662120

research-article2016
JPAXXX10.1177/0734282916662120Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentClemens et al.

Article
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
2017, Vol. 35(8) 785­–798
The Prevalence of Reading Fluency © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
and Vocabulary Difficulties Among sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282916662120
Adolescents Struggling With journals.sagepub.com/home/jpa

Reading Comprehension

Nathan H. Clemens1, Deborah Simmons1, Leslie E. Simmons1,

Huan Wang1, and Oi-man Kwok1

Abstract
This study sought to better understand the prevalence of concurrent and specific difficulties
in reading fluency and vocabulary among adolescents with low reading comprehension. Latent
class analysis (LCA) was used to identify a sample of 180 students in sixth through eighth
grades with reading comprehension difficulties. A subsequent LCA identified subgroups of
students with common patterns of strengths and weaknesses in reading fluency and vocabulary.
Results indicated that more than 96% of the students demonstrated deficits in at least one
area, with the largest subgroup exhibiting co-occurring difficulties in fluency and vocabulary.
Difficulties in fluency were more common than difficulties in vocabulary. Students with low
reading comprehension but adequate scores in reading fluency or vocabulary represented only
a very small portion of the sample. Coupled with findings from prior studies, results indicate
that large numbers of adolescents with reading comprehension difficulties are likely in need of
intervention in foundational skill and knowledge areas, which may not be viewed as instructional
priorities among secondary educators.

Keywords
reading comprehension, adolescents, reading fluency, vocabulary

By the intermediate grades, curricular and instructional expectations require that students
read and apply knowledge acquired from increasingly complex texts. As these expectations
increase, so do the consequences of core weaknesses that place limits on students’ ability to
read for understanding. The ongoing reading comprehension difficulties among U.S. stu-
dents are well documented (Nation’s Report Card, 2015), and research has shown that
improving adolescents’ reading comprehension skills is difficult, particularly on standard-
ized measures of reading comprehension (Fogarty et al., 2014; Scammacca, Roberts, Vaughn,
& Stuebing, 2015; Simmons et al., 2014; Solis, Miciak, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2014; Wanzek
et al., 2013).

1Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:
Nathan Clemens, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, 603 Harrington Tower, 4225
TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Email: nclemens@tamu.edu
786 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 35(8)

Researchers have pointed to the heterogeneity of skill profiles among struggling adolescent
readers (e.g., Brasseur-Hock, Hock, Kieffer, Biancarosa, & Deshler, 2011; Miciak et al., 2014;
Solis et al., 2014), which may be a reason why interventions do not consistently confer positive
outcomes for struggling adolescent readers. More specifically, interventions may not be opti-
mally effective because they are not sufficiently aligned with the needs of students who lack
foundational reading skills and knowledge that facilitate higher order comprehension processes
(Perfetti & Stafura, 2014).

Reading Fluency, Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension

Research has revealed the multiple skills that, if lacking, may significantly impede reading com-
prehension. For example, prominent models of reading comprehension such as the Simple View
of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990), the Direct and Inferential
Mediation Model (Cromley & Azevedo, 2007), and Perfetti’s (a) Verbal Efficiency hypothesis
(Perfetti, 1985), (b) Lexical Quality hypothesis (Perfetti, 2007), and (c) Reading Systems
Framework (Perfetti, 1999; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014) all consistently recognize the importance of
foundational skills required for reading print, as well as proficiency in receptive and expressive
language. In this study, we focused on two foundational components that represent these domains:
reading fluency and vocabulary knowledge.

Reading Fluency
Decoding and word identification skills are consistently cited across theoretical and statistical
models of reading comprehension. The role of decoding is clear; if a reader struggles to recognize
words on the page, comprehension is significantly impaired. According to Perfetti’s (1985)
Verbal Efficiency hypothesis, automaticity with word recognition facilitates higher order reading
comprehension processes by freeing cognitive resources from costly decoding efforts. As an
extension of decoding, fluent reading involves effortless and automatic reading of words in text,
which has been shown to mediate the relationship between decoding and reading comprehension
(Silverman, Speece, Harring, & Ritchey, 2013).
Beyond the rapid reading of words in isolation, fluency reading connected text becomes
increasingly more important for adolescent readers. The strength of the decoding-comprehension
correlation begins to diminish around age 10 (see García & Cain, 2014), at which point the fluent
reading of connected text may be more indicative of difficulties in orchestrating the cognitive
processes necessary for constructing and integrating meaning from print. Indeed, fluent text read-
ing appears to be more strongly associated with reading comprehension than fluency of reading
words in list form (Denton et al., 2011; Eason, Sabatini, Goldberg, Bruce, & Cutting, 2013;
Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003), especially for older students. For example,
Eason et al. (2013) found that with students between ages 10 and 14, fluency in reading con-
nected text was more important for comprehension than rate of reading words in list form. In
addition, fluency difficulties may be more common among adolescents than decoding problems;
Lesaux and Kieffer (2010) observed that among sixth graders with comprehension difficulties,
most students demonstrated decoding skills within the average range, but more than 80% of the
sample exhibited difficulties with fluent reading of connected text.

