Statistically, the population that has mastered fluent decoding is likely to be higher in comprehension than the population that has not (seems obvious!). So in a screening situation, wcpm is an efficient means of identifying a first cut of students who may need support in either reading decoding or reading comprehension. There is a better correlation between fluency and comprehension than face validity would suggest, but it is not perfect. There are definitely kids who can decode excellently, but not comprehend (hyperlexic), and those who can comprehend, but decode very slowly (many compensated dyslexics).
So I'm saying that, on a population level, yes, if she has mastered decoding, she is likely to have high comprehension, but on an individual level, no, this is not a guarantee that she actually has strong comprehension.
Probably just confused you even more...sorry!
I guess I'm just saying that the value of your reading test results is highly dependent on the instruments that were used, and the ones you've listed are either weak predictors of classroom reading comprehension achievement for a specific student, or it is unclear what the instrument is, and thus how much weight to put on it.
