Meyer, & Flowers, 2005). He also found that oral reading fluency adds explanatory value even when other factors are held constant.

With correlation coefficients ranging from .49 to .91, one wonders what factors could explain this variation. A review of 21 empirical studies that report in total 33 correlations between text fluency and reading comprehension calculated that the mean correlation was .69, with a standard deviation of .11 (see summary table in Annex 7.2). The author found statistically significant differences based on: (1) the difficulty of the passage; (2) the length of passage; (3) the type of comprehension measure used; (4) the student’s grade; (5) whether students have learning disability or not; and (6) sample size (Hosp, 2001):

- First, the mean correlation for studies using below grade level passages (.73) was higher than those using passages at grade level (.68). This difference was significant.<sup>8</sup> Hosp (2001) attributes this difference to the possibility of students at upper grade levels reaching a ceiling, which would result in a non normal distribution.

- Second, the highest mean correlation (.91) occurred when passages of 100 words were used, and the authors indicated that scores were prorated when necessary, longer (up to 400 words) or shorter (90 words) passages yielded lower correlations. The author attributes this to the fact that students may complete a shorter passage before one minute, requiring examiners to prorate scores; however, this does not explain why correlations were lower in longer passages (Hosp, 2001).

- Third, the highest mean correlation for a criterion measure was reported for the maze or cloze (.78). This was significantly different from the standardized, group-administered tests (.69)<sup>9</sup> ; and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement- Brief (.41).<sup>10</sup> This could be because the word-reading tasks and the maze measure are markedly similar. Also, multiple-choice questions are more likely to induce guessing. Yet, although the standardized, group-administered tasks were similar, the correlations for each test ranged from .51 to .85. Most notably, among these, the California Achievement Test resulted in the lowest figures. Hosp noted that by eliminating the four correlations reported in one study using the CAT, the mean correlation for group-administered criterion tests increased from .69 to .74.

- Fourth, studies that compared results by grades found that correlations are higher in lower grades (1 through 4), and then dropped off after fifth grade, but cross-study comparisons were not done (Hosp, 2001). The study in Junin also found lower correlations in sixth grade than in second and third grades (Banco Mundial, 2008).

- Fifth, correlations based on special education students were significantly higher (.77) from those based on general education students (.66)<sup>11</sup> , and from those based on students at-risk (.66).<sup>12</sup> Studies that combined students in both groups reported a significantly higher mean correlation (.71) than studies only including students in general education (.66).<sup>13</sup> However, only two included used students with disabilities, and only two studies

> 8 Z (1, 1571) = 1.91, p < .05.

> 9 Z (1, 1656) = 2.66, p < .01 10

> Z (1, 267) = 3.00, p < .001

> 11 Z (1, 1338) = 2.48, p < .01

> 12 Z (1, 264) = 1.83, p < .05

> 13 Z (1,2081) = 2.12, p < .05

14