The current study meta-analyzed 27 effects from 21 studies to determine the effect assessment of text difficulty had on reading fluency interventions, which resulted in an overall weighted effect size ( ES) = 0.43 (95% CI = [0.25, 0.62], p < .001). Using reading passages that represented an instructional level based on accuracy criteria led to a large weighted effect of ES = 1.03, 95% CI = [0.65, 1.40], p < .01), which was reliably larger ( p < .05) than that for reading fluency interventions that used reading passages with an instructional level based on rate criteria (weighted ES = 0.29, 95% CI = [0.07, 0.50], p < .01). Using reading passages based on leveling systems or those written at the students’ current grade level resulted in small weighted effects. The approach to determining difficulty for reading passages used in reading fluency interventions accounted for 11% of the variance in the effect ( p < .05) beyond student group (no risk, at-risk, disability) and type of fluency intervention. The largest weighted effect was found for students with reading disabilities ( ES = 1.14, 95% CI = [0.64, 1.65], p < .01).

中文翻译：

---

评估阅读流畅性干预期间的教学水平：对阅读影响的荟萃分析

当前的研究对 21 项研究的 27 项效应进行了荟萃分析，以确定文本难度评估对阅读流畅性干预措施的影响，得出总体加权效应大小 ( ES) = 0.43 (95% CI = [0.25, 0.62], p < .001)。使用代表基于准确性标准的教学水平的阅读段落会产生较大的加权效应 ES = 1.03, 95% CI = [0.65, 1.40], p < .01)，这确实大于 ( p < .05)对于阅读流畅性干预，使用基于速率标准的教学水平的阅读段落（加权 ES = 0.29，95% CI = [0.07, 0.50]，p < .01）。使用基于分级系统或按学生当前年级水平编写的阅读段落会产生较小的加权效应。阅读流畅性干预中使用的确定阅读段落难度的方法占学生组（无风险、有风险、残疾）和流畅性干预类型之外的效果方差的 11% (p < .05)。有阅读障碍的学生的加权效应最大（ES = 1.14，95% CI = [0.64, 1.65]，p < .01）。