Vocabulary
The importance of vocabulary knowledge is consistently recognized across models of reading
comprehension. Vocabulary knowledge is necessary to understand a language, and because many
of the same processes involved in language comprehension are utilized in comprehending text,
Clemens et al. 787

vocabulary knowledge is fundamental to reading comprehension (Joshi, 2005; Nation, 2005).

Simply, reading comprehension will be significantly impaired (or disrupted entirely) if word
meanings in a passage are unknown, even if the student is able to fluently decode the words.
Indeed, studies indicate that significant comprehension impairment can occur when as few as 2%
to 5% of word meanings in a passage are unknown (Carver, 1994; Hsueh-chao, & Nation, 2000;
Schmitt, Jiang, & Grabe, 2011). Vocabulary is also interconnected with background knowledge
(see Cromley & Azevedo, 2007), which is important for activating schema and knowledge net-
works that enhance connections while reading, allow readers to make inferences, and provide a
deeper understanding of a text.

Reading Fluency and Vocabulary Difficulties Among Struggling

Adolescent Readers
How common are reading fluency and vocabulary difficulties among adolescents? Biancarosa
and Snow (2004) posited that while older readers usually possess adequate basic reading skills,
poor achievement is the result of difficulties in higher order comprehension processes. This
assumption may underlie the prevailing view of instruction in middle and secondary schools,
which is aimed at the acquisition of content knowledge with reading instruction considered the
responsibility of elementary educators (Meltzer, Cook Smith, & Clark, 2002; O’Brien, Stewart,
& Moje, 1995).
In the early elementary grades, it can be difficult to identify students who struggle with read-
ing comprehension but demonstrate seemingly adequate fluency or vocabulary (Hamilton &
Shinn, 2003; Meisinger, Bradley, Schwanenflugel, & Kuhn, 2010; Meisinger, Bradley,
Schwanenflugel, Kuhn, & Morris, 2009; Spencer, Quinn, & Wagner, 2014). However, some evi-
dence suggests that the frequency of students with adequate fluency but low comprehension (i.e.,
“word callers”) increases in later grades. For example, Meisinger et al. (2009) found that approx-
imately 10% of fifth graders could be considered word callers compared with less than 3% among
second graders.
A limited number of studies have investigated the prevalence of difficulties in reading fluency
and vocabulary among adolescent readers. Among existing studies, Hock et al. (2009) identified
adolescent readers in urban settings who performed below the 40th percentile on a composite
score of reading comprehension. Approximately 88% of students fell below the 40th percentile
on a composite variable that included measures of fluency reading words in list form, decoding,
and connected text. Approximately 82% of students fell below the 40th percentile on a composite
variable that included measures of vocabulary and listening comprehension, and 74% demon-
strated low scores in both areas. In a subsequent study using the same data set, Brasseur-Hock
et al. (2011) used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify students with low reading comprehen-
sion. These authors found that nearly 70% of students demonstrated weaknesses in reading flu-
ency specifically (which included fluency reading words in isolation and connected text), or in
addition to difficulties in decoding and language skills (which included measures of vocabulary
and listening comprehension). The largest single subgroup consisted of students with moderate
global weaknesses across all component skills (36%). Furthermore, Lesaux and Kieffer (2010)
used LCA to identify skill profiles among language-minority sixth-grade students who scored
below the 35th percentile on a measure of reading comprehension. Their findings showed that all
of the skill profiles included low vocabulary skills, and more than 80% of students exhibited skill
profiles that also included difficulties in reading fluency. Cirino et al. (2013) utilized factor anal-
ysis to investigate the difficulties of students in sixth through eighth grades in decoding, reading
fluency (text reading fluency was included on a factor with word list reading measures), and
comprehension, finding that decoding and fluency difficulties were prevalent among struggling
comprehenders (vocabulary was not measured). Finally, Miciak et al. (2014) examined the skills
788 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 35(8)

of sixth- and seventh-grade students who did not respond to a multicomponent intervention that
targeted word study, reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Results of discriminant
function analyses indicated that among students with reading comprehension scores below the
25th percentile, 49% of students also demonstrated scores below the 25th percentile on a measure
of word list fluency (fluency reading connected text was not assessed).
In summary, research suggests that significant numbers of students with reading comprehen-
sion difficulties also struggle in foundational skill areas, and the prevalence of these difficulties
likely exceeds previous estimates (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). However, several questions
remain. Several of the studies reviewed above evaluated text reading fluency in combination with
fluency reading words in isolation (i.e., list form). Research has demonstrated the important role
that text reading fluency specifically plays in facilitating reading comprehension for adolescents
in contrast to reading words in lists (Denton et al., 2011; Eason et al., 2013; Jenkins et al., 2003).
Similarly, some studies have included vocabulary assessments with measures of listening com-
prehension, thereby making it difficult to determine the rates of weaknesses specifically in the
area of vocabulary knowledge among struggling adolescent readers. Better knowledge of the
rates of co-occurring and specific difficulties in text reading fluency and vocabulary can help
educators determine appropriate assessments for evaluating adolescent readers, improve inter-
pretation of assessment data, and aid intervention development for adolescent readers.

