The role of set for variability in the relation between word reading and reading fluency

Oral reading fluency, or the ability to read connected text with efficiency, is an indicator of overall reading competence (Fuchs et al., 2011). Reading fluency was initially described as the automatization of phonological decoding processes that enable a person to free up cognitive resources that can then be used to comprehend the text (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974); thus, the speed at which individual words are recognized as the primary skill underlying reading fluency (Torgesen & Hudson, 2006). However, despite the high correlation and predictive nature between these two concepts, research has not paid sufficient attention to the interactive nature of oral reading fluency and word reading (Torgesen & Hudson, 2006). Set for variability is defined as the ability to adjust a partial or approximate pronunciation of a written word to its correct oral pronunciation. Set for variability has been shown to predict the reading of irregular words (Tunmer & Chapman, 2012), decodable words (Elbro et al., 2012), and pseudowords (Steacy et al., 2019a). In addition, previous research has shown that set for variability accounts for more unique variance in a timed word reading measure (6%) than an untimed word reading measure (4%), which could indicate it is beneficial in increasing the efficiency in which a child can determine the correct pronunciation of an unknown word (Kearns et al., 2016). This study investigated the potential mediation relation between set for variability, word reading, and reading fluency. Data from forty-two struggling readers were collected at a single time point and used to create models to assess the potential mediation. In addition, secondary research questions assessed the best ways to measure set for variability in relation to reading fluency. Results showed that, though there was a significant correlation between set for variability and reading fluency, no significant mediation relation was observed for this sample of struggling readers. Discussion of some of the limitations of the current study and how it may have impacted the results are included along with implications for practice and future directions of research on set for variability.