Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge

Abstract

This study examined the interrelationships among and combined effects of word reading skills and syntactic knowledge on reading prosody in fifth-grade monolingual Spanish-speaking students. We used Spanish standardized tests to assess the participants (n = 169, 79 girls) on word and pseudoword reading skills, syntactic knowledge, and reading prosody. The results revealed significant relationships among these factors and reading prosody. Word reading emerged as a pivotal predictor, whereas syntactic knowledge, although playing a smaller role compared to word reading, was linked to improvements in expression, phrasing, and the reduction of ungrammatical pauses. We also found a non-significant interaction between the independent effects of word reading and syntactic knowledge on reading prosody. The study suggests the potential benefits of integrating explicit syntactic instruction into reading curricula and intervention programs to support the development of reading prosody in Spanish.

Keywords

syntactic knowledge reading prosody reading fluency word reading

Over the last few decades, there has been growing interest in understanding reading fluency (Godde et al., 2020; Klauda & Guthrie, 2008). Reading fluency was traditionally defined as reading words accurately and with automaticity (Samuels, 2006). Since then, however, another aspect of fluency has emerged: reading with appropriate expression (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). Today the definition of reading fluency includes the three components of accuracy, rate, and expression (i.e., reading prosody). Of these three elements, reading prosody has historically received less attention from researchers.

Recent research has demonstrated the importance of reading prosody in reading development by estimating the strength of the relationship between reading prosody and reading comprehension (r = .51; Wolters et al., 2022) and exploring the dimensionality and factor structure of the reading prosody construct (e.g., Benjamin et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2021). Further evidence of the role of prosody in reading has come from studies involving populations with learning disabilities (e.g., Cuetos et al., 2018; Jordán et al., 2019).

While knowledge about reading prosody has increased in recent years, researchers have not yet studied the mechanisms underlying prosody. Because prosodic skills develop gradually as readers become more efficient, accurate, and faster at decoding words, word reading may be considered the primary contributor to reading prosody (Wolters et al., 2022). However, to acquire appropriate phrasing and avoid misplaced pauses, it is necessary to extract the syntactic structure of the text, which requires syntactic skills (Godde et al., 2020). In the present study, we examined the relationships among word reading, syntactic knowledge, and reading prosody within the context of the Spanish language.

Reading Prosody: Components and Assessment

Reading prosody skill is characterized by good expression and intonation while maintaining fast and accurate reading to convey the meaning of the text (Benjamin et al., 2013; Kuhn et al., 2010). Importantly, (a) phrasing, (b) expression, and (c) pauses have become the proxy concepts of how reading prosody is operationalized. First, phrasing when reading refers to the ability to organize words into meaningful word groups (Nomvete & Easterbrooks, 2020). Previous studies have found that the lack of phrasing-ability during reading was symptomatic of young readers; it was also identified as a possible cause of using ungrammatical pauses at the phrase unit level (i.e., misplacement of pauses that occur in inappropriate phrase boundary locations not ruled by text punctuation). Second, the proper, expressive reading of sentences has been characterized by range variations in intonation or pitch (e.g., Cowie et al., 2002), which allow the reader's words to sound like natural language (Rasinski et al., 2009). The results of studies of expressive reading in children have demonstrated that skilled readers showed larger downward and upward pitch shifts for declarative and question-and-exclamation sentences, respectively, than did inexperienced readers (e.g., Álvarez-Cañizo et al., 2018, 2020a, 2020b; Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2006). Finally, pausing entailed breaks in vocalizing, including repetitions and hesitations (Benjamin et al., 2013). Natural breaks indicated fluid reading, while prolonged pauses or repetitions suggested decoding challenges.

These three aspects of reading prosody have been evaluated by using spectrographic measures and rating scales. The latter has been primarily used in the context of school assessments. Of these, the most widely used rating scale is the Multi-Dimensional Fluency Scale (Rasinski, 2004; Rasinski et al., 2009; Zutell & Rasinski, 1991). Depending on the version of the scale used, reading prosody was found to be composed of three or four dimensions scaled from 1 to 4: (a) expression and volume, (b) phrasing, (c) smoothness, and (d) pace. The Multi-Dimensional Fluency Scale, originally designed in English, has been widely used and adapted to several languages; these languages include Spanish (González-Trujillo et al., 2014), Dutch (Veenendaal et al., 2014, 2015), Portuguese (Fernandes et al., 2018), and Turkish (Yildiz et al., 2014). In the context of Spanish school assessment, González-Trujillo et al. (2014) developed the Scale of Reading Fluency in Spanish (SRFS), also referred to as “Escala de Fluidez Lectora en Español” (EFLE). This development was partially influenced by Rasinski's Multidimensional Fluency Scale (2004), which demonstrated robust interrater agreement (α = 0.93 to α = 0.96). While the SRFS encompasses four dimensions of oral reading fluency (speed, accuracy, prosody, and reading quality), our study focused on prosody alone.

The Relationship Between Word Reading and Reading Prosody

Several studies have suggested a link between word reading and reading prosody (e.g., Binder et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2021; Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2006; Sabatini et al., 2018; Schwanenflugel et al., 2004, 2015). In particular, decoding skills and word reading automaticity appeared to be associated with the development of reading prosody (for a review, see Godde et al., 2020). In this regard, automaticity theory (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974) and verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1992) proposed that mastering higher-order reading required the automation of lower-order reading skills. Accordingly, some studies have found that to read with appropriate prosody requires readers to move from the lexical level, or word-by-word recognition, to a supralexical level, which means grouping words into phrases (Benjamin & Schwanenflugel, 2010; Nomvete & Easterbrooks, 2020). Recent evidence has demonstrated that children read with expression only when they have acquired reading automaticity (e.g., Benjamin & Schwanenflugel, 2010; Schwanenflugel et al., 2004, 2015; Veenendaal et al., 2016).

