**8. Conclusions**

Recognizing the limitations of both types of assessment, perhaps the decision of which to use needs to be made by considering practical issues. Researchers may have access to the technology required for automated assessment, but most teachers will not. Those who can use this technology, may find that it saves time. But results may not inform instruction as e ffectively as one-on-one testing or listening to recordings. Teachers may be able to obtain the information they need about prosody without having to deal with multiple raters and rating occasions. Researchers, on the other hand, have to make careful and defensible choices about multiple raters, passages, and occasions to ensure the validity and reliability of their findings.

Whether teachers or researchers, one thing is clear—we have to measure all aspects of reading and not just decoding. If we are serious about improving children's comprehension, there is a place for assessment of expressive oral reading. If we take the time to teach and measure elements of prosody, we can make room for meaning—the primary purpose of reading.

**Author Contributions:** The two authors contributed equally. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
