. Fluency is important in reading, then, because it
affects how well readers understand what they read.

Defining Reading Fluency

A good analogy for understanding reading fluency comes from public
speaking. Fluent public speakers embed in their voices those same
elements that are associated with reading fluency accuracy in
speech, appropriate speed, and phrasing and expression. The speakers use of these aspects of fluency facilitates the listeners comprehension. Speaking in appropriate phrases, emphasizing certain
words, raising and lowering volume, and varying intonation help the
listener understand what the speaker is trying to communicate.
Contrast a fluent speaker with one who is less fluent, who is anxious
about speaking in public and renders a presentation in a slow, wordby-word monotone. This less fluent speaker makes it considerably
more difficult for listeners to comprehend the presentation. They
have fewer verbal cues to use and will have to listen more closely
and intensely to make sense of the speech. Indeed, listeners may find
themselves drifting away from the presentation altogether if the effort
required to understand is too great. This analogy seems to apply fairly well to reading. Reading fluency certainly affects reading comprehension.
Scientifically-based research reviews (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002;
Kuhn & Stahl, 2000; National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 2000) have established that reading fluency is a critical
component of learning to read and that an effective reading program
needs to include instruction in fluency. The National Assessment of
2 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

Educational Progress (NAEP), for example, found that nearly half of

American fourth graders had not achieved a minimal level of fluency
in their reading, which was associated with significant difficulties in
comprehension while reading silently (Pinnell et al., 1995).
It may be helpful to think of reading fluency as a bridge between the
two major components of reading word decoding and comprehension. At one end of this bridge, fluency connects to accuracy and
automaticity in decoding. At the other end, fluency connects to comprehension though prosody, or expressive interpretation. These components of reading fluency are reflected in two major theories or
explanations.

Accuracy and Automaticity in Reading

Fluent readers decode words accurately and automatically, without
(or with minimal) use of their limited attention or conscious cognitive
resources. The theory that supports this aspect of fluency begins
with the notion that readers have limited attentional resources. If they
have to use a large portion of those resources for word decoding,
those resources will not be available for use in comprehension. The
theory of automaticity in reading suggests that proficient word
decoding occurs when readers move beyond conscious, accurate
decoding to automatic, accurate decoding (LaBerge & Samuels,
1974; Samuels, 2002; Stanovich, 1991). At the automatic level, readers are able to decode words with minimal attention to the activity of
decoding. Most adult readers are at this level of processing. They do
not have to examine closely or sound out most of the words they
encounter; they simply recognize the words instantly and accurately
on sight. This type of processing frees the readers conscious attention to comprehend or construct meaning from the text.

Prosody in Reading
While it is good for readers to have the additional cognitive capacity
that comes from automaticity in word decoding, they also need to
actively use that capacity to make sense of the text. Readers can
employ their attention for comprehension or for other tasks. All readers have had the experience of accurately and automatically decoding

Assessing Reading Fluency 3

words while thinking about something else and, as a result, not comprehended the passage.
This is the point where fluency connects directly to comprehension.
The prosody component of reading fluency stresses the appropriate
use of phrasing and expression (Dowhower, 1987, 1991; Schreiber,
1980, 1987, 1991; Schreiber & Read, 1980). When readers embed
appropriate volume, tone, emphasis, phrasing, and other elements in
oral expression, they are giving evidence of actively interpreting or
constructing meaning from the passage. Just as fluent musicians
interpret or construct meaning from a musical score through phrasing, emphasis, and variations in tone and volume, fluent readers use
cognitive resources to construct meaning through expressive interpretation of the text.
In a sense, then, reading fluency is multidimensional one dimension stresses the importance of accuracy in word decoding, a second
dimension focuses on quick and automatic recognition of words in
connected text, and a third dimension stresses expressive and meaningful interpretation of text. These dimensions are related to one
another accurate and automatic reading creates the conditions for
expressive reading. All three are important for effective comprehension and overall good reading. All must be taught, and all must be
monitored.
Osborn and Lehr (2003) provide an excellent summary of ways in
which reading fluency can be taught and nurtured in classrooms.
Methods for assessing a students level of achievement at any given
moment and for determining growth over time are part of any good
instructional program. This paper explores how reading fluency can
be assessed in valid and efficient ways.