A synthesis of research across various studies has demonstrated that children's decoding abilities significantly correlate with prosodic reading. Fluent decoding typically manifests as a fewer number of pauses and more adult-like pitch declinations at the ends of sentences. This finding elucidates a clear connection between word reading proficiency and prosody (Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2006; Schwanenflugel et al., 2004). Furthermore, this relationship appears to strengthen with age as correlations observed in early grades become more pronounced in later grades, with improved reading speed and accuracy leading to fewer and briefer pauses and greater pitch variations (Benjamin & Schwanenflugel, 2010; Schwanenflugel et al., 2015). Longitudinal studies have also found that word reading significantly predicts prosody from first to third grade. This finding is notably reflected in the strong relationship between the scores from the Multi-Dimensional Fluency Scale and pauses measured spectrographically (r range = .78–.95), as well as a less impactful but still significant effect on pitch scores. These findings highlighted the pivotal role of word reading in the early development of prosody (Kim et al., 2021). At the upper levels of primary school, a continued moderate to strong correlation exists between decoding and prosodic reading, with reading rate and accuracy consistently identified as key predictors of prosodic competence (Sabatini et al., 2018; Valencia et al., 2010; Veenendaal et al., 2016).

In summary, research findings have indicated a positive relationship between word reading and prosody; they have further suggested that automaticity and the development of prosody are closely related. However, findings as to how closely reading rates and prosody are related has varied across studies depending on which specific prosodic features were measured (pauses, pitch, etc.) or on which assessment instrument was used (spectrographic analysis or rating scales). Additionally, the transparency of the language in which the study was conducted (opaque vs. transparent) influenced the strength of the relationship. Some studies have suggested that in languages with transparent orthographies, the strong relationship between decoding-related reading and prosody may not persist over time, as it does in opaque orthographies. For example, a study conducted in Spanish with second- and fourth-graders (Calet et al., 2015) found differences by grade in the magnitude of the relationship between pseudoword reading and prosody (r = .72, in second grade; r = .24 in fourth grade) and between word reading automaticity and prosody (r = .78, in second grade; r = .44, in fourth grade). Therefore, it is possible that as readers become more proficient in decoding, other skills, such as syntactic skills, may also play an important role in the development of reading prosody.

The Relationship Between Syntactic Skills and Reading Prosody

Chafe (1988) suggested that in order to read a sentence with intonation, it is necessary to assign syntactic roles to the words in a sentence. Similarly, Kuhn and Stahl (2003) proposed that to read with proper expression required good decoding skills and an understanding of the syntactic structures of the text. Syntactic skills appeared to be closely associated with reading prosodically (e.g., Augurzky, 2006; Kondo & Mazuka, 1996). Kondo and Mazuka (1996) conducted an eye-tracking study to determine how much information was minimally required to read a Japanese sentence aloud fluently. They suggested that certain types of syntactic information (e.g., the onset of a sentence, the end of a sentence, the presence of punctuation, etc.) were quickly incorporated into prosodic planning. Along the same lines, Koriat et al. (2002) pointed out that the prosody expressed during reading reflected the structure of the sentences that made up the text. They found that the reading prosody of Hebrew-speaking students was linked to specific syntactic structures but remained independent from semantic coherence. Despite evidence of the close relationship between syntactic skills and reading prosody, to our knowledge only two studies have been conducted to test this relationship (see Mokhtari & Thompson, 2006; Nomvete & Easterbrooks, 2020).

Mokhtari and Thompson (2006) studied the relationships between syntactic awareness and reading fluency in fifth-grade students with reading difficulties. They administered the rating scale of NAEP'S integrated reading performance record (Pinnell et al., 1995) to assess reading fluency (word reading accuracy, reading rate, and prosodic performance or expression) and the test of language development-intermediate (Hammill & Newcomer, 1996) to measure syntactic awareness. The results showed significant correlations among syntactic awareness and reading rate (r = .50), decoding accuracy (r = .51), and prosodic performance (r = .62).

More recently, Nomvete and Easterbrooks (2020) studied the interrelationships among phrase-reading ability, syntactic awareness, passage reading rate, and reading comprehension in adolescents with and without disabilities, and reported results similar to those from Mokhtari and Thompson (2006). Phrase-reading ability was assessed by the Adapted NAEP Oral Reading Fluency Scale (Klauda & Guthrie, 2008) and syntactic awareness was tested by the Grammaticality Judgment subtest of the CASL test (Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999). Nomvete and Easterbrooks (2020) found positive correlations between passage-reading rate and syntactic awareness (r = .60), passage-reading rate and phrase-reading ability (r = .70), and syntactic awareness and phrase-reading ability (r = .64). This study also tested (a) the role of phrase-reading ability as a mediator in the relationship between passage-reading rate and reading comprehension and (b) the relationship between syntactic awareness and reading comprehension. Simple regression analyses revealed that syntactic awareness and passage-reading rate significantly predicted phrase-reading ability. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that phrase-reading ability completely mediated two relationships: (a) the relationship between syntactic awareness and reading comprehension and (b) the relationship between passage-reading rate and reading comprehension. These findings suggested that the associations among syntactic awareness, passage-reading rate, and reading comprehension are primarily driven by the effect of the latter two on phrase-reading ability.

Unlike the above studies, others have only indirectly analyzed the relationship between syntactic skills and reading prosody (e.g., Álvarez-Cañizo et al., 2020a, 2020b; Veenendaal et al., 2014). Álvarez-Cañizo et al. (2020a, 2020b) investigated how secondary school students develop their reading fluency across different sentence types. In addition to other tasks, participants completed standardized syntactic knowledge tasks (Cuetos et al., 2016) and underwent spectrographic analysis to measure prosodic reading. The results showed a negative correlation between syntactic scores and the final pitch declination of declarative and adversative sentences (r = −.61; r = −.67). Specifically, students with higher syntactic scores demonstrated a less pronounced final pitch declination than those with lower syntactic scores. Additionally, children with better syntactic skills gradually lowered the pitch at the end of sentences, which is typical of expert readers. Veenendaal et al. (2014) examined the role of speech prosody and text reading prosody in the reading comprehension skills of fourth-grade students while controlling for decoding, vocabulary, and syntactic awareness. The Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Rasinski, 2004) and standardized measures of syntactic awareness and decoding skills were among the tasks administered to the children. The correlation analysis revealed (a) a weak correlation between reading prosody indicators (expression and volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace) and syntactic awareness (r range = .10–.26) and (b) a moderate correlation between reading prosody indicators and decoding (r range = .30–.58).

