*3.3. Prosody*

While all of the studies reviewed provided measures of rate and accuracy, only three (18.8%) studies reported measures of students' prosody [51,60,61]. Kuhn assessed students' prosody using the NAEP's Oral Reading Fluency Scale and reported 100% interrater reliability between two raters on this measure [51,66]. Kuhn found that both intervention conditions (i.e., repeated reading and continuous reading) produced gains in students' prosody that were not seen in students who were in the listening-only condition or the no-intervention control group. Calculated e ffect sizes found large effects on prosody outcomes for both repeated reading and continuous reading in comparison to a control group (ES = 0.86 and 1.28, respectively).

Young and colleagues used the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (MFS), a prosody rubric which calculated a score in four distinct categories: (1) volume and expression, (2) phrasing, (3) smoothness, and (4) pace, in order to assess students' prosody [60,61]. Rasinski, Rikli, and Johnston previously demonstrated that the MFS was a reliable and valid measure of prosodic reading [67]. Across studies, the hybrid intervention of repeated reading and NIM produced large, significant e ffects on students' prosody (ES = 0.98 and 1.16, respectively) [55,57]. Further, the intervention consisting of NIM alone also yielded a moderate e ffect size (0.72) for prosody [61].