Fluency Assessments
The ability to measure students level of achievement in fluency and
monitor their progress is key to successful fluency teaching.
Teachers need to be able to gauge the effectiveness of their instruction in fluency; to do this, they need ways to assess student fluency

4 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

validly and efficiently. The next section of this paper explores methods for assessing reading fluency. The inclusion of assessment
approaches in this booklet was guided by two important criteria.
First, fluency assessments must have some degree of reliability and
validity. Users of the assessments must be assured that the results
they obtain are reliable that the results will provide consistent
measures of fluency and will not vary because of imperfections in the
assessment itself. Users must also be assured that the assessments
are valid that they actually measure reading fluency. The assessments themselves should resemble the ways in which reading fluency is defined. In this booklet, fluency is defined in terms of three key
components: accuracy in reading, automaticity in reading, and
prosody (or expression) in reading. Moreover, since fluency is a contributor to overall reading proficiency, the fluency assessments presented here should correlate with other, more general measures of
reading proficiency.
Second, the assessments must be efficient in administration, scoring,
and interpretation. Assessments should be as quick and easy to use
as possible. If they are not, teachers may not find time to use them
or may use them in ways that are inconsistent with their intent.
Moreover, time given to assessment is usually time taken away from
instruction. Thus, quick and easy assessments will allow teachers to
gauge students progress and maximize teaching time so that academic progress can be made.
Since current views suggest that reading fluency consists of three
distinct components, this booklet aligns its approach to assessment
with these components:
Decoding accuracy the ability of readers to decode words
accurately in text.
Automaticity the ability of readers to decode words in text
with minimal use of attentional resources.
Prosody the ability of readers to appropriately use phrasing
and expression.

Assessing Reading Fluency 5

Assessing Accuracy and Automaticity

Fluency has a decoding accuracy component the ability of readers
to decode text accurately. Fluency also has a decoding automaticity
component the ability of readers to decode words in text with minimal use of attentional resources. These two aspects of fluency are
reflected in readers level of accuracy in decoding words and their
speed of reading, automaticity, as measured by the reading rate.
The importance of accuracy in reading has a rich history. Informal
reading inventories (IRIs), in use for decades, have used decoding
word accuracy as one of their key benchmarks for marking reading
achievement (Johnson, Kress, & Pikulski, 1987; Pikulski, 1990).
Accuracy is determined by the percentage of words a reader can read
correctly; it has been shown to be a valid measure of reading proficiency (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Deno, 1982). The levels of accuracy in reading (see Table 1), adapted from an examination of several IRIs, reflect
various levels of word decoding accuracy.
Table 1
Levels of Performance for Word Decoding Accuracy
Independent Level:

97-100%

Instructional Level:

90-96%

Frustration Level:

< 90%

Readers who score in the 97-100% range (independent level) are

able to read the assessment text or other text of similar difficulty
without assistance. Readers who score within the 90-96% range
(instructional level) are able to read the assessment text or other text
of similar difficulty with some assistance, usually provided by a
teacher or parent. Those readers who score below 90% in word
accuracy (frustration level) find the assessment text or other texts of
similar difficulty too challenging to read, even with assistance.
For example, Theresa is a new fifth grader in Mrs. Halls classroom.
Mrs. Hall administers an abbreviated version of an IRI in which
Theresa is asked to read orally a 245-word, fifth-grade passage.

6 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

Theresa makes 13 errors while reading, which gives her an accuracy

rate of 94.7%. Thus, Theresa can read fifth grade material at an
instructional level (able to read with instructional support).
Although IRIs incorporate accuracy into their determination of readers overall achievement level, they have one distinct disadvantage.
They require the reader to read multiple word lists and passages orally and to be checked on comprehension for each passage. While this
process leads to an in-depth assessment, it is also very timeconsuming, especially if the inventory is administered to a struggling
reader. Administration of a complete IRI can take one to two hours.
Most teachers, pressed for instructional time, are not willing to invest
this amount of time for more than a few students. Using IRIs to
assess decoding accuracy of an entire classroom is not a viable
option for most teachers.
Reading rate provides a way of determining students level of automaticity. The assumption is that fast reading is a reflection of automaticity in word recognition. Recognizing the need for a reading
assessment that was valid and time efficient, Stanley Deno (1985) of
the University of Minnesota developed an approach referred to as
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) in reading. Because this
approach is clearly focused on reading fluency, it has also been
called an Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) assessment.
The CBM/ORF approach to assessment (see Figure 1 for administration procedures), like the IRI, requires the reader to read grade-level
text orally. However, the CBM/ORF only takes 60 seconds. During this
period, the teacher or person administering the test marks the readers uncorrected errors and then counts the total number of words
read correctly (words read correctly per minute, or WCPM). Because
the assessment is so quick, it can be repeated at one sitting on different passages. If multiple assessments are given, comparing the
median (middle) score against performance norms is recommended
(see Table 2).