In short, the above studies showed significant correlations between reading prosody and syntactic skills; however, the overall size of the correlations varied. Veenendaal et al. (2014) reported lower correlations than the other studies did; this result could be attributed to the young age of the children in the sample, indicating that the relationship between reading prosody and syntactic awareness might increase with age. Additionally, differences in prosody measurement instruments (spectrographic vs. questionnaire) and the measures used for analysis (composite vs. individual measures of different prosody indicators) may also have contributed to the observed differences. It is important to note that all studies reported a moderate relationship between syntactic skills and word reading.

In light of the significant correlations found among reading prosody, word reading, and syntactic skills, it is crucial to consider how these relationships might manifest within specific linguistic contexts. The Spanish language, with its distinct phonological and syntactic characteristics, offered a unique context for examining these interrelationships. The high grapheme-phoneme transparency in Spanish could facilitate the earlier acquisition of word reading automaticity, and thus potentially affect the development of prosody differently than in languages with less transparent orthographies. Moreover, specific syntactic and grammatical features of Spanish, such as the use of opening and closing interrogation and exclamation marks, provide clear cues for sentence intonation; these characteristics could also potentially help in the development of appropriate prosody. Additionally, the rules governing gender and number agreement for nouns and articles in Spanish add a layer of syntactic complexity that could in turn influence prosodic expression, with readers navigating these grammatical agreements to accurately convey sentence meaning. These linguistic features underscore the importance of this study in advancing our understanding of reading prosody within the context of the Spanish language.

The Current Study

None of the above-mentioned studies incorporated word reading and syntactic skills simultaneously as predictors of reading prosody. However, other research has shown that word reading and syntactic skills, which can be interrelated, predicted reading prosody (Nomvete & Easterbrooks, 2020); this suggests that their combined effects could elucidate other aspects of reading prosody. For instance, low word reading rates have been found to affect phrasing performance (Klauda & Guthrie, 2008), and low levels of syntactic skills have affected phrasing (Godde et al., 2020). Therefore, understanding how these two factors relate to reading prosody could improve our knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of reading prosody, and thus potentially help develop targeted strategies designed to support reading prosody.

Importantly, the term syntactic skills encompasses both syntactic knowledge and syntactic awareness, both of which correlate with reading prosody, as indicated by the above studies. This correlation leads to a critical distinction: While syntactic knowledge requires the understanding of sentence structure and grammatical rules, syntactic awareness is about the ability to consciously reflect on and manipulate these structures. While previous research has primarily focused on syntactic awareness, with Álvarez-Cañizo et al. (2020a, 2020b) being an exception, our study specifically emphasized syntactic knowledge.

Our purpose was to assess the effects of word reading and syntactic knowledge on reading prosody in Spanish fifth-grade children. We first asked (RQ1), What are the direct and unique relationships among Spanish word reading skills, syntactic knowledge, and reading prosody in a sample of typically developing fifth-grade Spanish children? According to top-down and interactive theories of word reading (e.g., Rumelhart, 1994), children use their higher-level linguistic abilities, such as semantic knowledge and syntactic skills, to perform lower-level tasks such as word reading. Evidence furthermore suggests that syntactic skills facilitate word reading (Mimeau et al., 2018). Therefore, our second research question (RQ2) was, Is there a joint effect between word reading and syntactic knowledge on reading prosody, with syntactic knowledge moderating the relationship between word reading and reading prosody?

Based on the empirical evidence presented, we hypothesized that word reading skills and syntactic knowledge respectively demonstrate a unique and significant effect on reading prosody and also show that these skills are independently related to reading prosody. Because no previous studies have included both word reading and syntactic skills as predictors of reading prosody, we were unable to formulate a definitive hypothesis regarding their combined effect. The lack of prior investigation into our topic highlighted the exploratory nature of our research into their potential joint effect on reading prosody.

By examining our research questions within the distinctive linguistic framework of the Spanish language, we not only investigated the relationships among reading prosody, syntactic skills, and word reading in monolingual Spanish-speaking children, but also learned insights into how these relationships may function in languages with similar orthographic and syntactic structures.

Method

Participants

The participants were 169 children from fifth grade (79 girls and 90 boys; M_age = 125.92 months, SD = 4.39). They were recruited from four schools in Tenerife, Spain, and came from families of a middle socio-economic status. All children were native Spanish speakers, and none had been diagnosed with intellectual, sensory, or behavioral disorders. Before testing, we obtained consent from the children's parents, and also ethics approval from the Universidad de La Laguna.

As part of the fifth-grade standard curriculum in the Canary Islands, children receive instruction that emphasizes the understanding and application of language structure. This instruction includes components of grammar, vocabulary, and spelling, all aimed at fostering competent oral and written communication. The curriculum requires students to recognize and utilize various word types, comprehend and use tenses correctly, understand sentence structure, particularly noun relationships, and accurately employ punctuation to convey meaning.

Procedure

The children were evaluated in the fall term by a team of five examiners: three of us have degrees in psychology and two of us have degrees in pedagogy; all of us have prior experience in the educational field. The assessment process entailed a single group session and two individual sessions, all of which were conducted in a noise-free environment at each school. No individual sessions were time-bound, and the tests were administered in the same order in each session. The entire assessment process spanned approximately three weeks at each school. Before administering the assessments, research assistants received eight hours of training on conducting and scoring the evaluations. The correction and prosody rating of all protocols were overseen by the same research assistants, with the protocols evenly assigned to each assistant by the researchers.

Instruments

Word Reading Skills

PROLEC-R. Batería de Evaluación de los Procesos Lectores, Revisada (Cuetos et al., 2007) is a standardized, normed instrument, consisting of multiple subsets, for the assessment of reading processes in the Spanish population. In our study, we administered the subsets for word reading and pseudoword reading. The word reading subtest included 40 items, half of which were high frequency and half low frequency, with word lengths varying between five and eight letters (two and three syllables) (α-Cronbach = .89). The pseudoword reading subtest consisted of 40 items created by changing one letter in each of the words used in the word reading subtest (α-Cronbach = .89). In each subtest, children were asked to read words/pseudowords aloud as fast as possible. Two measures of accuracy and speed were assessed for both words and pseudowords. The score was calculated based on the number of words, and pseudowords, read correctly per second.