Study Purpose
To better inform assessment and evaluation practices of adolescents’ reading achievement, this
study sought to better understand the prevalence of reading fluency and vocabulary difficulties
among adolescents with low reading comprehension. We investigated the following research
question:

What percentage of students with low reading comprehension also demonstrate low reading
fluency and/or vocabulary knowledge?

Method
Participants
The study used data from a sample of students who participated in a randomized controlled trial
that investigated the effects of a multicomponent reading intervention. Participants were drawn
from a sample of 233 students from sixth through eighth grade in two schools (one rural, one
suburban) in the southwest United States. Data used in the present analyses were collected prior
to the start of the intervention program. At the time the study began, students were enrolled in
reading intervention classes after having failed the state accountability assessment the prior
school year. Although schools used this criterion to place students in the intervention classes, a
portion of the students demonstrated average (or better) scores on normative-referenced compre-
hension measures administered as part of the intervention trial. Given the focus of the present
study on struggling comprehenders, it was necessary to isolate students with reading comprehen-
sion difficulties for the subsequent analyses.
Similar to the methods used by Brasseur-Hock et al. (2011), we used LCA to empirically
identify students who were struggling in reading comprehension (analyses are described below).
The LCA resulted in the identification of 180 students with below-average and well-below-aver-
age reading comprehension skills, and this subsample was used in the analyses of the prevalence
of reading fluency and vocabulary difficulties. This group was 51.7% female, 30.6% Black,
28.3% Hispanic, 23.9% White, 2.8% Asian, and 13.9% Other/multiple ethnicities. The sample
Clemens et al. 789

included students who were eligible for special education services (7.8%) and students receiving
services as an English learner (14.4%) at the time of the study.

Measures
Reading comprehension.  Reading comprehension skills were assessed using three measures. A
multivariate approach to assessing reading comprehension was considered advantageous given
the complex nature of reading comprehension and the possibility that single assessments threaten
to underrepresent the construct and introduce mono-operation bias (Fletcher, 2006).
The Comprehension subtest from the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, 4th edition (GMRT-4;
MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, & Dreyer, 2002) is group-administered and contains 11 narrative
and expository passages ranging from three to 15 sentences, followed by three to six multiple-
choice questions per passage. Students read and answered the questions silently during a 35-min
session. All students received Form S corresponding to students’ grade level. Kuder-Richardson
formula -20 reliability coefficients range from .88 to .94 for the grades and forms administered
in this study (Maria & Hughes, 2008).
The Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE; Williams, 2001) was
administered. Analyses used students’ scores on the Comprehension scale, which is a composite
score consisting of scores on two group-administered subtests. On the Sentence Comprehension
subtest, students read 19 sentences, each with a missing word, and selected the word that best
completes the sentence from five answer choices. Test authors reported coefficient alpha ranging
from .83 to .88 for Grades 6 to 8. On the Passage Comprehension subtest, students were provided
an unlimited amount of time to read six passages of narrative or expository text and answer five
multiple-choice questions per passage. Passages range from eight to 30 sentences in length. Test
authors reported coefficient alpha ranging from .85 to .88 for students in sixth through eighth
grades (Williams, 2001). Grade-level versions of Form A were administered.
The Gray Oral Reading Test, 5th edition (GORT-5; Wiederholt & Bryant, 2012) was individu-
ally administered. Students were asked to read a set of narrative and expository passages orally
(passages applicable to Grades 6-8 range from six to 12 sentences in length) while the examiner
recorded reading errors and the amount of time needed to read the passage. The passage was then
removed from view, and the examiner asked a series of open-ended questions. Responses were
scored as correct or incorrect based on acceptable answers developed by the test authors. Passages
were administered until a fluency ceiling was reached. The Comprehension scaled score was
used in our analyses, which was based on the total number of correct responses to comprehension
questions. Coefficient alpha for the Comprehension score ranges from .93 to .95 for students of
ages 11 to 14 years (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2012). Previous versions of the GORT had been criti-
cized for including “passage-independent” questions that students could answer correctly with-
out having to read the text (Keenan & Betjemann, 2006); however, the GORT-5 was revised to
ensure that all items are passage-dependent (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2012).

Vocabulary.  The Vocabulary subtest from the GRADE (Williams, 2001) is a group-administered,
untimed multiple-choice test. Students read a series of two- to four-word phrases that contain a
target word and select the closest synonym from five choices. Students were administered Form
A that corresponded to their grade level. Test authors reported coefficient alpha ranging from .86
to .88 for students in sixth through eighth grades (Williams, 2001).

Text reading fluency.  Fluency in reading connected text was measured using a Passage Reading
Fluency probe from the easyCBM system (University of Oregon, 2008). Students were asked to
read orally from the passage while the examiner recorded the number of words read correctly in
1 min. A Grade 7 passage was administered to student in Grades 6, 7, and 8.1 The passage
790 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 35(8)

Table 1.  Latent Class Analysis of Reading Comprehension Achievement (N = 233).