Assessing Reading Fluency 7

Figure 1
Procedures for Measuring Accuracy and Rate in CBM/ORF
1. Find a passage(s) of approximately 250 words written at
the students grade placement. Submit the passage to a
text readability formula to estimate its grade appropriateness.
2. Ask the student to read the passage for one minute and
tape-record the reading. Emphasize that the text should be
read aloud in a normal way, and not faster than normal.
3. Mark any uncorrected errors made by the student. Errors
include mispronunciations, substitutions, reversals, omissions, or words pronounced by the examiner after a wait of
2-3 seconds without an attempt or response from the student. Mark the point in the text the student has come to
after one minute of reading.
4. Repeat steps 1 and 2 with two different passages (optional). If you choose to repeat the process, use the median or
middle score for analysis.
5. Determine accuracy by dividing the number of words read
correctly per minute (WCPM) by the total number of words
read (WCPM + any uncorrected errors). This number will
be a percentage. Compare the students performance
against the target norms in Table 1.
6. Determine the rate by calculating the total number of
WCPM and comparing the students performance against
the target norms in Table 2.

Returning to the previous example, Theresa was found to read at an

instructional level for accuracy. During the first 60 seconds of
Theresas reading, Mrs. Hall counted 66 words that Theresa read correctly, or 66 WCPM. Comparing Theresas performance against
established norms, Mrs. Hall determined that although Theresa reads
with a good degree of accuracy, her overall rate or level of automaticity is significantly lower than it should be. As a result Mrs. Hall develops an instructional plan to help Theresa develop greater fluency
(automaticity) in her reading.
8 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

An understanding of reading rate norms is necessary for using the

CBM/ORF results accurately. Target reading rate norms based on several empirical data sources are presented in Table 2. These norms
suggest that reading rates tend to increase through the middle
grades; however, the rate of acceleration diminishes after sixth grade.
This suggests that although the automaticity component of reading
fluency is a focus in the elementary grades, it should be nurtured and
assessed even beyond these grades.
Table 2
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Target Rate Norms
Grade

Fall
(WCPM)

Winter
(WCPM)

Spring
(WCPM)

10-30

30-60

30-60

50-80

70-100

50-90

70-100

80-110

70-110

80-120

100-140

80-120

100-140

110-150

100-140

110-150

120-160

110-150

120-160

130-170

120-160

130-170

140-180

Source: Adapted from AIMSweb: Charting the Path to Literacy, 2003,

Edformation, Inc. Available at www.aimsweb.com/norms/reading_fluency.htm.
Data are also adapted from Curriculum-Based Oral Reading Fluency Norms
for Students in Grades 2 Through 5, by J. E. Hasbrouck and G. Tindal,
1992, Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, pp. 41-44.

Readers who perform at or near these target norms should be considered as progressing adequately in automaticity. Readers who are
significantly and consistently below (or above) the norm span for
their grade level and time of year may be at risk in their reading fluency development. We generally think of disfluent readers as reading
in a very slow and disjointed manner; disfluency, however, can come
from readers who read too fast and fail to pay attention to intra- and
inter-sentential boundaries or the meaning of the text.

Assessing Reading Fluency 9

The CBM/ORF fluency assessment has been validated through a

number of studies including Deno, Mirkin, and Chiang (1982) and
Marston (1989). One study found a correlation of .91 between students performance on a CBM/ORF and their performance on a standardized test of reading comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxwell,
1988). In my own work I have found strong correlations between
CBM/ORF measurements and students performance on standardized
tests of reading achievement for students at primary, intermediate,
middle, and even secondary school levels.
I have adapted the CBM/ORF fluency assessment to include measurements of reading accuracy as well as reading rate (automaticity). The
adaptation adds no time to the administration of the assessment and
only one more calculation; by measuring accuracy, teachers can
determine more precisely the source of reading fluency difficulties.
For example, a reader with high accuracy but low rate scores may
show comprehension difficulties similar to a reader with a high rate
but excessive decoding errors. Although both readers have comprehension difficulties, the source of their comprehension difficulties is
quite different for one reader, the source is a lack of sufficient automaticity, while for the other, it is a lack of sufficient decoding accuracy. The most effective instruction would be significantly different for
each student. The norms reflected in Tables 1 and 2, then, are useful
in determining readers level of proficiency in accuracy and reading
rate (automaticity). The procedures for assessing readers in these
areas are outlined in Figure 1.
For example, James is a third grade student who was administered a
CBM/ORF assessment within the first few weeks of school. He read 3
third-grade passages for 60 seconds each. The teacher determined
the average number of words read correctly per minute and the average number of errors made during the 60-second reading segments.
James read with an average accuracy level of 98% and an average
reading rate of 38 WCPM. Although Jamess level of decoding accuracy is good, his reading rate is a concern; he is able to decode
words but not at an automatic level. He has to work hard to sound
out and unlock the words he encounters in grade-level text. The
teacher records these scores and determines a course of action that
includes a good deal of repeated and assisted readings (Kuhn &

10 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

Stahl, 2000; Rasinski, 2003), but only a limited amount of instruction

in decoding words.
A CBM/ORF assessment that includes both accuracy and rate allows
teachers to get a quick but valid snapshot of their students reading
performance. Because the assessment is so quick, teachers assess
an entire class in a couple of hours, doing so several times throughout the year in order to determine students ongoing progress in
reading. A grid such as the one in Figure 2 allows teachers to record
students fluency scores across a school year.