Syntactic Knowledge

The morpho-syntaxis subtest of the Spanish Verbal Intelligence Battery (Yuste et al., 2001), called Inve-E2, was used to assess children's competence in Spanish morphology and syntax. The subtest consisted of 24 items that assessed student knowledge of word gender and number, sentence structure, verb tense, sentence types (interrogative, exclamatory, etc.), word accentuation, word derivation, word types (nouns, adjectives, etc.), and noun types (common, proper, etc.) (α-Cronbach = .87). Children wrote their answers on a sheet of paper. The total number of correct answers given by each student was used in the statistical analyses.

Reading Prosody

The Selfish Giant

A narrative text entitled The Selfish Giant was used to assess Spanish students’ reading prosody. This text is an adaptation of a fairy tale by Oscar Wilde which is taught to Spanish students (Jordán et al., 2019; Suárez-Coalla et al., 2016). It is 282 words long and was presented to the students on a sheet of paper (Times New Roman, 12 point, double-spaced; for more information, see Suárez-Coalla et al., 2016). For prosody assessment, students were asked to read the text aloud individually while wearing a dynamic head-attached microphone (Audio-Technica PRO-8Hex), with their readings recorded by a TASCAM DR-44W voice recorder.

The Prosody Subscale of the SRFA

While the SRFS (González-Trujillo et al., 2014) assessed four factors, we only administered the prosody subscale, in which four dimensions, as mentioned above, were evaluated: (a) pauses, (b) phrasing, (c) volume, and (d) expression. The prosody scale operates on a 1 to 4 range, where a rating of 1 signifies a poor development of the dimension, and a rating of 4 indicates a high level of development. (For a detailed description of the items, please consult González-Trujillo et al., 2014). The scale exhibited strong interrater agreement, ranging from α = .93 to α = .96. Pearson's correlations between dimensions in Year 2 and Year 4 exhibited moderate and statistically significant correlations.

For our study, inter-rater reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient. Two research assistants, blind to each other's ratings, independently scored 25 records from the subscale, which represented 15% of the sample. We employed a two-way random-effects model for single measures, focusing on consistency to calculate ICC estimates and their 95% confidence intervals using the SPSS statistical package version 25. ICC values were interpreted as follows: less than 0.50 indicated poor reliability; between 0.50 and 0.75 indicated fair to moderate reliability; between 0.75 and 0.90 indicated good reliability; and above 0.90 indicated excellent reliability (Perinetti, 2018). The ICC for volume was .32, F (24,24) = 1.95, p = .054, indicating poor reliability. For expression, pauses, and phrasing, the ICC values were .70, F (24,24) = 5.75, p < .001; .57, F (24,24) = 3.60, p < .01; and .72, F (24,24) = 6.11, p < .001, respectively, indicating moderate reliability. A ceiling effect was observed for the measure of volume, with 62% of the sample scoring a maximum of 4, and 28% scoring a 3. Due to these results, the volume measure was excluded from further analysis.

Data Analysis

To answer RQ1 (What are the direct and unique relationships among Spanish word reading skills, syntactic knowledge, and reading prosody in a sample of typically developing fifth-grade Spanish children?), we first conducted Pearson correlations to assess the relationships among each prosody subscale (expression, pauses, and phrasing), word reading measures, syntactic knowledge, and composite scores for word reading and prosody. The word reading composite was derived from the sum of word and pseudoword reading measures, while the prosody composite score was the sum of its respective subscales. We also explored the classroom ICCs of the dependent and independent variables in the model. Second, to examine the effects of word reading and syntactic knowledge on reading prosody, we constructed linear mixed-effects models. Model 1 included syntactic knowledge only as a predictor, Model 2 included only the word reading composite score, and Model 3 incorporated both predictors. Finally, to answer RQ2, Is there a joint effect between word reading and syntactic knowledge on reading prosody, with syntactic knowledge moderating the relationship between word reading and reading prosody?, we developed Model 4 to explore a joint effect between word reading and syntactic knowledge on reading prosody, including an interaction term between these two predictors.

We included the classroom as a random effect to account for the likelihood of greater common variance among students within the same classroom compared to those in separate classrooms. Both predictors (word reading and syntactic knowledge) were cluster-mean centered and then standardized to ensure that the relationship estimate between each predictor and prosody represented student-level relations rather than a blended slope of student and classroom relations (Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Sanders & Konold, 2023). We used the misty package in R (Yanagida, 2023) to cluster-mean center the predictors. Models were built using the lme4 package in R (Bates et al., 2015). We assessed the significance of the fixed effects by using the lmerTest package (Kuznetsova et al., 2017). Specifically, we employed the lmer function to fit the models with the prosody factor score as the dependent variable. The R-squared values, both marginal and conditional, were computed using the performance R package (Lüdecke et al., 2021).

Results

Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics for the variables, along with their correlations. All measures were reasonably normally distributed (Hair et al., 2010). The reading prosody dimensions demonstrated moderate correlations among themselves and were also moderately correlated with the word reading measure and syntactic knowledge. The word reading measures exhibited high correlations with each other but low correlations with syntactic knowledge. ICCs were calculated for each variable to assess the proportion of variance attributable to differences between classrooms. The results indicated that classroom-level differences accounted for 14% of the variance in prosody, 2% of the variance in syntactic knowledge, and 14% of the variance in word reading.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations.

	n	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Correlations
	n	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Expression	169	3.39	0.70	−0.70	−0.73	.47***	.54***	.36***	.34***	.29***	.37***	.82***
2. Pauses	169	3.37	0.68	−0.73	−0.15		.54***	.50***	.43***	.40***	.50***	.82***
3. Phrasing	169	3.49	0.62	−0.79	−0.39			.48***	.48***	.29***	.51***	.83***
4. Word reading	169	1.25	0.40	0.29	0.04				.77***	.24**	.97***	.54***
5. Pseudoword reading	169	0.69	0.22	0.65	0.42					.23**	.90***	.50***
6. Syntactic knowledge	168	18.06	3.75	−0.43	−0.38						.25**	.40***
7. Word reading composite	169	1.94	0.59	0.38	0.10							.56***
8. Prosody composite score	169	10.25	1.64	−0.78	−0.21

Note. Word reading composite is the sum of the word reading and pseudoword reading measures. Prosody composite score is the sum of the expression, pauses, and phrasing scales.

