The authors respond: Issues surrounding reliability, quality, and practicality with timed-reading assessments: Expanding on Carter et al.’s (2023) a unitary measure of L2 silent reading fluency accounting for comprehension

Carter et al. (2023) presented empirical evidence in support of a proposed new measure of L2 silent reading fluency. Referencing their method, this article addresses three separate practical issues related to using timed readings (TRs) to foster L2 reading fluency: TR assessment reliability, quality, and practicality. One seeming limitation of Carter et al.’s (2023) method was the relatively low reliability of three separate TR quizzes used in their study on reading fluency. However, considering that the interpretation and use of reliability estimates should be context-dependent, we argue that the standard expectations of 0.8 or higher may be simply unrealistic given the unique constraints surrounding timed readings. Furthermore, reliability is only one facet of a validity argument and intentional changes aimed at increasing reliability may, at times, come at the expense of other important aspects of validity. This article also offers practical advice for constructing effective TR quiz questions and directs the reader to tools for tracking student readers’ reading fluency progress.