ArticleReading and writing2021
Initial validation of a measure of decoding difficulty as a unique predictor of miscues and passage reading fluency.
Article in Reading and writing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reading Errors of Importance: The Role of Word Frequency and Relevance in Passage-Specific Comprehension.Reading & writing quarterly : overcoming learning difficulties · 2026Article
- The Tool for Automatic Analysis of Decoding Ambiguity (TAADA).Behavior research methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantifying the decoding difficulty (i.e., 'decodability') of text is important for accurately matching young readers to appropriate text and scaffolding reading development. Since no easily accessible, quantitative, word-level metric of decodability exists, we developed a decoding measure (DM) that can be calculated via a web-based scoring application that takes into account sub-lexical components (e.g. orthographic complexity), thus measuring decodability at the grapheme-phoneme level, which can be used to judge decodability of individual words or passages. Here we report three experiments using the DM: two predicting children's word-level errors and one predicting passage reading fluency. Generalized linear mixed effect models showed that metrics from the DM explained unique variance in children's oral reading miscues after controlling for word frequency in two samples of children (experiments 1 and 2), and that more errors were made on words with higher DM scores for poor readers. Furthermore, the DM metrics predicted children's number of words read correctly per minute after accounting for estimated Lexile passage scores in a third sample (experiment 3). These results show that after controlling for word frequency (experiments 1 and 2) and estimated Lexile scores (experiment 3) the model including the DM metrics was significantly better in predicting children's word reading fluency both for individual words and passages. While further refinement of this DM measure is ongoing, it appears to be a promising new measure of decodability at both the word and passage level. The measure also provides the opportunity to enable precision teaching techniques, as grapheme-phoneme correspondence profiles unique to each child could facilitate individualized instruction, and text.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.