Figure 2
Classroom Fluency Chart
Teacher:
Student
Name

Year:
Fall
Accuracy

Winter
Spring
Accuracy Accuracy

Fall
Rate

Winter
Rate

Spring
Rate

The CBM/ORF assessment of accuracy and rate allows teachers to

diagnose students fluency at the beginning of the school year or
whenever new students arrive in the classroom. Teachers can refer
students whose performance is well below the target norms to the
school reading specialist for more testing to determine the nature
and source of the problem.
Using the CBM/ORF assessment across the school year allows the
teacher to check student progress. It permits fairly immediate identification of students who may not be making adequate progress and
who may require additional, more intensive, or more targeted
Assessing Reading Fluency 11

instruction, as well as more vigilant monitoring of progress to assess

the effectiveness of the instruction.
For example, Emilia begins the school year in Mrs. Rices class at a
normal achievement level, but demonstrates in a January follow-up
assessment that little progress has been made through the first four
months of school. This lack of progress indicates to Mrs. Rice that
new instructional methods may be necessary. She also considers
calling a conference with Emilias parents and referring her to the
school reading specialist. Tyson also began the year within targeted
norms, and has demonstrated adequate progress in subsequent
assessments. Mrs. Rice (and Tysons parents) can be fairly well
assured that Tyson is making appropriate growth in reading during
the year.
Multiple assessments over time thus afford teachers a degree of
accountability and precision for their teaching. For example, Mr. Wu
may have considered the year a failure for Kelly, a fifth grade student
who ends the school year reading with an accuracy level of 88% and
a reading rate of 110 WCPM. However, if Mr. Wu had assessed Kelly
in September and determined and documented that she began the
year with an accuracy level of 82% and a reading rate of 66 WCPM,
the year would most likely be an unqualified success for Kelly.
Students who are significantly behind in reading fluency in the intermediate grades and beyond often require additional intensive and
prolonged interventional instruction. Developing proficiency in reading is a cumulative task it snowballs from the early grades on. The
Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986) describes the situation in which
proficient readers become more proficient and less proficient readers
fall further behind their normally developing peers. This lack of fluency is the result of severely restricted exposure to print in previous
grades and results in restricted exposure to print in subsequent
years. Students are delayed in developing a sufficient bank of words
that are recognized and understood at sight. For them, the road to
improved fluency and overall proficiency in reading requires a considerable investment of extra instructional energy and time. For this
reason alone, reading fluency instruction and monitoring should be
made an integral and significant part of the reading curriculum from
the earliest grades.
12 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

CBM/ORF reading assessments that include accuracy and rate provide teachers with a workable and valid approach to documenting
student performance and progress in reading. Although only a
snapshot of a students reading, the assessments nonetheless align
well with other, more comprehensive measures. Moreover, they can
guide teachers instruction to meet students specific needs. Students
who perform poorly on the assessments can be identified for more
thorough and comprehensive reading assessment.

A Note of Caution
There are limitations to these assessments, and caution has been
raised by researchers such as Deno, Mirkin, and Chiang (1982).
Although reading rate appears to be a good measure of the decoding
automaticity component of reading fluency and of reading achievement in general, it does not mean that students should receive overt
and intensive instruction and practice in becoming fast readers.
Reading rate appears to reflect students ongoing development of
automaticity in their decoding, which can be developed through practiced and assisted readings (see Kuhn & Stahl, 2000; Osborn & Lehr,
2003). If teachers provide the kind of instruction in fluency that
works, then fluency, comprehension, and rate will improve. If teachers choose instead to focus primarily on developing students reading
rate at the expense of reading with expression, meaning, and comprehension, students may read fast but with insufficient comprehension. Their goal may be to get from one point in the text to another
as fast as possible, without understanding the nuances of meaning in
the text. This would be a grave misinterpretation of the research
related to reading fluency development and a disservice to the students.
Similarly, teachers need to be cautious in using reading rate to
assess English language learners (ELLs). Many ELLs can be deceptively fast and accurate in their reading, yet demonstrate little understanding of the text. Teachers cannot assume that such students are
progressing well in reading based solely on their reading rate. Other
issues such as vocabulary and language proficiency may impede the
students growth in reading and require instructional intervention.

