Silent versus oral reading comprehension and efficiency

Abstract

Abstract Seventy‐four students read passages from an individually administered test of reading comprehension (a subtest from the Test of Dyslexia , a test of reading and related abilities currently in development; McCallum & Bell, 2001), and then answered literal and inferential questions. Students were randomly assigned to one of two conditions; 39 students read the passages silently and 35 read orally, with time recorded for each passage read. Comprehension and time were dependent measures for a Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) and two follow‐up Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA). After controlling for reading ability, results from the MANCOVA showed a significant combined effect ( p < .05); however, a comparison of mean reading comprehension scores showed no significant difference between silent readers and oral readers ( p > .05). On the other hand, with reading ability controlled, silent readers took significantly less time to complete passages compared to those who read orally ( p < .02). In fact, students took 30% longer to read orally than silently, on average. When test directions do not specify either oral or silent reading and error analysis is not a goal, testing will be more efficient via silent responding with no loss of comprehension. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 41: 241–246, 2004.