2-class solution 3-class solution 4-class solution 5-class solution

AIC 3,825.77 3,801.08 3,788.40 3,791.42
BIC 3,860.28 3,849.39 3,850.52 3,867.34
SABIC 3,828.58 3,805.02 3,793.46 3,797.61
BLRT 85.92*** 32.69*** 20.68*** 4.98

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SABIC = sample-size adjusted
Bayesian information criterion; BLRT = bootstrap likelihood ratio test (statistical significance indicates that the class
solution is better fitting than the solution with one fewer class).
***p < .001.

demonstrates alternate-form reliability coefficients ranging from .75 to .96 with an average of
.91. Students’ scores were compared with easyCBM normative data for their respective grades to
obtain norm-referenced percentile levels of reading fluency.

Procedures
Measures were administered during a 3-week span in September. Data collectors were trained
research staff experienced in data collection. Training for assessment staff consisted of two sessions
(7 total hr) led by the project coordinator focusing on explanation and modeling of assessment
procedures, with time allocated for individual practice. Initial reliability was established in mock
assessment sessions, which were repeated until each data collector demonstrated 100% reliability
for procedural fidelity and scoring agreement. In-field reliability was established whereby data col-
lectors were required to demonstrate 100% fidelity of assessment procedures and 95% interscorer
agreement before being permitted to administer assessments independently.

Data Analyses
Identification of comprehension subgroups.  As noted previously, LCA was used to identify a subset
of the students with low reading comprehension achievement. LCA was advantageous in this
case because it permitted us to (a) use information from multiple measures (as opposed to a sin-
gle measure) of reading comprehension and (b) empirically identify subgroups rather than rely-
ing on arbitrary cut scores. LCA is conducted by examining a series of models with an increasing
number of classes (i.e., subgroups) to find a solution with a parsimonious number of interpretable
classes that demonstrates statistically better fit than a solution with one fewer class. Using three
reading comprehension measures, we systematically tested solutions with increasing numbers of
classes beginning with a two-class solution. At each step, we balanced statistical fit criteria with
evaluation of the extracted classes to determine whether they represented interpretable subgroups
of students according to their comprehension achievement (Geiser, 2013). Statistical fit was
evaluated using the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC),
and sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criterion (SABIC), where smaller values repre-
sent better fitting models. We also used the bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT), in which a
smaller and statistically significant value indicates a better fitting class solution than a solution
with one fewer class. We relied more heavily on the BLRT, which has demonstrated evidence as
the most consistent indicator of class solution across sample sizes and models of various numbers
of classes compared with other indices (Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007).
Table 1 reports the results of the class solutions for the reading comprehension subgroups.
Although the BIC for the four-class solution was nearly the same as the three-class solution (a
difference of 1.13), other indices were improved, including a statistically significant BLRT.
Clemens et al. 791

Table 2.  Estimated Means and 95% Confidence Intervals From Four-Class Solution Identifying Reading
Comprehension Achievement Subgroups.

Class n GMRT GRADE GORT

Above average 2 123.48 [123.01, 123.94] 118.80 [105.58, 132.02] 12.17 [9.60, 14.74]
Average 50 93.19 [90.04, 96.35] 100.19 [96.78, 103.60] 8.33 [7.64, 9.03]
Below average 139 85.05 [81.11, 88.98] 89.52 [85.47, 93.56] 6.66 [6.37, 6.95]
Well below average 42 75.03 [69.41, 80.65] 79.47 [76.01, 82.92] 5.75 [4.75, 6.74]

Note. Standard scores are reported for GMRT and GRADE (100 = 50th percentile); scaled scores reported for
GORT which range from 1 to 20, and a score of 10 = 50th percentile. GMRT = Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test;
GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; GORT = Gray Oral Reading Test.

Table 3.  Latent Class Analysis of Reading Fluency and Vocabulary Achievement Among Low
Comprehenders (n = 180).

2-class solution 3-class solution 4-class solution 5-class solution 6-class solution
AIC 2,991.17 2,983.80 2,973.63 2,966.64 2,968.94
BIC 3,013.52 3,015.73 3,015.14 3,017.72 3,029.60
SABIC 2,991.35 2,984.06 2,973.97 2,967.05 2,969.43
BLRT 36.09*** 13.37** 16.17*** 12.99 3.70

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SABIC = sample-size adjusted
Bayesian information criterion; BLRT = bootstrap likelihood ratio test (statistical significance indicates that the class
solution is better fitting than the solution with one fewer class).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Adding a fifth class, on the contrary, resulted in worsening fit across the indices. In addition, the
four-class solution could be easily interpreted in terms of the achievement patterns in the classes
(see below). Therefore, we selected the four-class solution.
The estimated mean scores for the four classes on the comprehension measures are reported in
Table 2. As illustrated, two classes were distinguished by mean comprehension test scores within
or above the average range, which we named “average” and “above-average” classes, respec-
tively. Although the above-average class was made up of only two students, the result was consid-
ered meaningful because estimated mean scores were exceptionally high for both students. The
remaining two classes included 181 students who demonstrated estimated reading comprehension
means that were considered “below average” (i.e., below the 25th percentile; n = 139) and “well
below average” (i.e., below the 10th percentile; n = 42). One student was missing data on the read-
ing fluency and vocabulary assessments and, therefore, could not be included in the subsequent
analyses. We therefore focused the main analyses on the 180 students with low reading compre-
hension performance (i.e., students from the below-average and well-below-average classes).