Assessing Reading Fluency 13

Assessing Prosodic Reading

The third component of fluency, prosodic or expressive reading, is
more directly related to comprehension. Fluency is often described
by the extent to which appropriate expression and phrasing can be
heard in a persons voice when reading aloud. Fluent readers embed
prosodic or melodic features of spoken language stress, pitch variations, intonation, rate, phrasing, and pausing in their voices
(Dowhower, 1987, 1991; Schreiber, 1980, 1987, 1991; Schreiber &
Read, 1980). This embedding of prosody shows that the reader is
trying to make sense of or comprehend the text. Expressive reading
happens once a degree of automaticity is established, and expression
is one way in which a reader constructs meaning while reading.
Practice and assisted reading, methods used to develop both expressive reading and automaticity, are also effective in developing expressive reading. In addition, two other instructional activities help develop
students ability to read in an expressive manner: modeling and
coaching or formative feedback.
Modeling plays a significant role in expressive reading. Readers learn
how to interpret text orally by listening to others read to them in an
expressive and meaningful way. This is one reason why it is important for teachers and parents to read to children. Hearing someone
read aloud increases students vocabulary, comprehension, and motivation for reading, and it also provides a model of how a passage
may be interpreted orally (Rasinski, 2003). This modeling can be further enhanced if teachers talk about the nature of their own oral reading with students and explain how it helps them understand what
was read.
Coaching or formative feedback can also play a large role in developing expressive and meaningful reading. Students need opportunities
to try out their voices on different passages to read passages in different ways to express the obvious as well as the more subtle meanings intended by the author. This is best developed through practice
and receiving coaching or feedback from others, especially the students classroom teacher or other reading coach. By experimenting
with different ways of reading text to communicate different meanings, students begin to recognize the subtle nuances of language that

14 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

are embedded in texts and intended for readers to recognize, understand, and express through intonation, pause, voice, and emphasis.
This coaching role is analogous to a teacher-student conference during a writing workshop, in which a students writing efforts are
shared and examined. During the conference the teacher notes positive aspects of the students composition as well as areas that may
need revision for clarity or style. The teacher will share or model
ways in which the student may express meaning in writing. Similarly,
a teacher who acts as a coach during oral reading encourages and
applauds reading that expresses meaning at a variety of levels, notes
areas for further work, and models ways in which the student may
try reading the passage. Regular opportunities for coaching will lead
the student to higher levels of fluent and expressive reading as well
as comprehension. Moreover, students oral reading will have an
impact on their silent reading (Pinnell et al., 1995). Most readers
hear an internal voice while reading silently; the internal voice is
developed through opportunities for reading orally and silently.
Assessing students oral interpretive reading is a key to developing
their prosodic or expressive reading competencies. Interpretation of
text is more complex because it is more subjective than accuracy levels and reading rates. Nevertheless, methods have been developed to
help teachers measure the extent to which students provide a fluent
interpretation while reading.
Since expression or interpretation of text is difficult to quantify,
researchers have turned to qualitative rubrics or rating scales to
guide the assessment process and assign a grade or level. The
rubrics range from well-phrased, expressive reading at one end to
word-by-word, monotonic reading at the other.
The rubrics are quite simple to use. A student reads a grade-level
passage and a teacher or other rater listens to the student reading or
to a recording of the reading. The listening period can be short;
teachers are able to make reliable and valid measurements in 60 seconds or less. At the end of the listening period, the teacher consults
the rubric and assigns a score that most closely aligns with the students reading. In using a rubric, teachers and other raters need to

Assessing Reading Fluency 15

share a well-established sense of what constitutes appropriate phrasing and expressiveness in reading for their assigned grade level.
Several fluency rubrics have been developed and found to work well
in assessing fluency and overall reading proficiency. In one study,
Rasinski (1985) adapted a six-point fluency rubric devised by
Allington (1983; Allington & Brown, 1979). Using the rubric, raters
listened to and rated recordings of third and fifth grade students
reading. Raters did not have a copy of the passage that students
read, and to make the task as efficient as possible, raters were asked
to listen to a reading for no more than 30 seconds. This instrument
was highly reliable (test-retest reliability = .90) and was strongly
associated with the students performance on a standardized test of
reading proficiency.
In a more recent large-scale study of fourth graders oral reading fluency, a group of researchers headed by Pinnell (1995) rated fourth
graders oral reading using a four-point rubric (see Figure 3). In this
study, students whose oral reading was assigned a score of one or
two were not considered fluent; they had yet to achieve even a minimally acceptable level of fluency. The researchers found that ratings
of students oral reading performance were strongly associated with
their performance on the silent reading comprehension test that was
part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. These studies suggest that rating students for the level of expressive or prosodic reading is a reliable and valid way for assessing the prosodic reading
component of fluency and for assessing overall reading performance.
The use of such rubrics can assist teachers in coaching students to
higher levels of interpretive reading. Rubrics can also help students
develop a greater internalized (metacognitive) awareness of their ability to interpret text orally and to guide their development in oral interpretive reading.

