Key evidence & numbers
| Reading scenario | Rate used | Calculated time for 1,000 words |
|---|---|---|
| Silent nonfiction review mean | 238 WPM | 4 min 12 sec |
| Silent fiction review mean | 260 WPM | 3 min 51 sec |
| Oral reading review mean | 183 WPM | 5 min 28 sec |
| Illustrative slower rate | 175 WPM | 5 min 43 sec |
| Illustrative faster rate | 300 WPM | 3 min 20 sec |
The times are arithmetic, rounded to the nearest second: word count divided by WPM, multiplied by 60. They are not observed completion-time norms for a specific 1,000-word article. The source review synthesised reading-rate research across many texts and procedures; its English averages are useful starting points for planning. Brysbaert, 2019
Reading an article is different from learning it
The review's ordinary reading estimates should not be used as a fixed allowance for studying, checking an argument or writing notes. Those activities require additional processing and revisiting. Eye-movement research describes regressions and variable fixations as parts of meaningful reading rather than wasted time that must always be eliminated. Rayner, 1998 CLIFTON et al., 2015
An experiment that prevented useful rereading found poorer comprehension under the manipulation. That supports distinguishing moving through text from understanding it, rather than defining success solely as reaching the last word quickly. Schotter et al., 2014
What if the text is unfamiliar or in another language?
Second-language reading depends on proficiency and exposure. Research on word-frequency effects shows that language experience changes processing demands. Vocabulary knowledge also affects how much of a passage is accessible, so the same word count can require very different effort from different readers. Whitford et al., 2012 Nation, 2006 Brysbaert et al., 2016
What affects it?
Do age and sex justify a different time allowance?
The review reports lower rates for children, older adults and second-language readers, but a single adult mean is not a personal age-adjusted norm. Many studies involved educated participants, often students. There is no defensible universal sex-based number of seconds to add to a 1,000-word passage from this evidence. Brysbaert, 2019
Words are not equivalent information units across languages. Differences in word length, morphology and writing systems also make a WPM comparison across languages difficult. For a multilingual reader, compare similar tasks within the same language rather than interpreting a lower WPM as lower general ability. Brysbaert, 2019 CLIFTON et al., 2015
What can make the estimate more useful?
Time an unfamiliar passage of similar difficulty and check what you understood. Your own matched-task rate can be more useful for scheduling than a population mean, although one short sample is still noisy. Keep reading-only time distinct from breaks, annotation and note-taking. This is a planning calculation, not a validated diagnostic assessment. Brysbaert, 2019
The speed-reading review finds that large speed increases generally trade away understanding; skimming can serve a different goal but is not equivalent to full comprehension. If the purpose is merely to locate a fact, scanning may be appropriate. If the purpose is learning, the extra time for checking meaning belongs in the estimate. Rayner et al., 2016
No cited study establishes that a game or a particular timer makes readers smarter. What can be measured is performance on a specified passage, under specified instructions, with comprehension considered alongside speed. Rayner et al., 2016 Schotter et al., 2014
Try the related free test
Reading speed test
Try the reading speed test on an unfamiliar passage and answer its comprehension questions. Use the result as a task-specific estimate when planning comparable reading. Add separate time for notes or study rather than expecting every activity to fit the reading-only calculation.
Common questions
What is the formula?
Minutes equals number of words divided by words per minute. At 238 WPM, 1,000 divided by 238 is about 4.20 minutes, or 4 minutes 12 seconds. Brysbaert, 2019
Does the estimate include taking notes?
No. The calculation concerns reading time at the chosen rate; studying and producing notes are additional tasks. Brysbaert, 2019
Can I halve the time without losing understanding?
The speed-reading review does not support that as a general promise. Large rate increases typically involve a comprehension trade-off. Rayner et al., 2016
Sources
- Brysbaert (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate.
- Rayner et al. (2016). So Much to Read, So Little Time.
- Rayner (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research..
- CLIFTON et al. (2015). Eye movements in reading and information processing: Keith Rayner’s 40 year legacy.
- Whitford et al. (2012). Second-language experience modulates first- and second-language word frequency effects: Evidence from eye movement measures of natural paragraph reading.
- Nation (2006). How Large a Vocabulary is Needed For Reading and Listening?.
- Schotter et al. (2014). Don’t Believe What You Read (Only Once).
- Brysbaert et al. (2016). How Many Words Do We Know? Practical Estimates of Vocabulary Size Dependent on Word Definition, the Degree of Language Input and the Participant’s Age.
Explore your daily routines in Helibrain
The app has short tests of reaction time, working memory, self-control, reasoning and creativity. Retake them whenever you like, see your trend, and find habits that may help.
Start free in your browser