Main analyses: Identification of reading fluency and vocabulary subgroups.  The main analysis con-
sisted of a second LCA with the 180 struggling comprehenders to empirically identify the pro-
portion of those demonstrated difficulties in reading fluency, vocabulary, or both areas. We used
the procedures described earlier for evaluating class solutions statistically while balancing the
evaluation of the extracted classes to determine whether they represented interpretable subgroups
of students according to their skill profiles.

Results
Results of the LCA on reading fluency and vocabulary skills are reported in Table 3. The BLRT
indicated that the two-class solution was favorable to a one-class solution (p < .001), three classes
792 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 35(8)

Table 4.  Estimated Means and 95% Confidence Intervals of Fluency and Vocabulary Achievement
Subgroups (n = 180).

Class n (%) Reading fluency Vocabulary

Below-average fluency and vocabulary 103 (57) 18.32 [14.64, 22.01] 17.52 [13.84, 21.21]
Below-average fluency, average vocabulary 41 (23) 22.83 [17.99, 27.67] 48.81 [41.05, 56.57]
Average fluency, below-average vocabulary 28 (16) 55.41 [47.06, 63.76] 19.56 [14.07, 25.05]
Average fluency and vocabulary 8 (4) 69.98 [61.63, 78.33] 48.44 [39.23, 57.65]

Note. Mean percentile levels of achievement for both variables based on normative data for the respective measures.

100
Avg Fluency & Vocabulary, n = 8 (4%)
90 Avg Fluency, Low Vocabulary, n = 28 (16%)
Low Fluency, Avg Vocabulary, n = 41 (23%)
80
Low Fluency & Vocabulary, n = 103 (57%)
70
Mean Percentile

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Reading Fluency Vocabulary

Figure 1.  Estimated mean percentile scores and group sizes of the reading fluency and vocabulary
achievement classes (n = 180).

were favorable to two (p = .01), and a four-class solution was favorable to a three-class solution
(p < .001). AIC and SABIC also indicated that the four-class solution was favorable to two- and
three-class solutions. Although the AIC and SABIC indicated some improvement for the five-
and six-class solutions, the more robust BLRT indicated that solutions of five and six classes did
not improve upon the four-class solution on a statistically significant basis. As we report below,
the more parsimonious four-class solution also offered a clearer interpretation of the resulting
classes in terms of their patterns of reading fluency and vocabulary strengths and weaknesses.
Therefore, the balance of statistical fit and interpretability favored the four-class solution.
The estimated mean scores for the extracted classes from the four-class solution of reading
fluency and vocabulary skills are reported in Table 4 and displayed in Figure 1. The data revealed
four distinct score profiles. The largest class in terms of group membership demonstrated below-
average scores in both fluency and vocabulary (n = 103), which represented approximately half
of the struggling comprehender subgroup (57%), with estimated mean standard scores falling
approximately 1 SD below the mean for both measures. Students with below-average fluency but
average vocabulary represented the next largest subgroup (n = 41, 23%), followed by students
with average fluency but below-average vocabulary (n = 28, 16%). By far, the smallest class was
made up of students with average or above-average scores in both fluency and vocabulary (n =
8, 4%). Together, 96% of students demonstrated difficulties in one or both areas. Specifically
with regard to fluency, the number of students with below-average skills in reading fluency
(either alone or in addition to below-average vocabulary) represented 80% of students struggling
with reading comprehension.
Clemens et al. 793