16 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

Figure 3
Oral Reading Fluency Scale
4. Reads primarily in larger, meaningful phrase groups.
Although some regressions, repetitions, and deviations
from the text may be present, these do not appear to
detract from the overall structure of the story. Preservation
of the authors syntax is consistent. Some or most of the
story is read with expressive interpretation. Reads at an
appropriate rate.
3. Reads primarily in three- and four-word phrase groups.
Some smaller groupings may be present. However, the
majority of phrasing seems appropriate and preserves
the syntax of the author. Little or no expressive interpretation is present. Reader attempts to read expressively and some of the story is read with expression.
Generally reads at an appropriate rate.
2. Reads primarily in two-word phrase groups with
some three- and four-word groupings. Some
word-by-word reading may be present. Word
groupings may seem awkward and unrelated to
the larger context of the sentence or passage. A
small portion of the text is read with expressive
interpretation. Reads significant sections of the
text excessively slowly or fast.
1. Reads primarily word-by-word. Occasional
two- or three-word phrases may occur but
these are infrequent and/or they do not preserve meaningful syntax. Lacks expressive
interpretation. Reads text excessively slowly.
A score of 1 should also be given to a student
who reads with excessive speed, ignoring
punctuation and other phrase boundaries, and
reads with little or no expression.
Source: Adapted from Listening to Children Read Aloud: Oral Fluency, by G.
S. Pinnell, J. J. Pikulski, K. K. Wixson, J. R. Campbell, P. B. Gough, & A. S.
Beatty, 1995, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/
95762.asp
Assessing Reading Fluency 17

The adapted NAEP rubric (Figure 3), can easily be employed by

teachers to assess students. Some teachers, however, desire a rubric
that is more precise in what it measures. To this end, multidimensional fluency rubrics have been developed and used for instructional
and evaluative purposes. Figure 4 presents an adaptation of a multidimensional fluency rubric developed by Zutell and Rasinski (1991).
Use of such a rubric assumes that teachers rating students reading
have a good sense of grade-appropriate expression, volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace in reading.
While the rubric presented in Figure 3 is ideal for quick assessments
and checking on progress over time, the multidimensional scale in
Figure 4 has other advantages. Although it requires a closer and
somewhat lengthier observation of a students reading, it can provide
formative information to guide instruction as well as summative
information. Teachers who note particular difficulty in one dimension
of the rubric can aim their instructional efforts at that area. For example, if teachers observe difficulty in phrasing, they can develop and
implement activities for students to determine phrase boundaries in
passages; practice reading high-frequency words embedded in noun,
verb, and prepositional phrases; and read texts in which phrase
boundaries are highlighted.
Similarly, students can learn to use the scale to evaluate and develop
awareness of their own reading fluency, as well as to improve specific areas that are low. In one classroom, students are so familiar with
the rubric that it has become part of the classroom vocabulary. After
a student reads, other students provide feedback along the dimensions cited in the rubric. The teacher reports that students are much
more sensitive to what it takes to interpret a text expressively and
with meaning.
Although fluency rubrics may not be as precise as assessments of
decoding accuracy and reading rate, they do provide valid measurements of the third component of reading fluency prosodic reading.
In the hands of knowledgeable teachers, rubrics provide valid and
reliable information on students development and progress in interpretive reading. They also provide teachers with tools for informing
their own instruction and students with a method for guiding their

18 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

Assessing Reading Fluency 19

Frequent two- and three-word phrases giving the impression of choppy

reading; improper stress and intonation that fail to mark ends of sentences and clauses.
Several rough spots in text where
extended pauses, hesitations, etc.,
are more frequent and disruptive.

Monotonic with little sense of phrase

boundaries, frequent word-by-word
reading.

Frequent extended pauses, hesitations, false starts, sound-outs, repetitions, and/or multiple attempts.
Moderately slow.

Some expression. Begins to use

voice to make text sound like natural
language in some areas of the text,
but not others. Focus remains largely
on saying the words. Still reads in a
quiet voice.

Reads with little expression or

enthusiasm in voice. Reads words as
if simply to get them out. Little sense
of trying to make text sound like natural language. Tends to read in a
quiet voice.

Slow and laborious.

Uneven mixture of fast and slow

reading.

Occasional breaks in smoothness

caused by difficulties with specific
words and/or structures.

