Daniel Wissinger (Professional Studies in Education), Adrea J. Truckenmiller (Michigan State University), Amber Konek (doctoral candidate in IUP’s Curriculum and Instruction program in the Professional Studies in Education Department), and Stephen Ciullo (Texas State University) published The Validity of Two Tests of Silent Reading Fluency: A Meta-Analytic Review.


The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the potential of two silent reading fluency measures as indicators of reading competence. Specifically, we analyzed score differences between the Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF), the Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency (TOSWRF), and other standardized measures of reading to determine whether the two silent reading fluency measures were valid indicators of reading competence. Further, potential moderating variables were examined: (a) type of criterion reading measure (i.e., decoding/encoding, word-letter identification, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension); (b) type of silent reading fluency measure (i.e., word vs. contextual); (c) type of learner (English language learner [ELL] status, at risk for a disability; average; above average and gifted); and (e) administration format (i.e., group or individual), and the reading score outcomes.

A comparison of effect sizes, across 47 studies and 47,616 participants, revealed very little score differences between the TOSCRF, TOSWRF, and other standardized measures of reading competence (r = 0.07, very small or trivial). Three moderator variables (English language learner status, type of silent reading fluency measure [word vs. contextual], and administration format [individual vs. group]) did, in fact, moderate effect sizes across studies. A discussion of the implications for using the TOSCRF and TOSWRF as indicators of reading competence, study limitations, and recommendations for future research are included.

Professional Studies in Education