Discussion
One reason why so many adolescents struggle in reading comprehension may be due to persistent
difficulties in foundational literacy and language that are critical to supporting the processes neces-
sary for constructing meaning from text. To better inform the design and focus of interventions for
struggling adolescent readers, this study built on prior work to determine the prevalence of concur-
rent and specific reading fluency and vocabulary difficulties among struggling comprehenders.
Results indicated a high level of similarity in the number of students with low scores in one or
both areas. Specifically, 96% achieved scores below average in reading fluency, vocabulary, or
both. Students with concurrent difficulties in fluency and vocabulary represented the largest skill
profile (57%). Fluency difficulties (either with or without vocabulary difficulties) represented
80% of the sample.
Our findings support prior research that has observed a high prevalence of basic skill difficul-
ties among adolescent readers (Brasseur-Hock et al., 2011; Cirino et al., 2013; Hock et al., 2009;
Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010; Miciak et al., 2014) but extend that work by examining text reading
fluency and vocabulary difficulties more specifically. Results suggest that for most struggling
adolescent readers, problems in understanding text may be rooted in insufficient knowledge and
skills that are needed to read text efficiently and free the cognitive resources to permit higher
order processing, connect ideas, infer meaning, and draw conclusions.
Our findings are consistent with prior work showing that students with more significant read-
ing difficulties tend to demonstrate weaknesses across multiple skill areas (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs,
& Barnes, 2007; Morris et al., 1998). The findings are also consistent with theories on the inter-
dependence of word identification efficiency, vocabulary knowledge, and comprehension pro-
cesses (Perfetti, 2010). The interconnected nature of these skills suggests that deficits in one area
are highly likely to be related to deficits in another.
The presence of subgroups of struggling comprehenders with specific weaknesses is worthy
of additional discussion, particularly with regard to students with reading fluency within the
average range. In this study, students with reading fluency scores within the average range repre-
sented approximately 20% of the sample. Studies have indicated that the prevalence of students
who demonstrate at least adequate reading fluency but difficulties with reading comprehension
(i.e., “word callers”) is more rare in early elementary school (e.g., 0%-3%; Hamilton & Shinn,
2003; Meisinger et al., 2009) but, consistent with our findings, may increase in later grades.
Limited vocabulary knowledge may partially explain the comprehension difficulties of adoles-
cents with seemingly adequate fluency. Perfetti (2010) noted the mediating role that vocabulary
plays between word identification and comprehension; that is, fluent word recognition removes
a significant barrier to reading comprehension, but true understanding depends on knowledge of
word meanings. As observed in this study, 20% of the students demonstrated reading fluency
skills within the average range, but only 4% demonstrated adequate fluency and vocabulary.
Similarly, Lesaux and Kieffer (2010) noted that among their sample of language-minority ado-
lescents with low reading comprehension, all skill profiles demonstrated weaknesses in vocabu-
lary. Future studies should investigate the degree to which vocabulary deficits explain the
comprehension difficulties of students who are described as “word callers.”

Implications for Intervention

The results of this study, in the context of prior research, have several implications for interven-
tion design and delivery. Our findings are particularly relevant for practitioners who work with
adolescents or participate in instructional planning teams.
First and foremost is the finding that students in middle and secondary grades with reading
comprehension difficulties likely experience low reading fluency, low vocabulary knowledge,
794 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 35(8)

and, most likely, weaknesses in both areas. Interventions that primarily target reading strategies
such as summarization, main idea generation, and comprehension monitoring, or the use of tools
such as graphic organizers or text structure maps may address only part of students’ comprehen-
sion difficulties. As struggling adolescent readers are asked to achieve standards that emphasize
reading more complex and authentic texts, it is important to recognize the scope of intervention
necessary to attain this standard. Many students will still require intervention to address skills in
reading text efficiently and understanding word meanings before more higher order comprehen-
sion processes can be expected. From an instructional and intervention standpoint, however,
students with multiple areas of skill deficit would likely require more intensive levels of inter-
vention, in contrast to students with isolated skill deficits in one area (e.g., low fluency) in which
a more targeted intervention may be effective.
The present results underscore the importance of considering vocabulary knowledge, and
building knowledge in general (Compton, Miller, Elleman, & Steacy, 2014), as a central aspect
of interventions aimed at improving reading comprehension skills. This is no small feat, consid-
ering the cumulative effect of vocabulary knowledge on reading achievement (Joshi, 2005) and
the reciprocal effect of word reading and vocabulary knowledge (Ouellette, 2006). Instruction in
the content areas (i.e., science, social studies, history) becomes increasingly more prominent in
later grades, and a critical aspect of content-area learning is an understanding of relevant vocabu-
lary. Therefore, vocabulary interventions must be particularly powerful and teach high-priority
words, encourage wide reading, and foster generative vocabulary strategies (e.g., contextual and
morphological awareness) across grade levels and subjects.
The present results also speak to the importance of effective instruction and intervention in
early grades. Interventions initiated in preschool or early elementary school provide opportuni-
ties to address both foundational reading skills (Cavanaugh, Kim, Wanzek, & Vaughn, 2004) and
language development (e.g., Neuman, Newman, & Dwyer, 2011). Before achievement gaps
widen, early reading instruction must provide significant practice opportunities to develop fluent
reading and provide children with exposure to new vocabulary through rich language, storybook
reading, and direct instruction.

Implications for Assessment

The results of this study also have implications for the assessment of reading achievement
with adolescents. Practitioners working with students in secondary grades may overlook basic
reading skills; however, as this study demonstrated, the assessment of adolescents’ reading
skills must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify weaknesses in foundational skills that
may be implicated in their reading comprehension difficulties. If assessment is limited to
solely to tests of reading comprehension that do not allow for fine-grained analysis of com-
ponent reading and language skills, it may be difficult to determine whether comprehension
difficulties are constrained primarily by foundational skill deficits as opposed to difficulties
in higher order text processing.
Our findings have implications for universal screening efforts at various grade levels. The
increased use of vocabulary screening in early childhood may assist in early identification of
children who may be at risk for reading comprehension difficulties due to vocabulary and oral
language delays. These efforts may assist in identifying students with “late-emerging” reading
disabilities who, despite seemingly adequate basic reading skills in early grades, experience read-
ing difficulties by middle elementary school that may be due to a history of difficulties in vocabu-
lary, grammar, or other linguistic abilities that were not detected earlier (Catts, Compton, Tomblin,
& Bridges, 2012; Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Elleman, & Gilbert, 2008). With older students, prior
performance on state accountability assessments may be the strongest indicator of future state
test performance (Denton et al., 2011); however, test results may not indicate the degree to which
Clemens et al. 795