***p < .001, **p < .01.

Table 1 presents the results of the linear mixed-effects modeling prosody using syntactic knowledge and word reading as fixed effects and classroom as a random effect. In Model 1, with syntactic knowledge as the only predictor, the estimated effect was significant (Coeff = 0.36, SE = 0.16, t = 5.44, p < .001). In Model 2, using word reading as the only predictor, the effect was also significant (Coeff = 0.58, SE = 0.06, t = 10.27, p < .001). Finally, in Model 3, which incorporated both syntactic knowledge and word reading, both predictors were still significant: syntactic knowledge (Coeff = 0.20, SE = 0.06, t = 3.49, p < .01); and word reading (Coeff = 0.53, SE = 0.06, t = 9.22, p < .001). When adding word reading to the model that already included syntactic knowledge (comparing Model 1 to Model 3), word reading accounted for an additional 24.3% of the variance in prosody. Conversely, when syntactic knowledge was added to the model that previously only included word reading (comparing Model 2 to Model 3), the variance explained increased by just 4.5%. The interaction in Model 4 was not significant, indicating that the relationship between word reading and reading prosody did not significantly vary based on the level of syntactic knowledge. Therefore, in this sample of fifth-grade Spanish students, word reading and syntactic knowledge effects on prosody were additive and did not depend on each other. Syntactic knowledge therefore significantly predicted prosody after accounting for word reading, although it accounted for a smaller proportion of the variance (Table 2).

Table 2.

Linear Mixed-Effects Modeling of Prosody Using Syntax and Word Fluency as Fixed Effects and Classroom as Random Effect.

	Model 1Syntactic knowledge			Model 2Word reading			Model 3SYN + WRE			Model 4SYN*WRE
Term	β	SE	t-value	β	SE	t-value	β	SE	t-value	β	SE	t-value
(Intercept)	−0.01	0.16	−0.07	−0.01	0.16	−0.06	−0.02	0.16	−0.11	0.01	0.16	0.07
SYN	0.36	0.07	5.44***				0.20	0.06	3.49**	0.19	0.06	3.33**
WRE				0.58	0.06	10.27***	0.53	0.06	9.20***	0.53	0.06	9.22***
SYN*WRE										−0.09	0.05	−1.72
Marginal R2		0.128			0.326			0.371			0.380
Conditional R2		0.274			0.482			0.523			0.527

Note. SYN = syntactic knowledge; WRE = word reading composite; SE = standard error. Word reading composite is the sum of the word reading and pseudoword reading measures. Prosody composite score is the sum of the expression, pauses, and phrasing scales. The model without any fixed effects revealed that 14% of the variance in prosody could be attributed to differences between classrooms. Marginal R2 represents the variance explained by fixed effects; Conditional R2 represents the variance explained by fixed and random effects.

***p < .001; **p < .01.

Discussion

The present study adds to the growing body of research on reading fluency by examining the effects of word reading and syntactic knowledge on reading prosody (Godde et al., 2020; Klauda & Guthrie, 2008). Our findings built upon previous investigations that have highlighted the importance of reading prosody in reading development and comprehension (Wolters et al., 2022), as well as its relevance to populations with learning disabilities (Cuetos et al., 2018; Jordán et al., 2019). By exploring the role of both word reading and syntactic knowledge in predicting reading prosody, our study provides a more comprehensive understanding of the interrelationships between these factors and their combined impact on reading prosody. This understanding is essential for the development of targeted intervention strategies that can enhance the various components of reading fluency and ultimately support overall reading comprehension and performance.

The findings of the present study provide further support for the significant relationship between word reading automaticity and reading prosody, as previously reported in the literature (e.g., Binder et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2021; Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2006; Sabatini et al., 2018; Schwanenflugel et al., 2004, 2015; Valencia et al., 2010; Veenendaal et al., 2014). The strength of the bivariate correlation was moderate (r range = .34–.50), considering the different prosody indicators used. However, to compare this result with other studies is a complex task, as the strength of the correlation can vary according to multiple factors, such as age, prosody measurement, or language. For example, Calet et al. (2015) showed that reading word proficiency (word accuracy score by total reading time and pseudoword reading accuracy) was closely linked to reading prosody during the early stages of reading development, but this connection weakened later on.

Additionally, the strength of the relationship between word reading and reading prosody seemed to vary by prosody feature; for example, it was stronger for the prosody rating scale than for pitch indicators such as adult-like contour and F0 sentence-final declination (Wolters, 2022). Language orthography can also influence relationships due to the differences in the development of word reading (e.g., Seymour et al., 2003), which in turn could impact the development of reading prosody (Godde et al., 2020). Therefore, we compared our results to those of Calet et al. (2015), who also used a rating scale to measure reading prosody among fourth-grade Spanish students. They found a moderate correlation between word reading rate and reading prosody (r = .44), which was consistent with our findings.

To determine whether word reading predicts prosody performance, we tested different models with word reading skills as a predictor. Word reading alone accounted for a considerable 32.6% of the variance in prosody scores (marginal R²). Even when syntactic knowledge was included in the model, word reading continued to be a significant predictor. Controlling for the relationship between word reading and syntactic skills, we found that word reading in Spanish-speaking fifth-graders predicted prosody performance. Schwanenflugel et al. (2004), who tested a model that explored the relationship between decoding speed and reading prosody, reported similar findings with second- and third-graders. The TOWRE subtests (sight word efficiency and phonemic decoding efficiency) were combined to form a latent variable called decoding speed. That study revealed that children with higher decoding speed tended to read more prosodically, characterized by shorter, less variable pauses, reduced intra-sentential pauses, and greater sentence-final declination in F0, closely resembling adult reading.