Mixture of run-ons, mid-sentence

pauses for breath, and possibly
some choppiness; reasonable
stress/intonation.

Sounds like natural language

throughout the better part of the
passage. Occasionally slips into
expressionless reading. Voice volume is generally appropriate
throughout the text.

Consistently conversational.

Generally smooth reading with some

breaks, but word and structure difficulties are resolved quickly, usually
through self-correction.

Generally well phrased, mostly in

clause and sentence units, with adequate attention to expression.

Reads with good expression and

enthusiasm throughout the text.
Sounds like natural language. The
reader is able to vary expression and
volume to match his/her interpretation of the passage.

Source: Adapted from Training Teachers to Attend to Their Students Oral Reading Fluency, by J. Zutell and T. V. Rasinski, 1991, Theory Into Practice, 30, pp. 211-217.

D.Pace (during
sections of minimal disruption)

C.Smoothness

B.Phrasing

A.Expression and
Volume

Dimension

Use the following scales to rate reader fluency on the dimensions of expression and volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace. Scores range from 4 to 16. Generally, scores
below 8 indicate that fluency may be a concern. Scores of 8 or above indicate that the student is making good progress in fluency.

Figure 4
Multidimensional Fluency Scale

own personal fluency development. To that extent, fluency rubrics are

an ideal assessment tool they provide assessment information that
can also guide instruction.

Putting Fluency Assessment to Work in

Schools and Classrooms
How do fluency assessments fit into the larger reading curriculum?
How often should fluency assessments be administered? Who should
administer them? How should the results be shared with parents?
These are common questions posed by teachers when considering
assessment. Teachers often have good ideas on how to assess, but
have difficulty in fitting assessment into the larger curricular picture.
The fluency assessments presented in this booklet have three important characteristics useful to teachers. They are quick and easy to
administer, easy to understand, and reflect the three components of
fluency as well as more general measures of reading proficiency.
These other measures are often more complex and time-consuming
than the ones discussed here.
In addition, these fluency assessments are ideal for initial screening
of students. In an hour or two, often during independent student
work time, a teacher can assess each child in the classroom using
the methods and procedures outlined. During the first week of class,
teachers can have each child read a grade-level passage for one
minute and generate measures of decoding accuracy (percentage of
words read correct), rate (WCPM), and interpretive fluency from that
reading. This can be part of a larger personal assessment in which
teachers gain insight into students interests in reading and other
academic areas. This initial fluency assessment gives teachers baseline information against which to measure subsequent progress.
Students who score poorly on this initial assessment may be referred
to a reading specialist for further, more in-depth testing.
Fluency assessments are good to share with parents because they
reflect student performance on passages students should be expected to read successfully passages at their assigned grade level.
Parents whose children are struggling with reading are often told the
20 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

grade-level equivalent of their childrens reading performance. Most

parents do not find this information helpful; it does not tell them how
their children are doing on grade-level material and may lead to misinterpretation. (For example, parents may believe that a fifth grader
who reads at second grade level should only be reading second
grade material.) Unlike other measures of reading, these fluency
assessments tell parents how well their children are performing on
material they are expected to read and understand during that current
school year. For students who are not reading at grade level, the
assessments provide parents with a clear indication of how far away
their children are from expected levels of performance (e.g., a fourth
grader beginning the year reading at 42 WCPM is 28 WCPM below a
minimal expectation for fourth grade). Parents can understand this
and have an idea of just how much ground their student has to make
up in order to meet grade-level expectations. Additionally, describing
a students reading in terms of a fluency rubric can give parents a
clear picture of the level of expressiveness in reading that is expected
of their children.
Beyond providing a clear explanation of a students reading fluency,
the assessments provide information on what teachers, parents, and
the students themselves can do to improve the students reading.
Students who read at an excessively slow rate need to engage in
repeated and assisted readings. Students whose decoding accuracy
is poor may need additional word study and phonics instruction.
Students who do poorly on the fluency rubric may need additional
coaching and support in reading with expression and meaning.
Finally, the brevity of the fluency assessments makes them ideal for
repeated use throughout the school year. Many teachers assess their
students at the beginning (early September), middle (mid-January),
and end (late May) of the school year. Such measures provide teachers with information about student growth over time, in fluency as
well as in overall reading achievement. Of equal importance, frequent
assessment of students allows teachers to make informed data-based
instructional decisions that can lead to better teaching and improved
learning (Deno, 1997).
Teachers should administer the assessments as consistently as possible so that differences in results are most likely due to student
Assessing Reading Fluency 21