low test scores are due to poor text reading or vocabulary skills. Denton et al. (2011) suggested
using a fluency assessment following a comprehension test to better align instruction and inter-
vention for students at risk for failure. Group-administered reading fluency tests (e.g., Wagner,
Torgesen, Rashotte, & Pearson, 2010) or vocabulary assessments (Wray, Alonzo, & Tindal, 2014)
can be efficient screening methods for identifying foundational skill difficulties. In addition to
helping align intervention to meet the needs of adolescent populations, these data can also be
used to identify systemic instructional issues associated with the prevalence of fluency and
vocabulary difficulties within a school or a district.

Limitations
Group-administered measures of vocabulary such as that used in this study require students to
read words independently; therefore, results on such assessments may be confounded to a degree
by decoding skills. This limitation is mitigated somewhat by (a) the inclusion of text reading flu-
ency, which helped to control for decoding skill deficits and (b) the findings of prior research,
which has demonstrated that measures of reading vocabulary load more strongly on a vocabulary
factor than on a decoding factor with struggling readers (Hock et al., 2009). Nevertheless, an
assessment of vocabulary that was not potentially confounded by decoding skills would have
been ideal.
Although we limited our analyses to two foundational skills, we acknowledge that reading
comprehension involves several other components and processes. Working memory (Cain,
Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004) and higher order processes such as comprehension monitoring, story
structure knowledge, and inference-making (Cain & Oakhill, 1999; Cain et al., 2004) have been
implicated in reading comprehension and may be additional sources of difficulty.
Our assessment of reading fluency was only limited to reading rate. Skilled reading of text
also includes prosody (i.e., reading aloud with expression and inflection). The assessment of
reading prosody is receiving increasing attention (e.g., Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger,
2010), and studies have indicated that prosody can explain unique variance in reading compre-
hension skills over and above the effects of reading rate (e.g., Valencia et al., 2010). It is likely
that many of our students demonstrated low reading prosody, which may serve as an additional
index of reading comprehension difficulties. Prosody variables require additional attention with
regard to adolescents with reading difficulties.

Conclusion
Our findings add to a growing body of work showing that among adolescents struggling with
reading comprehension, the majority experience poor reading fluency, vocabulary knowledge, or
difficulties in both areas. Although comprehension strategy instruction may be the default recom-
mendation for adolescents struggling with reading comprehension, the high prevalence of stu-
dents with deficits in reading fluency and vocabulary highlights the need to reconsider how
instruction and assessment can better address the needs of struggling adolescent readers. The
results underscore the importance of comprehensive assessments of component reading and lan-
guage skills to better understand the sources of adolescents’ reading difficulties. From a larger
perspective, the findings also reinforce the need for prevention efforts that support the acquisition
of proficient reading and language skills in young children.

Authors’ Note
The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute of Education
Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education.
796 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 35(8)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: Preparation of this article was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education, through Grant R305F100013 to the University of Texas at Austin as part of the
Reading for Understanding Research Initiative.

Note
1. A common passage was administered as part of the intervention trial to more clearly ascertain inter-
vention effects. The Grade 7 passage had a Lexile score (an index of text difficulty and complexity)
of 960, which fell within the Lexile range observed on the easyCBM passages across Grades 6 to 8
(600-1,180). An ANOVA indicated that the mean reading fluency percentile scores did not statistically
differ, F(2, 159) = 2.02, p = .137, between students in Grades 6 (M = 25.61, SD = 14.22), 7 (M = 29.81,
SD = 22.72), or 8 (M = 31.77, SD = 24.61).

References
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high
school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education.
Brasseur-Hock, I. F., Hock, M. F., Kieffer, M. J., Biancarosa, G., & Deshler, D. D. (2011). Adolescent strug-
gling readers in urban schools: Results of a latent class analysis. Learning and Individual Differences,
21, 438-452.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in
young children. Reading and Writing, 11, 489-503.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent predic-
tion by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,
31-42.
Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty
of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 26, 413-437.
Catts, H. W., Compton, D., Tomblin, J. B., & Bridges, M. S. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging
poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 166-181.
Cavanaugh, C. L., Kim, A., Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Kindergarten reading interventions for at-risk
students: Twenty years of research. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 9-21.
Cirino, P. T., Romain, M. A., Barth, A. E., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2013). Reading skill
components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26, 1059-1086.
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Elleman, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Tracking children who fly
below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability. Learning
and Individual Differences, 18, 329-337.
Compton, D. L., Miller, A. C., Elleman, A. M., & Steacy, L. M. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in
the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading,
18, 55-73.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of
reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311-325.
Denton, C. A., Barth, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., & Francis, D. J. (2011).
The relations among oral and silent reading fluency and comprehension in middle school: Implications
for identification and instruction of students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15,
109-135.
Eason, S. H., Sabatini, J., Goldberg, L., Bruce, K., & Cutting, L. E. (2013). Examining the relationship
between word reading efficiency and oral reading rate in predicting comprehension among different
types of readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 199-223.
Clemens et al. 797