Kim et al. (2021) found results comparable to Schwanenflugel et al. (2004). They identified a robust and consistent positive relationship among word reading skills (as a latent variable combining letter-word identification (Woodcock et al., 2001); word reading subtask (WIAT; Wechsler, 2009) and sight word efficiency subtask (Torgesen et al., 2012); and prosody (as a latent variable comprising ratings scale score and pause, as determined through spectrographic analysis). This pattern persisted across six time points for English-speaking second- and third-graders. In other words, children with superior word reading skills generally performed better on the rating scale. These findings have suggested that the development of word reading skills plays a crucial role in the evolution of reading prosody, particularly regarding aspects of prosody related to ratings and pausing. In line with this finding, our results revealed that for a Spanish-speaking population of fifth-graders, word reading skill was a relevant predictor of prosodic performance in a transparent and fine-grained orthography like the Spanish language.

The results of our study also aligned with existing literature and highlighted the relationship between prosody and syntactic skills (Álvarez-Cañizo et al., 2020a, 2020b; Mokhtari & Thompson, 2006; Nomvete & Easterbrooks, 2020; Veenendaal et al., 2014). Most of these studies, with the exception of Veenendaal et al. (2014), discovered stronger bivariate correlations than those observed in our research, irrespective of whether they employed spectrographic measures (Álvarez-Cañizo et al., 2020a, 2020b) or rating scales (Mokhtari & Thompson, 2006; Nomvete & Easterbrooks, 2020). The difference in the strength of the relationship between syntactic knowledge and reading prosody, when compared to Álvarez-Cañizo et al. (2020a, 2020b)—the only similar study involving Spanish-speaking participants—may be partly explained by the fact that their participants were high school students and at least two years older than our sample population.

As we pointed out in the introduction, the relationship between syntactic skills and reading prosody may become more robust with age, as children acquire advanced syntactic knowledge and improve their efficiency in word recognition. When modeling the relationships between syntactic knowledge and reading prosody, the results indicated that syntactic knowledge alone accounted for 12.8% (marginal R²) of the variance in prosody scores, which demonstrated a significant impact. Greater syntactic knowledge and the capacity to analyze and manipulate syntactic elements corresponded to enhanced reading prosody performance, including improved expression, more accurate phrasing, and a reduction in ungrammatical pauses.

When word reading and syntactic knowledge were added to the model, these factors together accounted for 37.1% (marginal R²) of the variance in prosody. Adding syntactic knowledge to a model already containing word reading only increased the explained variance by an additional 4.5%. Conversely, introducing word reading into a model that already included syntactic knowledge increased the explained variance by 24.3%. This finding suggests that while both predictors are significant, syntactic skills have a comparatively smaller effect on reading prosody than word reading does. This is likely attributable to the development of children's word reading skills; perhaps their level of automaticity still renders them reliant on decoding skills, preventing syntactic skills from playing a more prominent role at this stage.

Examining the interaction between word reading and syntactic knowledge revealed no significant effects. This result, which addressed our second research question, was exploratory due to the scarcity of prior studies examining this interaction. The non-significant interaction between word reading and syntactic knowledge suggested that their effects on reading prosody operate independently. Proficiency in word reading appeared to relate to the development of prosodic skills regardless of a child's syntactic knowledge level, neither amplifying nor attenuating its association.

Top-down and interactive theories of word reading (e.g., Rumelhart, 1994) have posited that higher-level linguistic abilities, such as semantic knowledge and syntactic awareness, support the performance of lower-level reading tasks. These theories provided a framework for understanding how syntactic skills might interact with word reading to affect reading prosody. However, the nature of the syntactic measures used in our study may account for the lack of observed moderating effects. The studies that have explored the facilitative role of syntactic skills on word reading employed tasks assessing syntactic awareness rather than syntactic knowledge (e.g., Cain, 2007; Mimeau et al., 2018; Rego & Bryant, 1993). Given that syntactic knowledge and syntactic awareness are related but distinct constructs (Brimo et al., 2017), this distinction could explain why syntactic knowledge did not emerge as a moderating factor in our study.

Importantly, while word reading and syntactic knowledge together accounted for 37.1% of the variance in prosody, a considerable 62.9% remains unexplained. This unexplained variance suggested the involvement of additional factors such as domain-general skills, environmental influences, and other linguistic components not measured in this study. The multifaceted nature of reading prosody underscores the importance of exploring these additional dimensions in future research to fully understand the constellation of skills and effects associated with reading prosody.

Our study shed light on the interplay between word reading, syntactic knowledge, and reading prosody. However, it is essential to consider research design when interpreting its results.

First, while our study provides insights into these relationships, the cross-sectional design limited our ability to infer causality or ascertain the directionality of these relationships. It captured associations at a single point in time rather than as a sequence of development. Furthermore, we recognized the potential for a multidirectional relationship, where foundational syntactic knowledge may be essential for developing prosodic reading, and these skills may concurrently influence each other over time. However, due to the nature of our study, we did not explore these complex, potentially reciprocal dynamics. Second, the generalizability of the findings was confined to populations resembling the sample, which consisted of fifth-grade students who were learning to read in a transparent language. The relationship patterns may differ in more opaque languages or among older or younger students. Fourth, we employed a rating scale to measure reading prosody. Although this method demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability, future research might benefit from incorporating spectrographic analyses of text reading prosody to potentially enhance the construct validity of the measurements.

Last, it is important to note that curriculum-based instruction in syntactic skills, received by all participants, may have contributed to the slight skew toward negative syntactic knowledge scores. This factor could have subtly influenced the observed relationships with reading prosody and also suggests that interpreting our findings should take educational context into account. In summary, future studies can overcome these limitations by incorporating diverse samples from different educational stages; by employing a variety of measurement methods for reading prosody and syntactic skills; and by adopting a longitudinal design to unravel the nuances of these relationships.