fluency level and not changes in procedures. The passages should be

changed for each administration to negate the possibility of a practice
effect. One way to do this is to find a trade book that is written at the
target grade level and that will not be used during the school year.
Choose three 250-word passages from various places in the book,
and use these passages in the assessments. Although the passages
are different, they retain the same readability level and author style
from one administration to the next.
If passages are from diverse sources, it is important to get an estimation of their difficulty level and some assurance that they are of
equivalent difficulty. This can be accomplished by applying a readability formula. Readability refers to the relative difficulty of a passage, usually stated in terms of the grade level for which the passage
is appropriate; it is normally calculated by measuring the lexical
(word) and syntactic (sentence) difficulty of a passage. Teachers
need to realize that readability formulas provide only rough estimates
of the difficulty of a text; the most important factor in determining the
relative difficulty of a text the reader is not included in most estimation methods. Nevertheless, readability formulas provide some
assurance of the difficulty of a passage and its equivalence with other
passages.
There are many readability formulas available. The Internet offers various sites for teachers to submit text and instantly determine its
read-ability level. Intervention Central (www.interventioncentral.org)
provides teachers with an easy-to-use tool for applying two wellknown readability formulas.
Regular fluency assessment provides teachers, parents, and students
with valuable diagnostic information and tangible evidence of student
growth. Moreover, in an era of greater teacher accountability, such
assessments provide teachers with a means of demonstrating the
effectiveness of their instruction.

22 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

Summary and Conclusion

Fluency is more than reading fast: it is reading at an appropriately
fast rate with good expression and phrasing that reflects solid understanding of the passage. Since fluency is multidimensional, methods
of assessment must capture its multidimensional nature. This booklet
provides a broad definition of reading fluency, one that shows its
connection to word decoding and comprehension, and presents
some simple but effective methods for assessing student reading
progress both in fluency and general achievement.
Instruction that is guided by frequent, quick, reliable, valid, and curriculum-based assessment has the potential to lead to improved
teacher decision-making and student performance in reading (Fuchs,
Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Marston & Magnusson,
1985). Thus, reading fluency instruction combined with regular
assessment is the key to student success in reading fluency and
comprehension.

Assessing Reading Fluency 23

References
Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading
Teacher, 36, 556-561.
Allington, R. L., & Brown, S. (1979). Fact: A multi-media reading program.
Milwaukee, WI: Raintree Publishers.
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on
effective interventions for building fluency with elementary students
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386-406.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
Deno, S. L. (1997). Whether thou goest: Perspectives on progress monitoring. In J. L. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 77-99). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of
reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,
22, 389-407.
Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluencys unattended bedfellow. Theory Into Practice, 30, 165-175.
Edformation. (2003). AIMSweb: Charting the path to literacy. Retrieved September 17, 2003, from www.aimsweb.com/norms/reading_fluency.htm
Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student
achievement, and students awareness of learning. American
Educational Research Journal, 21, 449-460.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation:
A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Deno, S. L. (1982). Reliability and validity of curriculum-based informal reading inventories. Reading Research
Quarterly, 18, 6-26.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal measures of reading comprehension. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2),
20-28.
Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency
norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 24, 41-44.
Johnson, M. S., Kress, R. A., & Pikulski, J. J. (1987). Informal reading
inventories. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2000). Fluency: A review of developmental and
remedial practices (CIERA Rep. No. 2-008). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for
the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. A. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.

24 Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn
(Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.
18-78). New York: Guilford.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based
measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional
Children, 52, 266-276.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report
of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Osborn, J., & Lehr, F. (with Hiebert, E. H.). (2003). A focus on fluency.
Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Available at
www.prel.org/products/re_/fluency-1.pdf
Pikulski, J. J. (1990). Informal reading inventories. The Reading Teacher, 11,
514-516.
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. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95762.asp
Rasinski, T. V. (1985). A study of factors involved in reader-text interactions
that contribute to fluency in reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building
word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic.
Samuels, S. J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In
A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about
reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 166-183). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Schreiber, P. A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 12, 177-186.
Schreiber, P. A. (1987). Prosody and structure in childrens syntactic processing. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral
and written language (pp. 243-270). New York: Academic Press.
Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosodys role in reading acquisition.
Theory Into Practice, 30, 158-164.
Schreiber, P. A., & Read, C. (1980). Childrens use of phonetic cues in
spelling, parsing, andmaybereading. Bulletin of the Orton Society,
30, 209-224.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of
individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In R.
Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 418-452). New York: Longman.
Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students oral reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30, 211-217.

Assessing Reading Fluency 25

Pacific Resources for Education and Learning

900 Fort Street Mall Suite 1300
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 441-1300 Fax: (808) 441-1385
U.S. Toll-free Phone: 1 (800) 377-4773
Email: askprel@prel.org Website: www.prel.org

Promoting Educational Excellence

ES0414