Fletcher, J. M. (2006). Measuring reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 323-330.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identifica-
tion to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Fogarty, M., Oslund, E., Simmons, D., Davis, J., Simmons, L., Anderson, L., . . . Roberts, G. (2014).
Examining the effectiveness of a multicomponent reading comprehension intervention in middle
schools: A focus on treatment fidelity. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 425-449.
García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which
reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of
Educational Research, 84, 74-111.
Geiser, C. (2013). Data analysis with Mplus. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special
Education, 7, 6-10.
Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M. R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of
teachers’ judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32,
228-240.
Hock, M. F., Brasseur, I. F., Deshler, D. D., Catts, H. W., Marquis, J. G., Mark, C. A., & Stribling, J. W.
(2009). What is the reading component skill profile of adolescent struggling readers in urban schools?
Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 21-38.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127-160.
Hsueh-Chao, M. H., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403-430.
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differ-
ences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719-729.
Joshi, R. M. (2005). Vocabulary: A critical component of comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
21, 209-219.
Keenan, J. M., & Betjemann, R. S. (2006). Comprehending the Gray Oral Reading Test without reading it:
Why comprehension tests should not include passage-independent items. Scientific Studies of Reading,
10, 363-380.
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading
fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 230-251.
Lesaux, N. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among
language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research
Journal, 47, 596-632.
MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2002). Gates-MacGinitie Reading
Tests–4th Edition: Technical manual, Forms S & T. Rolling Meadows, IL: The Riverside.
Maria, K., & Hughes, K. E. (2008). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests: Technical report supplement. Rolling
Meadows, IL: The Riverside.
Meisinger, E. B., Bradley, B. A., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Kuhn, M. R. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of
word callers and related literacy concepts. School Psychology Review, 39, 54-73.
Meisinger, E. B., Bradley, B. A., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Kuhn, M. R., & Morris, R. D. (2009). Myth and
reality of the word caller: The relation between teacher nominations and prevalence among elementary
school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 147-159.
Meltzer, J., Cook Smith, N., & Clark, H. (2002). Adolescent literacy resources: Linking research and prac-
tice. Providence, RI: LAB, Brown University.
Miciak, J., Stuebing, K. K., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Barth, A. E., & Fletcher, J. M. (2014). Cognitive
attributes of adequate and inadequate responders to reading intervention in middle school. School
Psychology Review, 43, 407-427.
Morris, R. D., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., Shankweiler, D. P., . . .
Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90, 347-373.
Nation, K. (2005). Connections between language and reading in children with poor reading comprehen-
sion. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between langauge and reading disabilities
(pp. 41-54). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Nation’s Report Card. (2015). The Nation’s Report Card: 2015 mathematics and reading assessments.
Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/scores?grade=4
798 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 35(8)

Neuman, S. B., Newman, E. H., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Educational effects of a vocabulary intervention
on preschoolers’ word knowledge and conceptual development: A cluster-randomized trial. Reading
Research Quarterly, 46, 249-272.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class
analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structual Equation Modeling,
14, 535-569.
O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into
the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30, 442-463.
Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and read-
ing comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554-566.
Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort
(Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167-208). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11,
357-383.
Perfetti, C. (2010). Decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension: The golden triangle of reading skill. In M.
G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 291-303). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 18, 22-37.
Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for
struggling readers in Grades 4-12: 1980-2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369-390.
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading compre-
hension. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 26-43.
Silverman, R. D., Speece, D. L., Harring, J. R., & Ritchey, K. D. (2013). Fluency has a role in the simple
view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 108-133.
Simmons, D., Fogarty, M., Oslund, E. L., Simmons, L., Hairrell, A., Davis, J., . . . Fall, A.-M. (2014).
Integrating content knowledge-building and student-regulated comprehension practices in secondary
English language arts classes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 309-330.
Solis, M., Miciak, J., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2014). Why intensive interventions matter longitudinal
studies of adolescents with reading disabilities and poor reading comprehension. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 37, 218-229.
Spencer, M., Quinn, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). Specific reading comprehension disability: Major
problem, myth, or misnomer? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 3-9.
University of Oregon. (2008). Passage reading fluency (Assessment measures). Available from www.easy-
cbm.com
Valencia, S. W., Smith, A. T., Reece, A. M., Li, M., Wixson, K. K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral read-
ing fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research
Quarterly, 45, 270-291.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2010). TOSREC: Test of Sentence
Reading Efficiency and Comprehension. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L.
(2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of
Educational Research, 83, 163-195. doi:10.3102/0034654313477212
Wiederholt, J. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray Oral Reading Tests–5th Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Williams, K. T. (2001). Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Wray, K. A., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2014). Internal consistency of the easyCBM Vocabulary measures
grades 2-8 (Technical Report No. 1406). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of
Oregon.