Where the number comes from
Marc Brysbaert pooled 190 studies that timed adults reading silently in English. Non-fiction came out at about 238 words a minute and fiction a little faster, at about 260 (Brysbaert, 2019). Those are averages across many readers and texts: your own speed moves with what you read and why.
Why speed alone misleads
A speed only means something with understanding beside it. Reading 400 words a minute and understanding half is worth less than 300 words a minute understood in full. That’s why Gulp’s main number is words understood per minute: your reading speed times the share of questions you got right. 238 words a minute with 80% understood makes 190.
Readers are poor judges of their own understanding (Glenberg & Epstein, 1985), so a speed checked with questions is the only kind worth comparing.
What makes your speed vary
- The text. Harder text takes longer. Gulp’s passages come in three levels set by a readability grade (Kincaid et al., 1975), so you compare like with like.
- Your purpose. Skimming for the gist is a different task with a known trade-off: moderate understanding when deep understanding isn’t the goal (Rayner et al., 2016; Duggan & Payne, 2009).
- The page. Text size and line length affect comfort and speed on screen (Dyson, 2004).
- Very high speeds. Gulp counts anything over 1,200 words a minute as skimming, not reading: the eyes can’t take in text that fast.
How to measure yours
- Pick a passage you haven’t read, at a level that suits you.
- Time yourself reading it once, the way you normally would.
- Answer questions about it from memory, and count only sure answers.
- Divide the words by the minutes, then multiply by the share you got right.
The reading speed test does all four for you and shows how you compare with the average.
Sources
- Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047.
- Duggan, G. B., & Payne, S. J. (2009). Text skimming: The process and effectiveness of foraging through text under time pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(3), 228-242.
- Dyson, M. C. (2004). How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(6), 377-393.
- Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 702-718.
- Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas for Navy enlisted personnel (Research Branch Report 8-75). Naval Technical Training Command.
- Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., Masson, M. E. J., Potter, M. C., & Treiman, R. (2016). So much to read, so little time: How do we read, and can speed reading help? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4-34.