The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the overall effects of automaticity training of fundamental literacy component skills (i.e., letter names/sounds, individual words) on reading fluency and comprehension. Another purpose was to assess if the effects of automaticity training varied for reading fluency and comprehension. We identified 11 research studies involving students in Grades 1–6 that met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. A total of 83 effect sizes (Hedges g, corrected for sample size bias) were extracted from these studies. These studies were double-coded for specific features (e.g., student age, student grade, type of automaticity training). We meta-analyzed the effect sizes using a multi-level meta-analytic model and examined whether the outcome measure type (comprehension or fluency) moderated the effects of automaticity training. We also analyzed for publication bias. The overall effect size for automaticity training of fundamental literacy component skills on reading fluency and comprehension was 0.28, although it was not statistically significant. Shifting units of analysis approach indicated there was a statistically significant effect found for reading fluency outcomes [g = 0.48 (CI = .23, .72)] but not for reading comprehension (ES = 0.17 ns). Limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed.

这项荟萃分析的目的是评估基本读写能力（即字母名称/发音、单个单词）的自动化训练对阅读流畅性和理解力的总体影响。另一个目的是评估自动化训练的效果是否因阅读流畅性和理解力而异。我们确定了 11 项涉及 1-6 年级学生的研究，这些研究符合本荟萃分析的纳入标准。共有 83 个效果大小（Hedges g，校正样本量偏差）从这些研究中提取。这些研究针对特定特征（例如，学生年龄、学生年级、自动化训练类型）进行了双重编码。我们使用多级元分析模型对效应大小进行元分析，并检查结果测量类型（理解力或流利度）是否会调节自动化训练的效果。我们还分析了发表偏倚。基本读写能力的自动化训练对阅读流利度和理解力的总体影响为 0.28，尽管没有统计学意义。分析方法的移动单位表明对阅读流畅性结果有统计学意义的影响 [ g = 0.48 (CI = .23, .72)] 但不适用于阅读理解 (ES = 0.17 ns)。讨论了未来研究的局限性和建议。