This study examines the validity of score interpretations of a classroom-based oral reading fluency (ORF) assessment for 60 Korean high school EFL learners using an argument-based validation framework. Focusing on the evaluation and explanation inferences, the research integrated quantitative measures with qualitative analysis of rater verbal protocols. Quantitative analyses yielded excellent inter-rater reliability, while qualitative evidence confirmed that rater reasoning was predominantly rubric-referenced, demonstrating that raters prioritized multidimensional cues—specifically phrasing and pace—over impressionistic judgments. Regarding the explanation inference, prosody correlated more strongly with post-oral-reading comprehension than reading rate did, positioning expressive phrasing as a superior indicator of meaning construction in EFL reading. Furthermore, jagged profiles offered a nuanced way to diagnose reading difficulties such as the gap between decoding automaticity and prosodic performance. These findings demonstrate that incorporating prosody into ORF assessment provides valuable diagnostic insights, enabling a shift from product-oriented testing to processoriented formative assessment in EFL reading.

1. INTRODUCTION
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
    2.1. Oral Reading Fluency as a Multidimensional Construct
    2.2. Measurement and Validity Issues in ORF Assessment
    2.3. Argument-based Validation Framework
    2.4. Research Gap
    2.5. The Present IUA and Research Questions
3. METHODOLOGY
    3.1. Research Design and Validation Framework
    3.2. Participants and Setting
    3.3. Materials and Instruments
    3.4. Procedures
    3.5. Data Analysis
4. RESULTS
    4.1. Evaluation Inference: Scoring Credibility
    4.2. Explanation Inference: Construct Representation
5. DISCUSSION
    5.1. Scoring Credibility: The Manageability of Prosodic Judgment
    5.2. Construct Representation: Prosody as the Bridge to Meaning
    5.3. Diagnostic Implications: From Jagged Profiles to Formative Action
    5.4. Limitations and Directions for Future Research
6. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B

• Ingyung Hwang(Graduate Student, Department of English Language Education, College of Education, Seoul National University)
• Haeyun Jin(Assistant Professor, Department of English Language & Literature, Korea National Open University; 86 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03087, Korea) Corresponding author