In conclusion, this study was the first to examine the effects of word reading and syntactic knowledge on reading prosody, specifically in older elementary children from a Spanish language context. Our investigation provided evidence that these factors are significantly related to the development of expressive reading in fifth-grade Spanish-speaking students. The results suggested that word reading is a critical predictor of prosodic performance in a transparent orthography like the Spanish language. Furthermore, our findings emphasized the importance of syntactic skills in the development of proper reading prosody. Although at this stage syntactic knowledge has a comparatively smaller effect on reading prosody than does word reading, it is still essential to the fostering of appropriate expression, accurate phrasing, and a reduction in ungrammatical pauses. The absence of a significant interaction between word reading and syntactic knowledge highlighted their independent effects on reading prosody. Finally, the study suggested the potential benefits of integrating explicit syntactic instruction into reading curricula and intervention programs for supporting the development of reading prosody in Spanish.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jlr-10.1177_1086296X241244705 - Supplemental material for Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jlr-10.1177_1086296X241244705 for Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge by Cristina Rodríguez, Nuria Gutiérrez, Rocío C. Seoane, Desirée González, and Sara C. de León in Journal of Literacy Research

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-jlr-10.1177_1086296X241244705 - Supplemental material for Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jlr-10.1177_1086296X241244705 for Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge by Cristina Rodríguez, Nuria Gutiérrez, Rocío C. Seoane, Desirée González, and Sara C. de León in Journal of Literacy Research

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-jlr-10.1177_1086296X241244705 - Supplemental material for Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-jlr-10.1177_1086296X241244705 for Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge by Cristina Rodríguez, Nuria Gutiérrez, Rocío C. Seoane, Desirée González, and Sara C. de León in Journal of Literacy Research

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-jlr-10.1177_1086296X241244705 - Supplemental material for Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-jlr-10.1177_1086296X241244705 for Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge by Cristina Rodríguez, Nuria Gutiérrez, Rocío C. Seoane, Desirée González, and Sara C. de León in Journal of Literacy Research

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-5-jlr-10.1177_1086296X241244705 - Supplemental material for Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge

Supplemental material, sj-docx-5-jlr-10.1177_1086296X241244705 for Reading Spanish Prosody: The Role of Word Reading and Syntactic Knowledge by Cristina Rodríguez, Nuria Gutiérrez, Rocío C. Seoane, Desirée González, and Sara C. de León in Journal of Literacy Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Millennium Science Initiative through grant ANID – MILENIO – NCS2022_026 and by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through the Programa Ramón y Cajal (grant number RYC-2014-16948).

ORCID iDs

Cristina Rodríguez

Rocío C. Seoane

Desirée González

Sara C. de León

Supplemental Material

The abstracts in languages other than English are available at

References

Álvarez-Cañizo

Cueva

Cuetos

Suárez-Coalla

(2020a). Reading fluency and reading comprehension in Spanish secondary students. Psicothema, 32(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.196

Álvarez-Cañizo

Martínez-García

Cuetos

Suárez-Coalla

(2020b). Development of reading prosody in school-age Spanish children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Reading, 43(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12286

Álvarez-Cañizo

Suárez-Coalla

Cuetos

(2018). Reading prosody development in Spanish children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9768-7

Augurzky

(2006). Attaching relative clauses in German: The role of implicit and explicit prosody in sentence processing [Doctoral Dissertation]. Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, MPI Series in Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences.

Bates

Maechler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Benjamin

R. G.

Schwanenflugel

P. J.

(2010). Text complexity and oral reading prosody in young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 388–404. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.45.4.2

Benjamin

R. G.

Schwanenflugel

P. J.

Meisinger

E. B.

Groff

Kuhn

M. R.

Steiner

(2013). A spectrographically grounded scale for evaluating reading expressiveness. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 105–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.43

Binder

K. S.

Tighe

Jiang

Kaftanski

Ardoin

S. P.

(2013). Reading expressively and understanding thoroughly: An examination of prosody in adults with low literacy skills. Reading & Writing, 26(5), 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9382-7

Brimo

Apel

Fountain

(2017). Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12050

10.

Cain

(2007). Syntactic awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a special relationship? Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(4), 679–694. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716407070361

11.

Calet

Gutierrez-Palma

Defior

(2015). A cross-sectional study of fluency and reading comprehension in Spanish primary school children. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12019

12.

Carrow-Woolfolk

(1999). Comprehensive assessments of spoken language. Western Psychological Services.

13.

Chafe

(1988). Punctuation and the prosody of written language. Written Communication, 5(4), 395–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088388005004001

14.

Cowie

Douglas-Cowie

Wichmann

(2002). Prosodic characteristics of skilled reading: Fluency and expressiveness in 8–10-year-old readers. Language and Speech, 45(1), 47–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309020450010301

15.

Cuetos

Arribas

Ramos

J. L.

(2016). PROLEC-SE-R: Batería de Evaluación de los Procesos Lectores en Secundaria y Bachillerato, Revisada: Manual. TEA Ediciones.

16.

Cuetos

Martínez-García

Suárez-Coalla

(2018). Prosodic perception problems in Spanish dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1359273

17.

Cuetos

Rodríguez

Ruano

Arribas

(2007). Prolec-R. Batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores revisada. TEA Ediciones.

18.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121

19.

Fernandes

Querido

Verhaeghe

Araújo

(2018). What is the relationship between reading prosody and reading comprehension in European Portuguese? Evidence from grades 2 to 5. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(S1), S102–S129. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12248 .

20.

Godde

Bosse

M. L.

Bailly

(2020). A review of reading prosody acquisition and development. Reading and Writing, 33(2), 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09968-1

21.

González-Trujillo

M. C.

Calet

Defior

Gutiérrez-Palma

(2014). Escala de fluidez lectora en español: Midiendo los componentes de la fluidez [Scale of reading fluency in Spanish: Measuring the components of fluency]. Estudios de Psicología, 35(1), 104–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2014.893651 .

22.

Hair

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Educacional International.

23.

Hammill

Newcomer

P. L.

(1996). Test of language development-intermediate. The Psychological Corporation.

24.

Jordán

Cuetos

Suárez-Coalla

(2019). La Prosodia en la lectura de niños con trastorno específico del lenguaje [Prosody in the reading of children with specific language impairment]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 42(1), 87–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1550161

25.

Kim

Y.-S. G.

Quinn

J. M.

Petscher

(2021). Reading prosody unpacked: A longitudinal investigation of its dimensionality and relation with word reading and listening comprehension for children in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(3), 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000480

26.

Klauda

S. L.

Guthrie

J. T.

(2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310

27.

Kondo

Mazuka

(1996). Prosodic planning while reading aloud: On-line examination of Japanese sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708578

28.

Koriat

Greenberg

S. N.

Kreiner

(2002). The extraction of structure during reading: Evidence from reading prosody. Memory and Cognition, 30(2), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195288

29.

Kuhn

M. R.

Schwanenflugel

P. J.

Meisinger

E. B.

Levy

B. A.

Rasinski

T. V.

(2010). Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody, and Definitions of Fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4

30.

Kuhn

M. R.

Stahl

S. A.

(2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3

31.

Kuznetsova

Brockhoff

P. B.

Christensen

R. H. B.

(2017). Lmertest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

32.

LaBerge

Samuels

S. J.

(1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2

33.

Lüdecke

Ben-Shachar

M. S.

Patil

Makowski

(2021). Performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60), 3139. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139

34.

Miller

Schwanenflugel

P. J.

(2006). Prosody of syntactically complex sentences in the oral reading of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 839–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018049

35.

Mimeau

Laroche

Deacon

S. H.

(2018). The relation between syntactic awareness and contextual facilitation in word reading: What is the role of semantics? Journal of Research in Reading, 42(1), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12260

36.

Mokhtari

Thompson

H. B.

(2006). How problems of reading fluency and comprehension are related to difficulties in syntactic awareness skills among fifth graders. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070609558461

37.

Nomvete

Easterbrooks

S. R.

(2020). Phrase-reading mediates between words and syntax in struggling adolescent readers. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 41(3), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740119825616

38.

Perfetti

C. A.

(1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In Ehri

L. C.

Treiman

Gough

P. B.

(Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Erlbaum.

39.

Perinetti

(2018). Statips part IV: Selection, interpretation and reporting of the intraclass correlation coefficient. South European Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research, 5(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.5937/sejodr5-17434

40.

Pinnell

G. S.

Pikulski

J. J.

Wixson

K. K.

Campbell

J. R.

Gough

P. B.

Beatty

A. S.

(1995). Listening to children read aloud: Data from NAEP’s integrated reading performance record (IRPR) at grade 4. The nation’s report card. Report no 23-FR-04. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

41.

Rasinski

(2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46–51.

42.

Rasinski

Homan

Biggs

(2009). Teaching reading fluency to struggling readers: Method, materials, and evidence. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2–3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560802683622 .

43.

Rego

L. L. B.

Bryant

P. E.

(1993). The connection between phonological, syntactic, and semantic skills and children’s reading and spelling. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174079

44.

Rumelhart

D. E.

(1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In Ruddell

R. B.

Ruddell

M. R.

Singer

(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 864–894). International Reading Association.

45.

Sabatini

Wang

O’Reilly

(2018). Relating reading comprehension to oral reading performance in the NAEP fourth-grade special study of oral reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.226

46.

Samuels

S. J.

(2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In Samuels

S. J.

Farstrup

A. E.

(Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 24–46). International Reading Association.

47.

Sanders

E. A.

Konold

T. R.

(2023). X matters too: How the blended slope problem manifests differently in unilevel vs. multilevel models. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 19(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.9925

48.

Schwanenflugel

P. J.

Hamilton

A. M.

Wisenbaker

J. M.

Kuhn

M. R.

Stahl

S. A.

(2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.119

49.

Schwanenflugel

P. J.

Westmoreland

M. R.

Benjamin

R. G.

(2015). Reading fluency skill and the prosodic marking of linguistic focus. Reading and Writing, 28(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9456-1 .

50.

Seymour

P. H.

Aro

Erskine

J. M.

(2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859

51.

Suárez-Coalla

Álvarez-Cañizo

Martínez

García

Cuetos

(2016). Reading prosody in Spanish dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 66(3), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-016-0123-5 .

52.

Torgesen

J. K.

Wagner

R. K.

Rashotte

C. A.

(2012). Test of word reading efficiency (2nd ed.) (TOWRE-2). Pro-Ed.

53.

Trevethan

(2017). Intraclass correlation coefficients: Clearing the air, extending some cautions, and making some requests. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 17(2), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-016-0156-6

54.

Valencia

S. W.

Smith

A. T.

Reece

A. M.

Wixson

K. K.

Newman

(2010). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.3.1

55.

Veenendaal

N. J.

Groen

M. A.

Verhoeven

(2014). The role of speech prosody and text reading prosody in children’s reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12036 .

56.

Veenendaal

N. J.

Groen

M. A.

Verhoeven

(2015). What oral text reading fluency can reveal about reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12024 .

57.

Veenendaal

N. J.

Groen

M. A.

Verhoeven

(2016). Bidirectional relations between text reading prosody and reading comprehension in the upper primary school grades: A longitudinal perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(3), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1128939

58.

Wechsler

(2009). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed.). Pearson.

59.

Wolters

A. P.

Kim

Y. S. G.

Szura

J. W.

(2022). Is reading prosody related to reading comprehension? A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1850733

60.

Woodcock

R. W.

McGrew

K. S.

Mather

(2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Riverside.

61.

Yanagida

(2023). _misty: Miscellaneous Functions ‘T. Yanagida’_. R package version 0.4.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=misty

62.

Yildiz

Yildirim

Ates

Rasinski

Fitzgerald

Zimmerman

(2014). The relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension in fifth-grade Turkish students. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 2(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2013.854187 .

63.

Yuste

Galve

J. L.

Martínez

M. R.

(2001). INVE E2, inteligencia verbal. Manual Técnico. CEPE Test.

64.

Zutell

Rasinski

T. V.

(1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/0040584910954 .

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB