Assessment of Phonological Awareness: Review of Methods and Tools

P1: GCR

Educational Psychology Review [jepr] pp504-edpr-374333 June 13, 2002 8:22 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, September 2002 ( C© 2002)

Assessment of Phonological Awareness: Reviewof Methods and Tools

Janette Sodoro,1 Rose M. Allinder,1 and Joan L. Rankin-Erickson1,2

The importance of phonological awareness to the acquisition and develop-ment of reading skills is well documented. Recent attention to the criticalnature of phonological awareness has highlighted the need for appropri-ate assessment tools. This article reviews the current state of phonologicalawareness assessment by examining norm-referenced, criterion-referenced,and curriculum-based instruments available for practitioners’ and researchers’use. Prior to discussing specific assessment types, additional information aboutphonological awareness is provided, including a definition of phonologicalawareness, an overview of the relationship of phonological awareness to read-ing ability, factors influencing what to assess, and an overview of the effective-ness of phonological awareness training. Information about specific assess-ment instruments include technical adequacy, intended use, and limitations.Implications for practice are presented.

KEY WORDS: phonological awareness; assessment; early reading.

Phonological awareness, the conscious ability to detect and mainpu-late sounds of language (Liberman and Shankweiler, 1985; Wagner andTorgesen, 1987), is foundational to successful reading development. Phono-logical awareness involves access to the “phonological structure of spokenwords, rather than just to their meanings and syntactic roles” (Scarborough,1998, p. 85). It is the awareness of sounds in spoken language separatefrom the representation of sounds by written language. Because the focus

1Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska –Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Joan L. Rankin-Erickson, Department of SpecialEducation and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 318 H, Barkley,Lincoln, Nebraska 68583.

223

1040-726X/02/0900-0223/0 C© 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: GCR


224 Sodoro, Allinder, and Rankin-Erickson

of phonological awareness is on the sounds of language, it is distinct fromthe meaning of language. In other words, it requires the ability to hear andmanipulate distinct speech sounds apart from meaning or the representationof speech sounds in print. Accurate assessment of phonological awarenessis critical for teachers, educational specialists, and researchers who are in-terested in young children’s literacy development. Reliable and valid assess-ment tools that match the purpose of assessment are necessary for obtainingappropriate and useful information.

The assessment of phonological awareness is not a “one size fits all”situation. The assessment tool used must be based on the type of informa-tion needed. Following are situations that illustrate the kinds of questionsrelated to the assessment of phonological awareness that individuals mightask. The individual answering the questions vary from situation to situa-tion, but is likely to be a reading specialist, school psychologist, or someoneknowledgeable about phonological awareness and its assessment.

Sandy, a 1st-year school psychologist, explains her question to the schooldistrict reading consultant:

I’ ve just had several new students referred to me for evaluation. Most arenew to the district and all of them have been referred for reading problems.I need to get a pretty comprehensive look at their phonological awarenessskills. Maybe this can shed some light on why they are not able to decode. Ialso need to help determine if any of these children might qualify for specialservices. What would you recommend as the most comprehensive measure ofphonological awareness that also provides normative information?

Chris, a special education resource teacher, is taking a graduate coursein early reading. He poses this question to his university professor: I’ ve justhad a new second grade student assigned to my resource room. The assess-ment report shows that she is very low in language and early reading skills, butthe report does not give me much direction as far as where I need to target myinstruction. I’m not even sure she can hear the individual sounds in words. Idon’t have much time for individual assessment, but do you have any sugges-tions about what I could do to get a better idea of what specific early readingskills I should teach first?

Martina, a kindergarten teacher, is aware the school psychologist isencouraging teachers to use ongoing progress monitoring strategies. Sheposes this question to the school psychologist: I’ ve been using the district’snew phonemic awareness curriculum for about six weeks now and I reallylike it. It has so many fun activities and the students really seem to enjoy it.I’m wondering if there is some type of assessment I could give that tells meexactly in what areas students are or are not making improvement. If I’m notgetting the growth I’m hoping for, I may need to make some modifications inmy teaching. This information also would be great to share with parents at

P1: GCR


Phonological Awareness Assessment 225

conferences. Do you know of any tools for regular assessment of these earlyreading skills?

At first glance, it is evident that each individual is asking a questionabout the assessment of phonological awareness. What might not be as evi-dent is that the answers to these questions vary greatly because the purposeof assessment and the type of information needed is very different acrossthe three settings. This article provides answers to these and similar ques-tions. However, prior to the discussion of specific assessment methods andinstruments, specific issues related to phonological awareness are discussed.

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS—A CRITICAL SKILLFOR LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

This section provides information critical to the understanding of pho-nological awareness assessment. It includes (a) a definition of phonologicalawareness, (b) an overview of the development of phonological awarenessin young children, (c) a description of the relationship of phonological pro-cessing to reading ability, (d) a discussion of what phonological skills can beassessed, and finally, (e) a brief description of the effectiveness of phonolog-ical awareness training programs.

Definition of Phonological Awareness

As stated earlier, phonological awareness is most often defined as theconscious ability to detect and manipulate language sounds (Liberman andShankweiler, 1985; Wagner and Torgesen, 1987). Examples of tasks thatreveal children’s phonological awareness include such things as the abilityto rhyme words, hear that different words start with the same or differentsounds, or tell the number of phonemes (sounds) included in single words.Being able to identify separate words in a spoken sentence, to hear thetwo “parts” of a compound word, or to hear and separate syllables alsorequires phonological awareness. Phonemic awareness, one distinct aspectof phonological processing, is the “insight that every spoken word can beconceived as a sequence of phonemes” (National Research Council, 1998,p. 52). For example, cat is one word, but is composed of three phonemes: /c/,/a/, and /t/. Tasks involving the blending, deleting, substituting, or moving ofindividual phonemes within or between words require phonemic awarenessor the ability to detect and mainpulate individual sounds.

Phonological awareness is one element of the broader construct ofphonological processing skill. Along with phonological awareness, phono-logical processing skills also include phonological memory and rapid naming

P1: GCR



(Wagner and Torgesen, 1987). Phonological memory is defined as the abilityto code sound representations in short-term memory and then store thesesound representations in long-term memory. Rapid naming is the abilityto quickly retrieve phonological or sound representations from long-termmemory (Wagner and Torgesen, 1987). The awareness of and ability to ma-nipulate sounds, the ability to code and store these sounds in memory, andthe ability to quickly retrieve the sound representations are the separate,yet integrated skills involved in phonological processing. These skills arediscussed further in the section addressing what phonological skills can beassessed.

Development of Phonological Awareness

Phonological awareness appears to develop along a continuum of skills,including tasks that represent a range of difficulty. Adams’ review of theliterature on phonological awareness includes an explanation of five levelsof tasks encompassing the range of activities considered to represent moreor less sophisticated understanding of the sound structure of the Englishlanguage (Adams, 1990). Adams describes the first level as having an earfor sounds. This involves knowledge of nursery rhymes and the sense ofpatterns in rhymes and songs (e.g., “This old man . . .played one . . .on mythumb; played two . . .on my shoe”). Tasks within the second level are re-ferred to as oddity tasks and involve the ability to compare and contrastsounds, as in rhyme or alliteration. In an oddity task, a child is given severalwords and asked which does not belong because of different sounds. The dif-ference may be in the first sound (e.g., dig, dot, pan), final sound (e.g., sock,leg, rake), or middle sound (e.g., had, pig, bat), with middle-sound identifi-cation the most difficult. Phoneme matching, as in matching initial sounds orrecognizing rhyming words, is also a Level 2 task. The third level proposedby Adams is the ability to blend individual phonemes into a word. For ex-ample, a child is asked what /c/ . . . /a/ . . . /p/ says when all the sounds are puttogether. The manipulation of phonemes is the type of task included in thefourth level of phonemic awareness. This level involves the ability to iso-late individual phonemes and then delete, reorder, or add extra phonemes.An example is: “Say book without the /b/.” Finally, the fifth level includesphoneme segmentation tasks. At this level, a child can hear, segment, andtap out the separate phonemes in each word. For example, a child is asked tosay a word sound by sound, such as “/f/ . . . /i/ . . . /sh/” for fish (Adams, 1990).

In addition to Adams’ description of phonological awareness task levels,other researchers agree that the tasks used to measure phonological process-ing vary in type and level of difficulty (Adams, 1990; Schatschneider et al.,

P1: GCR



1999; Stanovich et al., 1984; Wagner et al., 1993; Yopp, 1988). Although mostagree on the general issues that impact difficulty (e.g., type of task, unit ofsound clusters analyzed, use of words or nonwords, linguistic complexity ofthe unit of analysis), there is not total agreement in the exact continuumof phonological awareness skills. There is, however, agreement that specifictasks assess children more accurately at different phonological levels.

Relationship of Phonological Awareness to Reading Ability

Recent research sheds light on issues related to reading difficulties,specifically identifying phonological processing skill deficits as one of theprecursors (e.g., Gathercole and Baddley, 1993; Stanovich, 1988; Stanovichand Siegel, 1994; Torgesen, 1998; Wagner et al., 1997). In fact, the phono-logically based core deficit theory is one of the most extensively developedtheories of reading disabilities in children (Olson et al., 1994; Stanovich, 1988;Torgesen, 1993). This theory states that most reading difficulties stem fromdeficits in processing sound information rather than other congnitive factors.Although other subtypes of reading disabilities may exist (Wolf et al., 2000),the most common subtype discussed in the literature is phonologically-basedreading disabilities (Liberman et al., 1989).

Phonological awareness ability is a strong predictor of reading acqui-sition (Blachman, 1984; Bradley and Bryant, 1985; Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley, 1991, 1993; Calfee et al., 1973; Hatcher et al., 1994; Scarborough,1998). Reading success in the early grades is predicted by phonologicalprocessing abilities measured in kindergarten (Bradley and Bryant, 1985;Wagner et al., 1993, 1994, 1997). More specifically, phonological awarenessis related to accurate and fluent identification of words and to applyingletter/sound knowledge to decode unfamiliar words (Lyon, 1995; Manis et al.,1993; Perfetti, 1992; Rack et al., 1992; Share, 1995; Stanovich and Siegel, 1994;Vellutino and Scanlon, 1991). Furthermore, accurate and fluent word iden-tification is related to reading comprehension (Stanovich, 1988; Vellutino,1991). Thus, phonological awareness deficits are related to word identifica-tion difficulties which, in turn, frequently result in word- and text-readingcomprehension problems.

A study illustrating the relationship between phonological processingabilities and reading acquisition is Wagner et al. (1997). This longitudinalstudy of 216 students of similar background, reading level, and phonolog-ical ability analyzed the causal relations between phonological processingabilities and reading acquisition for three different time periods (i.e., kinder-garten to second grades, first to third grades, and second to fourth grades).This study examined the relationships between phonological awareness,

P1: GCR



phonological memory, phonological naming, letter naming, and two con-trol variables (i.e., vocabulary and prior-word-reading ability). Wagner et al.found that for each time period examined, children’s individual differencesin phonological awareness influenced subsequent individual differences inword-level reading. These findings suggest several important implications.First, phonological abilities are not only correlated with word-reading dif-ficulties, but may cause children’s word-reading difficulties. As such, skillin phonological processing abilities provides a way to identify children whomay have reading difficulty prior to reading instruction. Second, phonologi-cal skill assessment, after reading instruction begins, is helpful in identifyingchildren who may continue to have difficulty in reading. And third, becausephonological processing abilities appear stable from kindergarten to fourthgrade (Torgesen et al., 1994; Wagner et al., 1997), children’s word-readingdifficulties may be difficult to remediate.

Phonological Processing Skills—What Needs to be Assessed and Why

Phonological processing skills are assessed by several nonreading tasksthat assess phonological awareness, phonological memory, and rapid nam-ing. Each of these skills is assessed in different ways. First, phonologicalawareness, a child’s awareness of the phonological structure of words in orallanguage, is assessed by determining whether the child can hear and ma-nipulate language sound units (Bowey et al., 1992; Wagner et al., 1997).Units could be words, nonwords, syllables, onset–rimes (rimes are wordparts that sound alike and are spelled alike; e.g., -ack in back, sack, track),and individual phonemes. Second, phonological memory, a child’s ability torepresent phonological information in short-term memory, typically is as-sessed by having the child repeat numbers or nonwords in the same orderthey hear them presented (Gathercole and Baddeley, 1993; Torgesen, 1995).Last, rapid naming, or a child’s rate of access to phonological informationin long-term memory, typically is assessed by tasks that ask the child torapidly name letters, numbers, colors, or pictures of common items (Bowersand Swanson, 1991; Denckla and Rudel, 1976; Wolf, 1991; Wolf et al., 2000;Wolf and Bowers, 1999). Whether or not all of these aspects of phonologicalprocessing should be assessed is discussed in the following subsection.

Controversy Regarding Rapid Naming as a Phonological Processing Skill

There is controversy concerning whether rapid naming skill is a phono-logical processing skill or not. From the perspective that rapid naming of vi-sual information is subssumed under phonological processing, it is described

P1: GCR



as “speed of access to phonological information in long-term memory”(Torgesen, 2000, p. 57). Categorizing visual naming speed as a phonologicalprocessing skill is based on research that identifies phonological recording,or using sound-based representations of words, as one means of lexical ac-cess (Coltheart et al., 1977; Crowder, 1982; Meyer et al., 1974). Furthermore,phonological recoding is an important reading skill in the early stages ofreading acquisition (Ehri and Wilce, 1979; Hogaboam and Perfetti, 1978;Stanovich, 1982; Vellutino, 1979). According to some researchers, the corre-lation of rapid naming tasks with other phonological processing tasks justifiesit being subsumed under phonological processing skill and included as partof the assessment of these abilities (Torgesen, 2000; Wagner et al., 1993, 1994,1997, 1999; Wagner and Torgesen, 1987).

Other theorists suggest that rapid naming is a different cognitive pro-cess, referred to as visual naming speed, that also impacts word-reading abil-ity but should be viewed as separate from phonological processing (Badian,1997; Bowers et al., 1994; Bowers and Wolf, 1993; Manis et al., 2000; Wolf,1991; Wolf et al., 2000; Wolf and Bowers, 1999). In other words, visual nam-ing speed emphasizes the ability to recognize the visual stimulus. Wolf et al.(2000) argue that visual naming speed deficit represents a second core deficittheory of reading disabilities. This model, referred to as the double-deficithypothesis, emphasizes the separate roles of phonological processing and vi-sual naming speed deficits in reading development. Wolf et al. indicate thatthree subtypes of reading disabilities are possible within the double-deficithypothesis. That is, children with reading difficulties may have one of threetypes of reading disabilities, specifically those based on (a) phonologicaldeficits alone, (b) visual naming speed deficits alone, or (c) both phono-logical and visual naming deficits. This controversy of whether or not rapidnaming is one component of phonological processing or a separate skill thatcan operate apart from phonological skills explains why some phonologicalassessments include tasks of rapid naming and some do not.

More on the Double-Deficit Hypothesis

The double-deficit hypothesis is based on the belief that two skills(phonological skills and rapid naming skills) contribute uniquely to read-ing difficulties. Recent correlational and regression research (Manis et al.,2000; Wolf and Bowers, 1999) on the role of phonological awareness andrapid naming has helped clarify this issue. For example, Manis et al. assessed85 students in Grade 1 and again at the end of Grade 2. Results supported thedouble-deficit hypothesis of reading difficulties in that rapid automatic nam-ing (RAN) and phonological awareness accounted for significant unique and

P1: GCR



shared variance in reading. One result that supports this hypothesis is thatRAN-Letters predicted spelling performance approximately twice as well assound-delection and sound-blending tasks, the phonological awareness tasksused in the study. Also, RAN-Digits predicted spelling skills equally as wellas sound-deletion and sound-blending tasks. However, the contribution ofphonological awareness, as measured by sound-deletion and sound-blendingtasks, was stronger than RAN tasks for predicting decoding skills. Additionalfindings in support of the double-deficit hypothesis indicated that childrenwho had deficits in both rapid naming and phonological awareness had moredifficulties on reading tasks compared to students having only a single deficit(see also Bowers et al., 1994; Bowers and Wolf, 1993; Wolf and Bowers,1999).

Although these findings (Manis et al., 2000) provide additional evidencethat rapid naming and phonological awareness skills independently con-tribute to reading ability, they do not clarify whether rapid naming shouldbe considered a phonological processing skill or not. As stated earlier, thisdebate explains why some phonological assessment tools include rapid nam-ing and some do not. However, perhaps the more critical contribution ofresearch documenting the relationship of phonological awareness and rapidnaming to reading skill is that it has led to the development and implemen-tation of early phonological awareness intervention programs. A discussionof these training programs and their effect on reading development follows.

Phonological Awareness Training

Experimental research studies have shown that children with lowphonological awareness demonstrated improved reading performance af-ter phonological awareness intervention was provided (Ball and Blachman,1991; Bradley and Bryant, 1985; Brady et al., 1994; Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley, 1991, 1993; Cunningham, 1990; Lie, 1991; Lundberg et al., 1980;O’Connor et al., 1993; Torgesen et al., 1992). In addition, reading programsthat have included explicit instruction in phonological awareness and pho-netic decoding skills have shown improved reading performance in childrenwho have low phonological awareness (Brown and Felton, 1990; Felton,1993; Hatcher et al., 1994; Torgesen et al., 1994).

An example of a longitudinal phonological awareness interventionstudy is provided by Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley (1991, 1993). In the firststudy (1991), 128 four-year-old preschool children matched on verbal intel-ligence, and a variety of literacy and phonemic awareness measures wereplaced into either an experimental or a control group. For 12 weeks, chil-dren in the control group were exposed to story-reading and semantic

P1: GCR



categorization activities; specifically, children were taught to identify itemsbelonging to categories (color, shape, animacy, edibility, etc.). Throughoutthe same time period the experimental group received phonological aware-ness training referred to as “Sound Foundations.” This program taught aset of nine phonemes with the use of illustrated pictures containing sharedsounds. Children were taught to classify the pictures on the basis of whetherthe items shared the same beginning or ending sound. Also included in thistraining were worksheets and card games that were used to practice identify-ing different sounds. Training focused only on a subset of phonemes to allowgeneralization to other phonemes and to lower the number of phonemesincluded in training. In the final stage of training, children were taught theletters that represented each phoneme.

Results of the pre- and posttests of phonemic awareness (Byrne andFielding-Barnsley, 1991) revealed that those trained in phonological aware-ness outperformed the controls on both trained and untrained sounds. On aword recognition test, children trained in phonological awareness decodedunfamiliar words. Furthermore, the experimental group outperformed thecontrol group on letter knowledge, providing evidence that combiningphonological awareness instruction with instruction in letter knowledge isuseful for acquiring the alphabetic principle (i.e., understanding that thesounds of the English language are represented with letters).

Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley (1993) conducted a 1-year follow-up (i.e.,at the end of kindergarten) of the children involved in the original train-ing study (Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley, 1991). In the 1993 study, 63 of theexperimental group and 56 of the control group were administered the fol-lowing tests: phoneme identification, phoneme elision (omission), alphabetknowledge, word identification, nonword identification, and spelling. Re-sults of the follow-up evaluation indicated only two significant differencesbetween the experimental group and the control group: Those trained inphonological awareness were better at reading nonwords and identifyingthe final phonemes. However, when the data were reanalyzed, comparingthose children with and without the ability to identify phonemes at the end ofpreschool, regardless of membership in the former experimental or controlgroups, different results were obtained. Children who ended preschool withhigher levels of phonological awareness performed significantly better afterkindergarten on all phoneme and literacy measures (i.e., phoneme elision,word identification, decoding, and spelling).

This study (Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley, 1993) corroborates other re-search showing that children who begin elementary school with phonologi-cal awareness perform at higher levels on a variety of literacy tasks later intheir school years. More importantly, this study demonstrates the benefit ofan effective early training program in phonological awareness, like that of

P1: GCR



Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley (1991). Specifically, early training “increasesthe proportion of children achieving and maintaining the critical insightsinto phonological structure” (1993, p. 109), thus increasing the number ofchildren who benefit from later literacy instruction.

Although there is evidence that phonological skills are related to thedevelopment of later reading skills, it is important to note that phonologicalskills alone, although critical, are not sufficient for reading skill develop-ment. Several studies (e.g., Ball and Blachman, 1988, 1991; Bradley andBryant, 1985; Hatcher et al., 1994) demonstrate that pairing instruction inphonological skills with training in letter knowledge and the alphabetic prin-ciple (i.e., that phonemes are represented by letters) has a greater impacton reading ability than does training in phonological skills alone. The workof Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley (1991, 1993, 1995) also demonstrates thatphonemic awareness and letter knowledge do not insure that a child is ableto decode words effectively. However, their work does provide support thatwithout skill in both phonemic awareness and letter knowledge, decoding ishampered.

In spite of the fact that phonological skills alone are not sufficient forthe development of effective reading skills, there is evidence that these skillsare necessary. Recent reports (National Reading Panel, 2000; National Re-search Council, 1998) on preventing reading difficulties provide directionfor including training in phonological skills in early reading instruction. In-struction in phonological awareness is proposed as one strategy for reducingreading difficulties among all children and for assisting at-risk children inlearning to read. If early intervention is to be effective, adequate assessmentmeasures are needed to identify low performing students and to developeffective intervention programs. Well-designed instruments with high reli-ability and validity must provide the specific information practitioners andresearchers are seeking. For example, the answers to the questions posed bySandy, Chris, and Martina are different because their purposes for assessingare different. The remainder of this paper describes and evaluates phono-logical awareness assessment methods and tools that meet these differentpurposes.

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS ASSESSMENT—TOOLSAND METHODS

In this section, various tools and methods of assessing phonologicalawareness are described. As in other areas of education, assessment fulfillsa variety of purposes (Browder, 1991). Each purpose necessitates a set of as-sessment techniques and tools matched to the specific questions addressed.

P1: GCR



With regard to assessing the phonological awareness skills of young chil-dren, the common purposes are reflected in the earlier questions posed bySandy, Chris, and Martina. Sandy’s question asked what tools would indi-cate which children might warrant specialized or additional services andresources. Chris wanted a tool that would help determine what instructionshould be provided. And finally, Martina wanted to assess the effectivenessof her phonemic awareness instructional approach with individual children.The answers to their questions relate to both an understanding of assess-ment methods in general and specific phonological awareness measures. Asummary of assessment purposes, type of assessment, and who might usethis information is presented in Table I.

Types of assessments include norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, orcurriculum-based methods (Taylor, 2000). To identify specific tests, we firstconducted a computer search of data from Educational Resource Infor-mation Clearinghouse and Psychological Abstracts. The key words used ineach search were “assessment and phonological awareness” and “assess-ment and phonemic awareness.” In addition, the reference lists from studiesrelevant to assessment of phonological awareness were reviewed to identifyany phonological awareness tests not yet identified. Finally, a hand searchwas conducted using data from Burros Mental Measurements Yearbooks. Inthe end, tests included in this review were (a) academic tests of phonologicalawareness, (b) copyrighted in 1985 or later, or (c) used in an experimentalstudy with a publication date of 1985 or later. The 1985 cutoff was estab-lished for the norm-referenced tests (NRTs) as a way of including tests withrelatively current normative data. The same cutoff was used for criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) to increase the likelihood that these assessmentsreflected the current and evolving understanding of phonological abilitiesas they relate to developing literacy. Curriculum-based measurement is arecent assessment technique developed and used within the last 15 years.

For each type of assessment procedure discussed, the purpose, descrip-tion of tools reviewed, examples of instruments or items, and technical qual-ities are presented. Each section concludes with a critique and a response tothe questions posed by Sandy, Chris, or Martina.

Norm-Referenced Tests of Phonological Processing Ability

Purpose

NRTs are most appropriate for determining eligibility for supplemen-tal or alternate services and generally have established technical adequacy,such as reliability and validity (Salvia and Ysseldyke, 1998). Their primary

P1: GCR


Table I. Phonological Skills Assessment: Purposes and Use

What is the purpose of What type of assessment is Who would use thephonological skill assessment? recommended? information?

• To determine which childrenare significantly behindsame-aged peers inphonological assessment• To determine qualification

for special services• To determine appropriate

participants for a researchintervention• To use as a dependent

measure for interventionstudies related tophonological awareness

A norm-referenced testcompares one child to asample of similarchildren. These testsmay test onephonological awarenessskill (Test of Awarenessof Language Segments[TALS; Sawyer, 1987])or they may test a rangeof phonologicalawareness skills(Comprehensive Test ofPhonological Processes[CTOPP; Wagner et al.,1998])

• Individuals involved in theprocess of identifyingstudents who may needincreased instruction inphonological awareness,such as schoolpsychologists, specialeducation teachers, orreading specialists• Individuals researching

phonological skilldevelopment and effects ofphonological awarenesstraining programs, such asresearchers or programdevelopers

• To determine how well achild knows specificphonological skills• To determine what specific

phonological skills need tobe taught• To monitor progress on

specific phonological skills

A criterion-referenced testmeasures whether or nota child has specificphonological skills.These tests may becommercially available(PhonologicalAwareness Profile[Robertson and Salter,1995]), part of acurriculum (e.g., Adamset al., 1998), or made byteachers or researchersfor specific purposes

• Individuals involved indeciding exactly whichphonological skills a childdoes and does not know,such as kindergarten orGrade 1 teachers, readingspecialists, and specialeducation teachers• Individuals who want to

assess the impact of aninstructional interventionon specific phonologicalawareness skills, such asteachers or researchers

• To determine a student’srate of progress in acquiringspecific phonologicalawareness skills• To determine fluency in

phonological skills

A curriculum-basedmeasurement (CBM)approach, like DynamicIndicators of EarlyLiteracy Skills(DIBELSs), documentsprogress over time onkey phonologicalawareness skills, such asblending, segmenting,and onset–rimes. ACBM approach alsoprovides informationabout response fluencyand accuracy

• Individuals who teachstudents with phonologicalawareness deficits and whofrequently monitorstudents’ progress todetermine if instructionalmethods are working, suchas reading specialists orspecial education teachers• Individuals assessing the

effectiveness ofphonological awarenesscurriculum for classroominstruction, such askindergarten and Grade 1teachers• Individuals assessing the

effectiveness of anintervention for studentswith specific learning orbehavioral characteristics,such as researchers orprogram specialists

234

P1: GCR



purpose is to compare one child with an appropriate normative group. Insome instances, they provide information about specific skills demonstratedby children. However, NRTs lack sensitivity to small gains in achievementand they may not match the curriculum taught, which makes it difficult to in-terpret results (e.g., Shapiro, 1989). NRTs may be administered individuallyor in groups.

Description of NRTs Reviewed

Six NRTs that focused primarily on phonological awareness were re-viewed: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP; Wagneret al., 1999), Phonological Abilities Test (PAT-M; Muter et al., 1999), Phono-logical Awareness Test—Revised (PAT-R; Robertson and Salter, 1997), Testof Awareness of Language Segments (TALS; Sawyer, 1987), Test of Phono-logical Awareness (TOPA; Torgesen and Bryant, 1994), and LindamoodAuditory Conceptualization Test—Revised (LAC-R; Lindamood andLindamood, 1979). The LAC-R is not technically a NRT because it wasnot normed on a national sample; however, technical charcteristics of reli-ability and validity were established for this test, and the authors provideminimum grade-level cutoff scores based on extensive clinical experience(Torgesen and Wagner, 1998). There are several NRTs of reading that in-clude phonological awareness subtests (e.g., Woodcock Reading MasteryTest) but for the purpose of this critique, tests reviewed were limited only tothose tests whose primary focus was phonological awareness. Table II detailscritical information about each NRT, including its purpose (as stated in themanual), important administrative information (e.g., estimated time neededto administer the test, age ranges, and administration arrangements), sub-tests, type of scores, and a summation of the test’s reliability and validity (asprovided in the manual).

As can be seen in Table II, each NRT of phonological awareness(a) included a range of subtests (i.e., 2–13); (b) varied in target age popula-tion, ranging from preschool to adults; and (c) produced a variety of standardscores. Most tests provided standard scores, composite scores, percentiles,and age- or grade-equivalent scores. One test (PAT-M) reported only cen-tiles, whereas two tests (LAC-R and TALS) reported only grade-level cutoffscores.

Examples of Skills Assessed on NRTs

In addition to the varied number of phonological processing skills as-sessed by different NRTs, the type of phonological processing skills assessed

P1: GCR


Tabl

eII

.N

orm

-Ref

eren

ced

Test

sof

Pho

nolo

gica

lAw

aren

ess

Stat

edA

dmin

istr

atio

nSc

ores

Rep

orte

dR

epor

ted

Test

nam

epu

rpos

efe

atur

esSu

btes

tsav

aila

ble

relia

bilit

yva

lidit

y

Com

preh

ensi

veTe

stof

Pho

nolo

gica

lP

roce

sses

(CT

OP

P;

Wag

ner

etal

.,19

98)

Iden

tify

indi

vidu

als

sign

ifica

ntly

belo

wpe

ers

inph

onol

ogic

alaw

aren

ess

abili

ties

,de

term

ine

stre

ngth

san

dw

eakn

esse

s,do

cum

entp

rogr

ess,

and

serv

eas

mea

sure

men

tde

vice

inre

sear

ch

Age

:5-0

to24

-11

Adm

inis

trat

ion

tim

e:30

min

Indi

vidu

ally

adm

inis

tere

dB

asal

san

dce

iling

sdi

ffer

bysu

btes

tand

age

1.P

hono

logi

cal

awar

enes

sco

mpo

site

(elis

ion,

blen

ding

wor

ds,m

atch

ing

soun

ds,b

lend

ing

wor

ds,s

egm

enti

ngno

nwor

ds,a

ndph

onem

ere

vers

al;

age

ofex

amin

eede

term

ines

whi

chsu

btes

tsar

ead

min

iste

red)

2.P

hono

logi

calm

emor

yco

mpo

site

(mem

ory

for

digi

tsan

dno

nwor

dre

peti

tion

)3.

Rap

idna

min

gco

mpo

site

(rap

idco

lor

nam

ing,

rapi

dob

ject

nam

ing,

rapi

dle

tter

nam

ing,

and

rapi

ddi

gitn

amin

g;ag

eof

exam

inee

dete

rmin

esw

hich

subj

ects

are

adm

inis

tere

d)

Stan

dard

scor

esba

sed

onco

mpo

site

san

dsu

btes

ts,

perc

enti

les,

stan

ines

,age

,an

dgr

ade

equi

vale

nts

Inte

rnal

cons

iste

ncy:

Wea

kfo

r3

subt

ests

,M

oder

ate

for

4su

btes

ts,A

vera

gefo

r5

subt

ests

,B

elow

–Ave

rage

for

15,A

vera

gefo

r12

,an

dA

bove

–Ave

rage

for

11Te

st-r

etes

t:W

eak

for

5av

erag

edsu

btes

ts,

Ave

rage

for

3av

erag

edsu

btes

ts,

Stro

ngfo

r1;

Wea

kto

Alm

ostP

erfe

ctfo

rC

ompo

site

sIn

terj

udge

:Alm

ost

perf

ectf

oral

lsu

btes

ts(r

elia

bilit

yco

effic

ient

sre

port

edon

aver

age

coef

ficie

nts

acro

ssag

es)

Con

tent

:Exp

erta

ndit

emdi

scri

min

atio

nan

alys

esC

oncu

rren

t:L

ittl

efo

r5

subt

ests

,B

elow

–Ave

rage

for

15,A

vera

gefo

r12

,an

dA

bove

–Ave

rage

for

11P

redi

ctiv

e:B

elow

–Ave

rage

for

15su

btes

ts,A

vera

gefo

r7,

and

Abo

ve–A

vera

gefo

r14

Con

stru

ct:

Con

firm

ator

yfa

ctor

anal

ysis

,age

and

grou

pdi

ffer

enti

atio

n,it

emva

lidit

y,an

ddi

ffer

enti

atio

nof

trai

ning

effe

cts

Lin

dam

ood

Aud

itor

yC

once

ptua

lizat

ion

Test

,Rev

ised

Edi

tion

(LA

C;

Lin

dam

ood

and

Lin

dam

mod

,197

9)

Det

erm

ine

audi

tory

perc

epti

onan

dco

ncep

tual

izat

ion

ofsp

eech

soun

ds

Age

:pre

scho

olad

ult

Adm

inis

trat

ion

tim

e:10

–20

min

Adm

inis

tere

din

divi

dual

ly

1.A

bilit

yto

isol

ate

soun

dsin

sequ

ence

2.A

bilit

yto

liste

nan

din

dica

teho

wm

any

soun

dsar

ehe

ard

and

ifth

eyar

eth

esa

me

ordi

ffer

ent

Min

imum

grad

ele

vels

core

sTe

st-r

etes

t:A

lmos

tP

erfe

ctA

ltern

ate

form

s:A

lmos

tPer

fect

Con

curr

ent:

Ave

rage

toA

bove

–Ave

rage

236

P1: GCR


Pho

nolo

gica

lAbi

litie

sTe

st(P

AT-

M)

(Mut

eret

al.,

1999

)

Iden

tify

child

ren

at-

risk

for

read

ing

diffi

cult

ies;

asse

ssna

ture

and

exte

ntof

phon

olog

ical

diffi

cult

ies

ofol

der

child

ren

Age

:4–7

year

sA

dmin

istr

atio

nti

me:

30m

inA

dmin

iste

red

indi

vidu

ally

1.R

hym

ede

tect

ion

2.R

hym

epr

oduc

tion

3.W

ord

com

plet

ion

ofsy

llabl

esan

dph

onem

es4.

Pho

nem

ede

leti

onof

init

iala

ndfin

also

unds

5.Sp

eech

rate

6.L

ette

rkn

owle

dge

Cen

tile

sfo

r10

th,

25th

,50t

h,an

d75

thpo

ints

Inte

rnal

cons

iste

ncy:

All

buto

nesu

btes

tw

asM

oder

ate

toA

lmos

tPer

fect

Test

-ret

est:

Wea

kto

Ave

rage

Con

stru

ct:M

oder

atel

yhi

gham

ong

subt

ests

Con

curr

ent:

Bel

ow–A

vera

geto

Abo

ve–A

vera

geP

redi

ctiv

e:P

hone

me

dele

tion

and

lett

erkn

owle

dge

best

pred

icto

rsfo

rch

ildre

n5–

7ye

ars

Pho

nolo

gica

lA

war

enes

sTe

st(P

AT-

R)

(Rob

erts

onan

dSa

lter

,199

7)

Dia

gnos

ede

ficit

sin

phon

olog

ical

proc

essi

ngan

dph

onem

egra

phem

eco

rres

pond

ence

Age

:5-0

to9-

11ye

ars

Adm

inis

trat

ion

tim

e:40

min

Adm

inis

trat

edin

divi

dual

ly.N

oba

sals

orce

iling

s;di

scon

tinu

eat

exam

iner

’sdi

scre

tion

1.R

hym

ing

2.Se

gmen

tati

on3.

Isol

atio

n4.

Del

etio

n5.

Subs

titu

tion

6.B

lend

ing

7.G

raph

emes

8.D

ecod

ing

9.In

vent

edsp

ellin

g

Stan

dard

scor

es,

perc

enti

les,

age

equi

vale

nts

Inte

rnal

cons

iste

ncy:

Wea

kfo

rde

leti

on,

blen

ding

;Mod

erat

efo

rrh

ymin

g,se

gmen

tati

on,

isol

atio

n,su

bsti

tuti

on;S

tron

gfo

rgr

aphe

me;

Alm

ost-

Per

fect

for

deco

ding

Test

-ret

est:

Wea

kfo

rrh

ymin

g,se

gmen

tati

on,

isol

atio

n,de

leti

on,

blen

ding

;Ave

rage

for

grap

hem

e;A

lmos

t-P

erfe

ctfo

rde

codi

ng(R

elia

bilit

yco

effic

ient

sre

port

edon

aver

age

coef

ficie

nts

acro

ssag

es)

Con

tent

:“de

velo

ped

follo

win

gex

tens

ive

revi

ewof

avai

labl

ete

sts

and

the

liter

atur

ew

hich

indi

cate

dth

epa

rtic

ular

item

san

dsk

ills

sele

cted

wer

eth

ose

refle

ctiv

eof

nece

ssar

yph

onol

ogic

alaw

aren

ess

skill

s”(p

.52

ofm

anua

l)C

oncu

rren

t:Sc

ores

disc

rim

inat

edbe

twee

nch

ildre

nco

nsid

ered

atri

skan

dno

tatr

isk

(Con

tinue

d)

237

P1: GCR


Tabl

eII

.(C

ontin

ued

)St

ated

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Scor

esR

epor

ted

Rep

orte

dTe

stna

me

purp

ose

feat

ures

Subt

ests

avai

labl

ere

liabi

lity

valid

ity

Test

ofA

war

enes

sof

Lan

guag

eSe

gmen

ts(T

AL

S;Sa

wye

r,19

87)

Mea

sure

saw

aren

ess

ofse

gmen

tsof

spok

enla

ngua

ge

Age

:4–a

dult

Adm

inis

trat

ion

tim

e:20

min

Indi

vidu

ally

adm

inis

tere

dB

asal

san

dce

iling

sdi

ffer

bysu

btes

tand

age

1.P

artA

—Se

gmen

ting

sent

ence

sin

tow

ord

unit

s2.

Par

tB—

Segm

enti

ngw

ords

into

sylla

bic

unit

s3.

Par

tC—

Segm

enti

ngw

ords

into

soun

ds

Tota

ltes

traw

scor

eis

“int

erpr

eted

inlig

htof

expe

ctat

ions

for

the

age

grou

p”(p

.13

ofm

anua

l)

Inte

rnal

cons

iste

ncy:

Wea

kfo

rP

artB

,M

oder

ate

toSt

rong

for

Par

tsA

and

C,

Mod

erat

eto

Alm

ost

Per

fect

for

test

tota

lsTe

st-r

etes

t:W

eak

for

Par

tsB

and

for

Gra

de1

sam

ple

onP

artA

,Mod

erat

eto

Ave

rage

for

rem

aind

erof

Par

tAan

dal

lofP

artC

,M

oder

ate

toSt

rong

for

test

tota

ls

Con

tent

:Ite

ms

sele

cted

repr

esen

tage

-rel

ated

diff

eren

ces

inlin

guis

tics

deve

lopm

ent

Con

curr

ent:

Mos

tco

effic

ient

sra

nged

from

Ave

rage

toA

bove

–Ave

rage

Pre

dict

ive:

Per

form

ance

inki

nder

gart

enco

ntri

bute

dsi

gnifi

cant

lyto

pred

icti

onof

Gra

de2

perf

orm

ance

Con

stru

ct:T

est

cons

truc

ted

acco

rdin

gto

expl

icit

theo

ryof

spok

enla

ngua

gede

velo

pmen

t

Test

ofP

hono

logi

cal

Aw

aren

ess

(TO

PA;

Torg

esen

and

Bry

ant,

1994

)

Iden

tify

and

scre

ench

ildre

nw

hoar

ede

laye

din

phon

olog

ical

awar

enes

s

Age

:Kin

derg

arte

nto

Gra

de2

Adm

inis

trat

ion

tim

e:15

–20

min

Adm

inis

tere

din

grou

psor

indi

vidu

ally

1.In

itia

lsou

nd:s

ame

and

diff

eren

t2.

End

ing

soun

d:sa

me

and

diff

eren

t

Stan

dard

scor

esan

dpe

rcen

tile

s

Inte

rnal

cons

iste

ncy:

Ave

rage

toSt

rong

Test

-ret

est:

Wea

kto

Alm

ostP

erfe

ct

Con

tent

:Ite

mdi

scri

min

atio

nan

ddi

fficu

lty

anal

yses

Con

curr

enta

ndP

redi

ctiv

e:A

vera

geto

Abo

ve–A

vera

geC

onst

ruct

:Ite

man

alys

is,

diff

eren

tiat

ion

inre

spon

seto

trai

ning

,an

dfa

ctor

anal

yses

Not

e.To

repo

rtre

liabi

lity

asst

ated

inte

stm

anua

ls,w

ecl

assi

fied

the

corr

elat

ion

coef

ficie

nts

acco

rdin

gto

the

follo

win

g:.8

0an

dle

ss=

Wea

k,.8

1–.8

4=

Mod

erat

e,.8

5–.9

0=

Ave

rage

,.91

–.93=

Stro

ng,a

nd.9

4–.9

9=

Alm

ost

Per

fect

.To

repo

rtva

lidit

yas

stat

edin

test

man

uals

,we

clas

sifie

dth

eco

rrel

atio

nco

effic

ient

sac

cord

ing

toth

efo

llow

ing:

.00–

.20=

Lit

tle/

No

Val

idit

y,.2

1–.4

0=

Bel

ow–A

vera

ge,

.41–

.55=

Ave

rage

,.5

6–.8

0=

Abo

ve–A

vera

ge,

and

.80–

.99=

Exc

epti

onal

(Web

b,19

83).

238

P1: GCR



by each NRT varied. Examples of skills included in these assessmentsinclude:

(a) Rhyme detection: “Here is a picture of a ball. Which of these, ‘wall,’‘bell’ or ‘bag’ rhymes with ‘ball’?” (PAT-M);

(b) Segmentation/sentences: “I’m going to say a sentence, and I wantyou to clap one time for each word I say. ‘My house is big.’ Now,clap it with me.” (PAT-R);

(c) Segmentation/word-to-sounds: “Listen to the word ‘bought.’ Canyou hear the sounds in ‘bought’? Say the sounds in ‘bought.’”(TALS);

(d) Phoneme discrimination: Colored blocks are used to representphonemes separately and in nonsense syllables, and to makechanges in the number and order of the blocks to represent changesin spoken stimuli. For example, when asked to represent the soundsof sas, a child could represent it with two blocks of one color andone block of another color by placing the different-colored blockbetween the pair of same-colored blocks (LAC-R);

(e) Sound matching/similar: “Look at the picture of the house. Nowlook at the pictures of boat, dress, and store. Which of these picturewords ends with the /s/ sound in house?” (TOPA);

(f) Blending words: “Listen carefully to the sounds on the tape re-corder. You will hear some words in small parts, one part at a time.Listen carefully, and then put these parts together to make a wholeword.” (CTOPP);

(g) Rapid color naming: “Look at the colors on this page. Now I wantyou to say the names of the colors as fast as you can.” (CTOPP); and

(h) Memory for digits: “Listen carefully to the numbers on the taperecorder. Say the numbers in the same order that you hear them.”(CTOPP).

Along with the variety of tasks included on different NRTs, there alsoare differences in the type and quality of technical information provided bythe publishers.

Technical Qualities

When selecting a NRT, it is important to regard the technical qualitiesof the test. Reliability of a test, which indicates its consistency, is importantbecause NRTs are used primarily for identification purposes. Tests used forthis purpose should have reliabilities of at least. 90 (Salvia and Ysseldyke,1998). Given the importance of the decisions made on the basis of these tests(e.g., placement of children in special education or other remedial programs),

P1: GCR



individuals selecting tests are encouraged to consider carefully the reliabilityof any NRT they select and use.

All NRTs reviewed reported two types of reliability, internal consistency(evidence that all items are measuring a single trait) and test-retest (thestability of test results over time). One test (CTOPP) also reported interjudgereliability (the degree to which two recorders score items the same way). Ingeneral, the reported reliability coefficients of the tests reviewed were above.80, although differences in reliability among subtests were noted. None ofthese NRTs have alternative forms; thus, alternative forms reliability is notreported. This might present problems if students are tested more than oncein a relatively short time because practice effects with specific items cannotbe controlled with only one test form. A critical look at the figures reportedin Table II show that reliability is highest on the LAC-R for test-retest andalternate form reliability. Other tests have more variability in reliability, butalso include more subtests than does the LAC-R. Specifically, the CTOPPhas the most subtests, and reliability is highest compared to the other testson all forms of reliability when the total composite is given.

The validity, or the ability for a test to measure what it claims to measure,of any NRT also is important to consider, and each of the six tests reviewedprovided some type of validity evidence. To establish validity of their phono-logical awareness tests, the authors addressed content validity (evidence thetest items are representative and comprehensive of the domain being exam-ined), construct validity (evidence the test measures the theoretical trait itpurports to measure), and criterion-related validity (evidence the test mea-sures the same construct as another previously validated test of the same con-struct). Concurrent criterion-related validity was most commonly reported.The tests reviewed relied on expert analysis, item analysis discrimination anditem difficulty analyses, and reviews of literature regarding linguistic devel-opment to establish content validity. Authors of NRTs presented in Table IIused a variety of other NRTs as criterion measures, including single-word-reading tests, word analysis or decoding tests, and teacher judgment of at-riskreaders. Results indicated that these phonological awareness tests, in gen-eral, had acceptable concurrent and predictive criterion-related validity. Allbut two of the tests (LAC-R and PAT-R) reviewed provided evidence ofconstruct validity. In summary, it appears that the validity of the six NRTsof phonological awareness reviewed is of similar quality.

Conclusions Regarding NRTs

When selecting a NRT in the area of phonological processing ability,it is necessary to consider all factors. Clearly the breadth of areas assessedis important to consider. Of the NRTs reviewed, all included assessment of

P1: GCR



phonological awareness, but each assessed that skill in different ways. Onetest (TOPA) examined only one dimension of phonological awareness (i.e.,auditory discrimination), whereas another test (PAT-R) included subtests forsix dimensions of phonological awareness plus subtests of decoding, spelling,and letter writing. All of the NRTs reviewed have the ability to identify in-dividuals who are significantly below their peers in important phonologicalabilities. However, only the CTOPP has the ability to determine strengthsand weaknesses among phonological processing abilities, such as phonolog-ical awareness, phonological memory, and rapid naming.

These three processing abilities represent a model of phonological pro-cessing (see Wagner et al., 1993, 1994, 1997; Wagner and Torgesen, 1987).Some researchers (Bowers and Wolf, 1993; Wolf, 1991) propose that rapidnaming assesses a “precise timing mechanism” in long-term memory thatrequires speed and processing of visual as well as phonological informa-tion. These researchers suggest that this mechanism in long-term memoryis essential for learning letter patterns in printed words rather than efficientretrieval of phonological information. Evidence has accumulated in supportof a “precise timing mechanism” hypothesis (Badian, 1997; Bowers et al.,1994; Bowers and Wolf, 1993; Manis et al., 2000; Wolf, 1991; Wolf et al., 2000;Wolf and Bowers, 1999).

Assessment of the efficiency of this “precise timing mechanism,” a cog-nitive skill assessed with rapid naming tasks, offers important informationregarding students with reading difficulties. The CTOPP is the only NRT thatassesses this skill. The CTOPP is a comprehensive tool that assesses phono-logical memory and rapid naming, as well as other skills, such as phono-logical awareness, letter knowledge, spelling, and decoding. The CTOPP’scomprehensiveness enables the identification of children with single or dou-ble deficits. For example, children may have deficits in both phonologicalawareness and rapid naming, a deficit in only phonological awareness or adeficit in only rapid naming. The children who have a double deficit wouldbe expected to have the most difficulty learning to read compared to individ-uals with single deficits in either rapid naming or phonological awareness.Thus, the CTOPP represents the only NRT that has the ability to identifythe three subgroups of children with reading difficulties. With knowledgeof the exact reading deficits children demonstrate, teachers can provide theinstructional program that best addresses their needs.

An Answer to Sandy, the Novice School Psychologist

Regarding Sandy’s question about the need for a comprehensive test todetermine if a student needed additional services, the school district read-ing consultant might provide the following information, “First, if you need

P1: GCR



to compare this student’s performance to similar students, you need to ad-minister a NRT. When considering which NRT to use for screening andidentification purposes, there are a number of issues to consider. The agerange of the tests must be considered. Only one test (TALS; Sawyer, 1987)is targeted at children as young as 4 years; all other tests specify 5 years old orkindergarten age. At the other end of the age spectrum, tests such as CTOPP(Wagner et al., 1994), LAC (Lindamood and Lindamood, 1979) and TALS(Sawyer, 1987) have normative scores or other interpretative informationavailable for use with adults, whereas the PAT-M (Muter et al., 1999) andthe PAT-R (Robertson and Salter, 1997) specify 7 and 9 years, respectively,as the upper age limit. The TOPA (Torgesen and Bryant, 1994) specifiesGrade 2 as the upper age limit. Thus, although there are many choices ofNRTs for younger children (appropriately so, given the nature of the tests),the choice for older students is more limited.”

The reading consultant continues, “Another consideration when select-ing a NRT is the range of skills tested in each NRT. If only one specificaspect of phonological awareness, such as segmenting, is of concern, theTALS (Sawyer, 1987) may be sufficient; whereas, if a you want to examineseveral phonological processing skills, the CTOPP (Wagner et al., 1999) isa better choice because it is the most comprehensive. Similarly, the rangeof skills assessed within a test also should be considered. For example, theTALS presents segmenting tasks that range from segmenting sentences intowords, words into syllables, and words into sounds. Thus, when selecting anyNRT of phonological skills, it is critical to match the level and discretenessof the tasks with the developmental stage of the child. If you are interestedin assessing the range of phonological processing skills, the CTOPP is yourbest bet. That test helps you know if rapid naming or phonological mem-ory is contributing to the reading problem. That information is useful whenplanning instruction.”

Criterion-Referenced Tests of Phonological Awareness Ability

Purpose

CRTs are those that compare the skills and abilities of an individual childto a set of standards or a criterion for specific content areas (Taylor, 2000).They are designed to diagnose deficits in specific skills and can be given to agroup or individually. An advantage of this type of assessment is that it pro-vides practitioners with specific knowledge about what a child does and doesnot know relative to a curriculum domain. CRTs are commercially availableor can be developed by practitioners or researchers for specific purposes(Overton, 2000). This latter approach to CRTs is advantageous because it

P1: GCR



allows the practitioner or the researcher to develop assessment measuresunique to specific content or skills deemed critical. However, CRTs may becumbersome to develop, especially if alternative forms of the measures areneeded.

An advantage of CRTs over NRTs is that they may be developed fora range of specific purposes, such as determining acquisition of particularphonological skills. When administered individually, the examiner (teacheror reseacher) can determine not only which skills the student knows but alsohow the student approaches the tasks and what types of errors are made. Forexample, when asked to segment a word into phonemes, can the child sayeach individual phoneme, or does he/she segment by syllables, onsets andrimes, or some other pattern.

Description of CRTs

CRTs of phonological awareness typically are composed of sets of itemsthat assess different phonological awareness skills, such as rhyme, blending,deleting, segmenting, and manipulating phonemes. CRTs originate from anumber of sources. They may accompany published curricula as a screeningor monitoring tool (e.g., Adams et al., 1998), or they may be constructed bypractitioners, for any or all of the skills that comprise phonological process-ing ability. CRTs can address phonological awareness, phonological memory,and rapid naming. Table III illustrates a range of tasks that are often includedon CRTs for specific purposes. Each task is considered a separate test be-cause any single task or combination of tasks can be given. The skills listedin Table III are listed sequentially to approximate the increasing levels ofphonological skills (Adams, 1990). Thus, it is expected that students ordinar-ily master skills such as auditory discrimination or counting syllables beforethey delete or count phonemes. It is important to note that the order ofphonological awareness skills in Table III represents approximate difficultylevel. The order is not meant to imply that these skills are highly discreet orthat earlier skills are necessary prerequisites for later skill development.

An advantage of CRTs is that highly structured administrative tech-niques common to NRTs are not dictated. When a published version of aphonological CRT is used, materials, word lists, and directions for adminis-tration are included, but standardized procedures are not required. If CRTsare developed by practitioners for specific dimensions of phonological pro-cessing ability, word lists or items must be created for each task (e.g., wordpairs that rhyme and that do not rhyme, one syllable words consisting of2, 3, or 4 phonemes, etc.). Creating CRT items may be advantageous overpublished materials because it allows practitioners to use words familiar totheir own students. On the other hand, using familiar words may result in

P1: GCR



Tabl

eII

I.C

rite

rion

-Ref

eren

ced

Test

sof

Pho

nolo

gica

lAw

aren

ess

Test

Pur

pose

Task

Sam

ple

item

Exa

mpl

eof

publ

ishe

dte

sts

Aud

itor

yD

iscr

imin

atio

nM

easu

reab

ility

tode

tect

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

phon

emes

Pai

rsof

wor

dsar

epr

esen

ted,

and

the

child

indi

cate

sif

the

wor

dsar

eth

esa

me

ordi

ffer

ent

“Lis

ten

asI

say

two

wor

ds.

(pat

,bri

ck)

Are

thes

ew

ords

the

sam

e?”

Bri

ganc

eIn

vent

ory

ofE

arly

Dev

elop

men

tRev

ised

(Bri

ganc

e,19

91)

Cou

ntin

gSy

llabl

esM

easu

reab

ility

toco

untt

henu

mbe

rof

sylla

bles

ina

wor

d

Chi

ldid

enti

fies

the

num

ber

ofsy

llabl

esin

wor

ds;c

anbe

done

byta

ppin

gth

enu

mbe

rof

sylla

bles

“Cla

pas

you

say

the

sylla

bles

inea

chw

ord

and

tell

me

how

man

ysy

llabl

esyo

uhe

ar”

Pho

nolo

gica

lAw

aren

ess

Pro

file

(Rob

erts

onan

dSa

lter

,199

5);P

hone

mic

Aw

aren

ess

inY

oung

Chi

ldre

n(A

dam

set

al.,

1998

)

Rhy

min

gM

easu

reab

ility

tode

tect

wor

dsth

atrh

yme

Chi

ldin

dica

tes

whe

ther

wor

dpa

irs

rhym

e“D

oha

tand

batr

hym

e?”

Som

epa

irs

rhym

ean

dso

me

dono

t

Rhy

min

gTe

st(Y

opp,

1988

)

Mat

chin

gIn

itia

lSo

unds

Mea

sure

abili

tyto

mat

chw

ords

that

begi

nw

ith

the

sam

eph

onem

e

Chi

ldis

show

na

pict

ure

and/

oror

ally

told

aw

ord

and

aske

dto

iden

tify

aw

ord

orpi

ctur

eth

atbe

gins

wit

hth

esa

me

phon

eme

“Loo

kat

this

pict

ure

ofa

tabl

e.W

hich

ofth

eot

her

pict

ures

begi

nsw

ith

the

sam

eso

und?

”(S

how

pict

ures

ofa

shoe

,box

,an

dto

p)

Bri

ganc

eIn

vent

ory

ofE

arly

Dev

elop

men

t–R

evis

ed(B

riga

nce,

1991

);P

hone

mic

Aw

aren

ess

inY

oung

Chi

ldre

n(A

dam

set

al.,

1998

)

Pho

nem

eM

atch

ing

Mea

sure

abili

tyto

mat

chin

itia

l,fin

al,a

ndm

iddl

eso

unds

into

wor

ds

Two

wor

dsar

epr

esen

ted

toth

ech

ildw

hois

aske

dto

iden

tify

aso

und

assa

me

ordi

ffer

ent

“Do

leg

and

lake

star

t[or

end]

wit

hth

esa

me

soun

d?”

Wor

d-to

-Wor

dM

atch

ing

Test

(Yop

p,19

88)

Ble

ndin

gP

hone

mes

Mea

sure

abili

tyto

blen

dso

unds

tofo

rmw

ords

Pho

nem

esth

atre

pres

enta

2-,3

-,or

4-ph

onem

ew

ord

are

pres

ente

dat

1/2-

sin

terv

als

toth

ech

ildw

hois

toid

enti

fyth

ew

ord

the

soun

dsre

pres

ent

“Lis

ten

toth

epa

rts

ofth

ew

ord

and

then

putt

hem

toge

ther

.”(e

.g.,

/k/...

/a/...

/t/)

Pho

nolo

gica

lAw

aren

ess

Han

dboo

kfo

rK

inde

rgar

ten

and

Pri

mar

yTe

ache

rs(E

rics

onan

dJi

liebo

,19

98)

P1: GCR


Phonological Awareness Assessment 245D

elet

ing

Pho

nem

esM

easu

reab

ility

tode

lete

phon

emes

from

wor

ds

Wor

dsin

whi

cha

phon

eme

(fro

mth

ein

itia

l,m

edia

l,or

final

posi

tion

)or

asy

llabl

eha

sbe

ende

lete

dar

epr

esen

ted

toth

ech

ildw

hois

aske

dto

iden

tify

ifa

part

icul

arso

und

ism

issi

ng

“Wha

twou

ldbe

left

ifth

e/s

/wer

eta

ken

away

from

the

begi

nnin

gof

sand

?”“W

hatw

ord

doyo

uha

veif

you

take

cow

offo

fco

wbo

y?”

Pho

nolo

gica

lAw

aren

ess

Pro

file

(Rob

erts

onan

dSa

lter

,199

5)

Soun

dIs

olat

ion

Test

Mea

sure

abili

tyto

iden

tify

init

ial,

final

,and

mid

dle

soun

dsin

oral

lypr

esen

ted

wor

ds

Chi

ldlis

tens

toor

ally

pres

ente

dw

ord

and

iden

tifie

sin

itia

l,m

iddl

e,or

final

soun

d

“In

the

wor

dca

twhi

chso

und

isla

st[o

rfir

st,o

rm

iddl

e]?”

Soun

dIs

olat

ion

Test

(Yop

p,19

88)

Cou

ntin

gP

hone

mes

Mea

sure

abili

tyto

coun

tthe

num

ber

ofph

onem

esin

aw

ord

Chi

ldid

enti

fies

the

num

ber

ofph

onem

icse

gmen

tsin

wor

dsof

2,3,

or4

phon

emes

orph

rase

sby

stat

ing

the

num

ber

ofso

unds

inw

ords

“Say

the

wor

d(i

nser

t1sy

llabl

ew

ord)

slow

lyan

dte

llho

wm

any

soun

dsyo

uhe

ar”

Pho

nem

eC

ount

ing

Test

(Ada

ms

etal

.,19

98)

Segm

enti

ngP

hone

mes

Mea

sure

abili

tyto

anal

yze

wor

dsin

toph

onem

eso

unds

inor

der

Wor

dsar

epr

esen

ted

oral

lyto

the

child

who

segm

ents

the

wor

din

toph

onem

es

“The

wor

dca

tsou

nds

like

/k/...

/a/...

/t/.

Say

leg

inth

isw

ay”

Yop

p–Si

nger

Test

ofP

hone

me

Segm

enta

tion

(Yop

p,19

95)

Rep

rese

ntin

gP

hone

mes

Wit

hL

ette

rs

Mea

sure

abili

tyto

spel

lcom

mon

,on

e-sy

llabl

ew

ords

Chi

ldis

show

na

pict

ure

orto

lda

one-

sylla

ble

wor

dan

das

ked

tosp

ellt

hew

ord

“Lis

ten

toth

isw

ord:

pot.

Wha

tlet

ters

doyo

une

edto

spel

ltha

twor

d?”

Pho

nolo

gica

lAw

aren

ess

Pro

file

(Rob

erts

onan

dSa

lter

,199

5)

Not

e.A

llit

ems

typi

cally

are

mod

eled

wit

hon

eor

two

exam

ples

,10

orm

ore

item

sof

each

type

are

pres

ente

d,an

dre

spon

ses

are

reco

rded

.

P1: GCR



subtle forms of bias. The time it takes to develop CRTs is an additional issueto consider.

CRTs are usually administered in short-time blocks (5–10 min) andfrequently incorporate a game-like approach. The examiner begins by mod-eling the task with at least one example. More examples are used if neededto ensure the child understands the directions. To obtain a reliable estimateof the child’s ability to complete a task, CRTs should contain several itemsper skill assessed (Millman, 1994); a pool of at least 10 items is frequentlyrecommended (Stanovich et al., 1984).

As the name implies, CRTs measure whether or not a student has meta specified criterion with regard to a particular phonological skill. The cri-terion may be determined by teacher judgment (e.g., the criterion has beenmet if the student initially identified three correct beginning phonemes butafter 3 weeks of instruction can now correctly identify eight phonemes). Asecond way to determine criterion levels is to specify a standard of perfor-mance. Shapiro (1989) recommends that 75% of items correct on a set ofitems comprising a CRT indicates the student needs improvement, 85% ofitems correct indicates average performance, and 95% of items correct indi-cates mastery. The advantage of either of these approaches to determiningstudent progress toward a criterion is that either is easily converted to agraphing or recording system (Overton, 2000).

Examples of Skills Assessed on CRTs

Table III includes 10 different CRTs of phonological awareness. Foreach test, the purpose is given, the task is described in general terms, anda sample item is provided. Examples of published tests that assess this skillare also provided. Tasks include rhyming, segmenting phonemes, phonemematching, and phoneme blending, as described earlier in regard to NRTitems. Additional CRT tests include auditory discrimination, counting sylla-bles, deleting phonemes, sound isolation, phoneme counting, and represent-ing phonemes with letters.

Some of the well-known CRTs assessing phonological awareness skillsare the Phonological Awareness Profile (Robertson and Salter, 1995), theRhyming Test (Yopp, 1988), and the Yopp–Singer Test of Phoneme Seg-mentation (Yopp, 1995). The Phonological Awareness Profile is individuallyadministered and one of the most comprehensive, consisting of six types oftasks. These tasks include the following:

(a) Rhyming: Rhyming-Discrimination wherein the examiner says,“Mitt rhymes with fit. Do fat and mat rhyme?” Rhyming-Productionwherein the examiner says, “Tell me a word that rhymes with cat.”

P1: GCR



(b) Segmentation: Segmentation-Sentences wherein the examiner says,“My school is big. Clap once as you say each word.” Segmentation-Compound Words wherein the examiner says, “Say football. Claponce as you say each little word.” Segmentation-Syllables whereinthe examiner says, “Say Monday. Clap once as you say each syl-lable.” Segmentation-Phonemes wherein the examiner says, “Saymat. Clap once as you say the individual sounds, pausing slightlybetween each one.”

(c) Isolation: Isolation-Initial wherein the examiner says, “Say dog.What is the beginning sound of dog?” Isolation-Final wherein theexaminer says, “Say bat. What is the ending sound of bat?” Isolation-Medial wherein the examiner says, “Say bug. What is the middlesound of bug?”

(d) Deletion: Deletion-Compounds wherein the examiner says, “Saybirdhouse. Say it again but don’t say house.” Deletion-Syllableswherein the examiner says, “Say umbrella. Say it again but don’tsay um.” Deletion-Phonemes wherein the examiner says, “Say chairbut don’t say/ch/.”

(e) Substitution: Substitution with Manipulatives wherein the examinersays, “I’m going to show you how to spell dog with these blocks. Saythe sounds of dog while pointing to each block in turn. Show how tochange cat to mat by replacing the first block with a different colorblock.” Substitution without Manipulatives wherein the examinersays, “I’m going to change one word into another word by changingone sound. Then I’ll ask you to do it. Say fun. Change /f/ to /s/.”

(f) Blending: Blending-Compounds and Syllables wherein the exam-iner says, “Say these compounds and syllables with a pause be-tween them. Pop . . . corn, han . . .dy.” Blending-Phonemes whereinthe examiner says, “Say these sounds with a pause between them./m/ . . . /o/ . . . /p/.”

In addition to the phonological awareness tasks, the PhonologicalAwareness Profile (Robertson and Salter, 1995) also included three tasks thatassess phoneme/grapheme correspondence—writing graphemes, decoding,and invented spelling ability.

The Rhyming Test (Yopp, 1988) is an individually administered test andconsists of one task. It is one of the easiest of the phonemic awareness tasks.Its purpose is to determine students’ ability to detect words that rhyme.An example of this task is rhyme discrimination of word pairs wherein theexaminer says, “Do hat and bat rhyme?”

The Yopp–Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (Yopp, 1995) is anindividually administered test designed for English–speaking kindergarten

P1: GCR



students that consists of 22 items containing two-, three-, four-, and five-letterwords. Its purpose is to determine students’ ability to segment or separatethe sounds of a spoken word in order. An example of this task would be,“I am going to say a word and I want you to provide me with the separatesounds you hear in the word. Listen to the word sat and tell me the soundsand not the letter names.”

The Yopp–Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (Yopp, 1995) is usedas a diagnostic tool to plan instruction. Also, it is used to identify studentsexperiencing difficulty with literacy curriculum in kindergarten. If a studentis reading independently, this test should not be administered, as indepen-dent reading infers the student has attained phonological awareness (Yopp,1995). This test also is used as a diagnostic tool with older students and adultswho are beginning readers.

Technical Qualities

One disadvantage of CRTs is that they rarely have documented techni-cal adequacy (Salvia and Ysseldyke, 1998; Taylor, 2000; Tindal and Marston,1990). One issue at play here is the lack of standardization in the proceduresof CRTs. It is impossible to establish technical adequacy of a test that isnot administered under standard conditions. However, reliability, or consis-tency of a specific CRT, is often assumed because items within a test andbetween alternate forms of a test assessing a particular skill are identicalin format. The only difference between items is the prompt targeting theresponse (e.g., different pictures, sounds, words, etc.), thereby making theCRT both internally consistent and consistent with a retest of the same skill.

The validity of CRTs also is assumed because individuals administeringCRTs make decisions about what to assess. A particular CRT is given becausesomeone wants to know if the student has that particular skill. Therefore, theexaminer selects both the content and construct assessed. Because CRTs ofphonological awareness use test items similar to items on NRTs of phono-logical awareness, there is assumed evidence of criterion-related validity.

Few CRTs have reported technical information. However, reliability ofthe Rhyming Test (Yopp, 1988) is reported as .31 based on this test’s abilityto predict students’ ability to use sound–symbol correspondences to decodeprinted nonwords. Construct validity of the test indicates that it is minimallyrelated to the construct of phonological awareness. Any generalizations ofstudents’ phonemic awareness ability based solely on the Rhyme Test shouldbe considered with caution (Yopp, 1988).

The Yopp–Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (Yopp, 1995) is re-ported as a valid measure of phonemic awareness. Construct validity was

P1: GCR



determined through a factor analysis (see Yopp, 1988). Predictive validitywas determined by collection of data from reading achievement scores ofthe same students from kindergarten to sixth grade and spelling achievementscores for the same students from second to sixth grade (see Yopp, 1992). Thestrength of the relationship between phonemic awareness in kindergartenand vocabulary in fifth grade is .54 after students’ vocabulary ability is takeninto consideration. Other significant correlations between phonemic aware-ness and reading and spelling range from .33 to .55 after students’ reading andspelling achievement are considered. These moderate correlations indicateacceptable predictive validity for this test.

Conclusions Regarding CRTs

As stated earlier, one advantage of criterion-referenced measures isthat individuals can create tasks to assess the exact skill they are interestedin assessing. Given that, CRTs are probably the most flexible type of as-sessment. However, the creation of items requires time and thought. If timeis an issue, as it is for most school personnel, it is appropriate to considerpurchasing assessment tools. For the purpose of assessing a large numberof children and identifying those with phonological awareness difficulties,the Yopp–Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (Yopp, 1995) is appropri-ate. The length and time needed to administer this test is reasonable, andit identifies the children who would benefit from more in-depth assessmentof a broader range of skills. For assessment aimed at determining appropri-ate curriculum, the Phonological Awareness Profile (Robertson and Salter,1995) is the most comprehensive CRT available for purchase. Given the timeit takes to administer this test individually, however, it may not be possibleto assess all children on all the tasks represented. Still, a teacher could selectthe tasks he/she is most interested in and only administer those to identifyindividual children’s strengths and weaknesses.

An Answer to Chris, the Special Education Resource Teacher

Chris’s literacy education professor might provide the following answerto his question regarding what instruction his new student needed: “If thepurpose for assessment is to determine strengths and weaknesses relativeto phonological skills, then criterion-referenced tools are the logical choice.When selecting a CRT for this purpose, several things should be consid-ered. CRTs of phonological awareness typically include a variety of tasks,ranging from auditory discrimination tasks to phoneme matching to seg-menting phonemes. The inclusion of these diverse tasks is congruent with

P1: GCR



current research that supports that these tasks all measure the construct ofphonological awareness (Schatschneider et al., 1999). Given that this stu-dent is a second grader and still struggles with reading, it makes sense toassess a range of skills. You need to know if she has the basic skills suchas rhyming, segmenting, deleting, and blending phonemes. You also needto know if the child has the basic understanding of letters representing thesounds of the English language. Given your range of questions, I’d suggest acomprehensive evaluation of this student. You could create your own CRTor you could use one of the published versions. I suggest you take a look atthe Phonological Awareness Profile (Robertson and Salter, 1995).”

Curriculum-Based Measures of Phonological Processing Ability

Purpose

A third type of assessment approach is curriculum-based assessment.Items and content that comprise this type of assessment are drawn fromthe students’ curricular materials and are used to ascertain student progresstoward acquisition of specific skills (Idol et al., 1996; Taylor, 2000). The infor-mation gained from curriculum-based assessment can aid teachers in makinginstructional decisions and provides feedback about instruction’s effective-ness. One type of curriculum-based assessment that has been developedand researched extensively is curriculum-based measurement (CBM; Deno,1985). CBM is a unique form of curriculum-based assessment that allowsfrequent measurement toward a long-term curricular goal with the use ofstandardized procedures (Fuchs and Deno, 1991). Extensive research hasestablished the reliability, validity, and utility for instructional decision mak-ing with the use of CBM procedures (e.g., Good and Jefferson, 1998).

A CBM approach to assessment of phonological processing ability isused to identify a problem, validate the problem, explore solutions, evalu-ate solutions, and problem solve (Good and Kaminski, 1996). When used toidentify and verify that a child has difficulty with phonological processing,local normative data at the classroom, school, or school district level rela-tive to each measure are generated. These data provide a benchmark againstwhich to determine which individual children are substantially below theirpeers in these skill areas and, thus, need additional instructional assistance.When students are receiving specialized, supplemental, or remedial assis-tance, CBM measures are used to determine if the student is making ade-quate progress toward a teacher-specific objective. Because alternative formscan be developed, it is possible to monitor progress by administering theprobes frequently, graphing students’ data, and applying decision-makingrules regarding adequacy of student progress. Kaminski and Good (1998)

P1: GCR



provide a description of these procedures specific to Dynamic Indicators ofBasic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), a CBM tool for assessing phonologi-cal awareness skills.

Description of a Specific CBM Tool

DIBELS (Kaminski and Good, 1996) are a form of CBM (Deno, 1985).These measures were developed to reflect basic early literacy skills (i.e.,phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge). DIBELS consist of stan-dardized early literacy measures of a variety of skills including letter nam-ing, onset–rime, segmentation, and nonword decoding, and are used withkindergarten and Grade 1 children who have not yet acquired reading skills.Table IV describes these measures in more detail.

DIBELS and CRTs both assess specific skills but also differ in threesignificant ways. First, DIBELS measures have demonstrated reliability andvalidity, whereas CRTs routinely do not (Fuchs and Fuchs, 1999). Second,unlike CRTs, alternative forms of DIBELS are available, thus making on-going progress, rather than only pre- and posttesting, possible. Ongoing as-sessment enables teachers to evaluate progress rates on a continuous basis(Good and Kaminski, 1996). Third, DIBELS assess fluency in various phono-logical awareness abilities, whereas CRTs measure only accuracy. Fluencyin these critical prereading skills is crucial because students must not onlyname letters, segment phonemes, or recognize onsets accurately, but must dothese skills fluently (Biemiller, 1977–78; Blachman, 1984; Speer and Lamb,1976; Stanovich et al., 1983; Walsh et al., 1988; Worden and Boettcher, 1990).

Examples of Tasks on DIBELS

Tasks measured in DIBELS include:

(a) Onset fluency, wherein the examiner says, “I’m going to show youfour pictures.” Then says, “This is a bridge, a star, a cowboy, anda horse. Which picture begins with /s/? Which picture begins with/h/? Which picture begins with /br/? What sound does cowboy beginwith?”

(b) Letter naming fluency, wherein the examiner presents the child withan array of random upper and lower case letters and the examinersays, “I’m going to show you some letters. I want you to say all theletters you can.”

(c) Phoneme segmentation fluency, wherein the examiner says, “I’mgoing to say some words. I want you to try to say all the sounds youhear in each word,” and

P1: GCR



Tabl

eIV

.C

urri

culu

m-B

ased

Mea

sure

ofP

hono

logi

calA

war

enes

s:D

ynam

icIn

dica

tors

ofB

asic

Lit

erac

ySk

ills

Nam

eP

urpo

seSc

ore

Age

Pro

cedu

re

Init

ials

ound

fluen

cyA

sses

ses

abili

tyto

iden

tify

wha

tso

unds

begi

nco

mm

onw

ords

Num

ber

ofco

rrec

tly

iden

tifie

don

sets

in1

min

Spri

ngof

pres

choo

lth

roug

hsp

ring

ofki

nder

gart

en

Stud

enti

ssh

own

four

pict

ures

and

aske

dto

iden

tify

whi

chpi

ctur

est

arts

wit

ha

verb

ally

pres

ente

don

seta

ndto

prod

uce

the

onse

tfor

ave

rbal

lypr

esen

ted

wor

d

Let

ter-

nam

ing

fluen

cyA

sses

ses

abili

tyto

nam

eup

per

and

low

erca

sele

tter

s

Num

ber

ofco

rrec

tly

read

lett

ers

in1

min

Fall

ofki

nder

gart

enth

roug

hfa

llof

Gra

de1

Stud

enti

ssh

own

apa

geof

uppe

ran

dlo

wer

case

lett

ers

inra

ndom

orde

ran

das

ked

tosa

yth

ena

mes

(not

the

soun

ds)o

fea

chle

tter

Pho

nem

ese

gmen

tati

onflu

ency

Ass

esse

sab

ility

tose

gmen

ton

e-sy

llabl

ew

ords

Num

ber

ofco

rrec

tsou

ndse

gmen

tspr

oduc

edin

1m

in

Mid

dle

ofki

nder

gart

enth

roug

hfa

llof

Gra

de1

Exa

min

eror

ally

read

sa

wor

d,an

dth

est

uden

tte

llsal

lthe

soun

dsin

the

wor

d

Non

sens

ew

ord

fluen

cyA

sses

ses

abili

tyto

read

orde

code

nons

ense

wor

ds

Num

ber

ofph

onem

esre

adco

rrec

tly

eith

eras

sing

leso

unds

oras

who

lew

ords

in1

min

Mos

tchi

ldre

nfr

omal

lof

Gra

de1

thro

ugh

sum

mer

ofG

rade

1

Stud

enti

ssh

own

alis

tof

nons

ense

wor

ds(e

.g.,

saf,

zim

)an

dis

aske

dto

say

the

soun

dsof

the

lett

ers

orsa

yth

ew

hole

wor

d

P1: GCR



(d) Nonsense word fluency, wherein the examiner says, “I’m going toshow you some make-believe words. Point to each letter in eachword and say the sound or the whole word.” (Kaminski and Good,1996)

Technical Qualities

Reliability of DIBELS measures has been examined for alternativeforms, test-retest reliability, and interrater reliability for phonemic segmen-tation fluency, onset recognition fluency, and letter-naming fluency(Kaminski and Good, 1996). For kindergarten children, reliability coeffi-cients for the letter-naming and phonemic segmentation tasks were primar-ily in the Average (.85–.90) to Almost Perfect (.94–.99) range, with only onein the Weak (<.80) range. For Grade 1 children, reliability ranged from Weak(<.80) to Strong (.91–.93), particularly when measuring over time. Interrateragreement was Almost Perfect at .99 (Kaminski and Good).

Concurrent validity of these DIBELS measures has been establishedas well. For kindergarten children, concurrent criterion-related validity wasestablished by comparing DIBELS with NRTs of reading and reading readi-ness tests, and with a teacher rating scale. Resulting coefficients were in theExceptional (.80–.99) range for level (change as a result of intervention) andbetween Above–Average (.56–.80) and Exceptional (.80–.99) for slope (mea-surement over time). When the same analyses were conducted for Grade 1children, results indicated that all coefficients were at least Above–Average(.56–.80) for level, but Below–Average (.21–.40) for slope (Kaminski andGood, 1996; ranges for evaluative categories based on Webb, 1983).

Conclusion

Development of DIBELS has met a need in the assessment of phono-logical processing abilities. NRTs of phonological processing skills providea means to screen and identify students who are lagging behind peers froma national normative sample, but NRTs do not provide continuous feedbackon the effects of instruction. CRTs have the advantage of assessing discretephonological skills, but rarely account for fluency or speed of responding. Inaddition, CRTs may be reliant on published measures, which rarely providemultiple alternative forms, thus limiting the possibility of monitoring studentgrowth (Fuchs and Fuchs, 1999). For most CRTs, teacher preparation of al-ternative forms is required if ongoing assessment is conducted. In addition,limited information is available regarding the reliability and validity of CRT

P1: GCR



measures of phonological awareness (Yopp, 1988). In contrast to NRTs andCRTs, DIBELS measures (a) are designed to document fluency, (b) havedocumented reliability and validity, and (c) provide alternative forms ofphonological processing abilities. A drawback to this assessment method isthat research has examined only a limited number of prereading skills (i.e.,onset fluency, letter-naming fluency, phonemic segmentation, and nonsenseword fluency). This drawback may lead practitioners only to monitor studentgrowth in isolated skills (e.g., phonemic segmentation) rather than the moreglobal skill of early literacy development (Fuchs and Fuchs, 1999).

An Answer to Martina, the Kindergarten Teacher

The school psychologist answers Martina’s question by providing thefollowing information: “If the primary purpose for assessment is to monitorprogress or to determine the effectiveness of a particular instructional pro-gram, the use of curriculum-based tools are an appropriate choice. Whenconsidering using CBM measures for phonological awareness skills, theDIBELS is one readily available option well supported by research. Thesemeasures assess the same skills as do CRTs, notably phoneme segmentationand onset–rime, but the DIBELS measures also provide a highly sensitivemeasure of student progress. This is possible with DIBELS because, for ex-ample, production of individual phonemes are scored individually, whereasin CRTs all the phonemes in the target word must be produced to receivecredit. Thus, younger students and students at a lower skill level of phonemesegmentation are served with DIBELS because they are sensitive to smallgrowth gains. If your primary question is about the overall effectiveness ofthe curriculum, I suggest you select three students that represent a range ofskill development (specifically, high, middle, and low performers) and assessthem on a regular basis with DIBELS. By doing this, you gain useful infor-mation about the overall effectiveness of the curriculum and the knowledgeof the curriculum’s effectiveness with different level learners.”

Considerations Across Assessment Types

As discussed previously, the type of assessment given (i.e., NRT, CRT, orCBM) is based on the questions raised. However, once the type of assessmentis decided, there are a number of other issues to consider such as types oftask and response types that impact student performance.

The optimal tasks for measuring phonological awareness depend onchildren’s development, age, and their exposure to literacy activities. Ingeneral, phonological awareness tasks are relatively accurate in providing

P1: GCR



information about the ability of children who are average in kindergartenand through the middle of first grade. However, these tasks steadily lose theirability to provide accurate information by the end of first grade and throughsecond grade (Schatschneider et al., 1999). Research has documented thatcertain phonological awareness tasks provide more information when thetask is appropriate for the child (Schatschneider et al., 1999). For example, theonset–rime-blending task is appropriate for children who have just learnedto blend sounds but not appropriate for second-grade children with averagephonological awareness ability. By second grade most children have acquiredthis skill even if they are lagging behind in other phonological awarenessskills. Furthermore, onset–rime, word- and nonword-blending tasks, and thephoneme elision task are better able to differentiate children with low abilityfrom children with high ability than are tasks such as phoneme segmenta-tion, sound categorization, and first sound comparison. Last, even thoughthe sound categorization task is considered the easiest phonological aware-ness task and is used frequently with younger children, its difficulty dependson the location of the target word in the series of words presented (first,middle, last position). Because of this, sound categorization is considereda poor measure of phonological awareness (Schatschneider et al., 1999). Insummary, there is evidence that accurate and useful information is obtainedif the skills assessed match the developmental level of the child.

Another factor that can influence student performance, regardless ofthe phonological awareness skill assessed, is response type. Specifically, arestudents required to recognize something (e.g., Do these two words rhyme?)or to produce a response (e.g., Tell me a word that rhymes with “cats”)? Ingeneral, because recognition tasks typically are easier than production tasks,a student could respond correctly to a task when asked to recognize but beunable to produce a response even though both tasks require the same skill.

Response format is another issue worthy of consideration. In some tasks,children respond verbally to queries or prompts by the examiner, whereas, inother tasks, students tap out the number of phonemes or syllables they hearor move blocks or tiles to represent phoneme manipulation. Student unfa-miliarity with the task requirements might contribute to poor performance(Troia et al., 1998).

Another factor that could influence student performance is whetherthe prompts within tasks are real words or nonsense words. The concept ofnonword may be unfamiliar to students and tasks in which nonsense wordsare used possibly could affect student performance on the task. For studentshaving difficulty understanding, they must analyze words for sound ratherthan the meaning; it may be easier to hear individual phonemes in nonwordscompared to words. This is a task difference that has not been exploredfully.

P1: GCR



Finally, the time needed for administering the test and scoring it, andthe ease of interpreting the test are factors which also should be considered(Alper et al., 2001). Scoring procedures vary across the different tasks, withsome being relatively easy (i.e., examiner records if the student respondedcorrectly at the word level) and others more difficult (i.e., examiner recordsindividual phonemes within words as correct). Thus, practitioners are en-couraged to consider their previous training, opportunity for guidance andfeedback, and amount of time needed to learn the scoring procedures (Troiaet al., 1998).

CLOSING COMMENTS

Recent research has added greatly to our understanding of the role ofphonological awareness in learning to read. Recent reports, such as the Na-tional Research Council (1998) and National Reading Panel (2000), provideexcellent direction regarding what phonological skills should be taught andhow they should be taught at different stages of literacy acquisition. As-sessment is critical in providing quality instruction that builds phonologicalawareness in both normally developing children and children who are atrisk for learning to read. Assessments are available to (a) screen for stu-dents who might warrant specialized or additional services and resourcesrelated to these early reading skills, (b) determine what specialized servicesshould be provided and which specific phonological awareness skills shouldbe taught, and (c) evaluate the effectiveness of instructional approaches bymonitoring the progress of individual children as they develop phonologicalawareness. An understanding of phonological awareness and the appropri-ate use of assessment tools that match the purpose of assessment and havehigh technical quality are essential in meeting the most important goal ofhelping all children learn to read.

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to Read, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., and Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic Awareness in

Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum, Brookes, Baltimore.Alper, S., Ryndak, D. L., and Schloss, C. N. (2001). Alternative Assessment of Students with

Disabilities in Inclusive Settings, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Badian, N. A. (1997). Dyslexia and the double deficit hypothesis. Ann. Dyslexia 47: 69–87.Ball, E. W., and Blachman, B. A. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training: Effect on reading

readiness. Ann. Dyslexia 38: 208–225.Ball, E. W., and Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten

make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Res. Q.26: 49–66.

P1: GCR



Biemiller, A. (1977–78). Relationships between oral reading rates for letters, words, and simpletext in the development of reading achievement. Reading Res. Q. 13: 223–252.

Blachman, B. A. (1984). Relationship of rapid naming ability and language analysis skills tokindergarten and first-grade reading achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 76: 610–622.

Bowers, P. G., Golden, J., Kennedy, A., and Young, A. (1994). Limits upon orthographic knowl-edge due to processes indexed by naming speed. In Berninger, V. W. (ed.), The Varietiesof Orthographic Knowledge. I: Theoretical and Developmental Issues, Kluwer, Dordrecht,The Netherlands, pp. 173–218.

Bowers, P. G., and Swanson, L. B. (1991). Naming speed deficits in reading disability: Multiplemeasures of a singular process. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 51: 195–219.

Bowers, P. G., and Wolf, M. (1993). Theoretical links between naming speed, precise timingmechanisms and orthographic skills in dyslexia. Reading Writing Interdisciplinary J. 5: 69–85.

Bowey, J. A., Cain, M. T., and Ryan, S. M. (1992). A reading-level design study of phonologicalskills underlying fourth-grade children’s word reading difficulties. Child Dev. 63: 999–1011.

Bradley, L., and Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and Reason in Reading and Spelling, University ofMichigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Brady, S., Fowler, A., Stone, B., and Winbury, N. (1994). Training phonological awareness: Astudy with inner-city children. Ann. Dyslexia 44: 26–59.

Brigance, A. (1991). Inventory of Early Development—Revised, Curriculum Associates, NorthBillerica, MA.

Browder, D. M. (1991). Assessment of Individuals With Severe Disabilities: An Applied BehaviorApproach to Life Skills Assessment, 2nd edn., Brookes, Baltimore.

Brown, I. S., and Felton, R. C. (1990). Effects of instruction on beginning reading skillsin children at risk for reading disability. Reading Writing Interdisciplinary J. 2: 223–241.

Byrne, B., and Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic aware-ness to young children. J. Educ. Psychol. 83: 451–455.

Byrne, B., and Fielding-Barnsley, A. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic aware-ness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. J. Educ. Psychol. 85: 104–111.

Byrne, B., and Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic aware-ness to young children: A 2- and 3-year follow-up and a new preschool trial. J. Educ.Psychol. 87: 488–503.

Calfee, A. C., Lindamood, P. E., and Lindamood, C. H. (1973). Acoustic–phonetic skills andreading—Kindergarten through 12th grade. J. Educ. Psychol. 64: 293–298.

Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., and Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon.In Dornic, S. (ed.), Attention and Performance Vol. VI, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 64–85.

Crowder, R. G. (1982). The Psychology of Reading, Cambridge University Press, New York.Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. J. Exp.

Child Psychol. 50: 429–444.Denckla, M. B., and Rudel, A. G. (1976). Rapid automatized naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia dif-

ferentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia 14: 471–479.Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Except. Child.

52: 535–542.Ehri, L. C., and Wilce, L. S. (1979). The mnemonic value of orthography among beginning

readers. J. Educ. Psychol. 71: 26–40.Erickson, L., and Juliebo, M. J. (1998). The Phonological Awareness Handbook for Kindergarten

and Primary Teachers, International Reading Association, Newark, DE.Felton, R. H. (1993). Effects of instruction on the decoding skills of children with phonological

processing problems. J. Learn. Disabil. 26: 583–589.Fuchs, L. S., and Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant

measurement models. Except. Child. 57: 488–500.Fuchs, L. S., and Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of

reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. Sch. Psychol.Rev. 28: 659–671.

P1: GCR



Gathercole, S. E., and Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Phonological working memory: A critical buildingblock for reading development and vocabulary acquisition? Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 8: 259–272.

Good, R. H., and Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based mea-surement validity. In Shinn, M. R. (ed.), Advances Applications of Curriculum-Based Mea-surement, Guilford Press, New York, pp. 61–88.

Good, R. H., and Kaminski, R. A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward aproactive/prevention model of decision-making for early literacy skills. Sch. Psychol. Q.11: 326–336.

Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., and Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrat-ing the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis.Child Dev. 65: 41–57.

Hogaboam, T. W., and Perfetti, C. A. (1978). Reading skill and the role of verbal experience indecoding. J. Educ. Psychol. 70: 717–729.

Idol, L., Nevin, A., and Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. (1996). Models of Curriculum-Based Assessment:A Blueprint for Learning, 2nd edn., Pro-Ed, Austin, TX.

Kaminski, R. A., and Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacyskills. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 25: 215–227.

Kaminski, R. A., and Good, R. H. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solvingmodel: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In Shinn, M. R. (ed.), AdvancedApplications of Curriculum-Based Measurement, Guilford Press, New York, pp. 113–142.

Liberman, I. Y., and Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to readand write. Remedial Spec. Educ. 6: 8–17.

Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., and Liberman, A. M. (1989). The alphabetic principle andlearning to read. In Shankweiler, D., and Liberman, I. Y. (eds.), Phonology and ReadingDisability: Solving the Reading Puzzle, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 1–33.

Lie, A. (1991). Effects of a training program for stimulating skills in world analysis in first-gradechildren. Reading Res. Q. 26: 234–250.

Lindamood, C. H., and Lindamood, P. C. (1979). Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test—Revised, Pro-Ed, Austin, TX.

Lundberg, I., Olofsson, A., and Wall, S. (1980). Reading and spelling skills in the first schoolyears predicted from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten. Scand. J. Psychol. 21:159–173.

Lyon, A. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Ann. Dyslexia 45: 3–27.Manis, F. R., Custodlo, R., and Szeszulski, P. A. (1993). Development of phonological and

orthographic skill: A 2-year longitudinal study of dyslexic children. J. Exp. Child Psychol.56: 64–86.

Manis, F. R., Doi, L. M., and Bhadha, G. (2000). Naming speed, phonological awareness, andorthographic knowledge in second graders. J. Learn. Disabil. 33: 325–333.

Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., and Ruddy, M. G. (1974). Functions of graphemic andphonemic codes in visual word recognition. Mem. Cognit. 2: 309–321.

Millman, J. (1994). Criterion-referenced testing 30 years later: Promise broken, promise kept.Educ. Measure. Issues Pract. 13: 19–20, 39.

Muter, V., Hulme, C., and Snowling, M. (1999). Phonological Abilities Test, The PsychologicalCorporation, San Antonio, TX.

National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel, Teaching Children toread: An Evidenced-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading andIts Implications for Reading Instruction, National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment, Washington, DC.

National Research Council (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, DC.

O’Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Leicester, N., and Slocum, T. A. (1993). Teaching phonologicalawareness to young children with learning disabilities. Except. Child. 59: 532–546.

Olson, R., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., and Rack, J. (1994). Measurement of word recognition,orthographic, and phonological skills. In Lyon, G. R. (ed.), Frames of Reference for theAssessment of Learning Disabilities, Brookes, Baltimore, pp. 243–277.

P1: GCR



Overton, T. (2000). Assessment in Special Education: An Applied Approach, 3rd edn, Merrill,Columbus, OH.

Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquistion. In Gough, P. B.,Ehri, L. C., and Treiman, R. (eds.), Reading Acguisition, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 145–174.

Rack, J. P., Snowling, M. J., and Olson, A. K. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in develop-mental dyslexia: A review. Reading Res. Q. 27: 28–53.

Robertson, C., and Salter, W. (1995). Phonological Awareness Profile, LinguiSystems, EastMoline, IL.

Robertson, C., and Salter, W. (1997). Phonological Awareness Test, LinguiSystems, East Moline,IL.

Salvia, J., and Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Assessment 7th edn., Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Sawyer, D. J. (1997). Test of Awareness of Language Segments, Aspen, Rockville, MD.Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phono-

logical awareness and some other promising predictors. In Shapiro, B. K., Accardo, P. J.,and Capute, A. J. (eds.), Specific Reading Disability, York Press, Timonium, MD, pp. 75–120.

Schatschneider, C., Francis, D. J., Foorman, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., and Mehta, P. (1999). Thedimensionality of phonological awareness: An application of item response theory. J. Educ.Psychol. 91: 439–449.

Shapiro, E. S. (1989). Academic Skills Problems: Direct Assessment and Intervention, GuilfordPress, New York.

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisi-tion. Cognition 55: 151–218.

Speer, O. B., and Lamb, G. S. (1976). First grade reading ability and fluency in naming verbalsymbols. Reading Teacher 29: 572–576.

Stanovich, K. E. (1982). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of reading. I: Worddecoding. J. Learn. Disabil. 15: 485–493.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-varietypoor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. J. Learn. Disabil. 21: 590–612.

Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., and Cramer, B. B. (1984). Assessing phonological aware-ness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 38: 175–190.

Stanovich, K. E., Feeman, D. J., and Cunningham, A. E. (1983). The development of the relationbetween letter-naming speed and reading ability. Bull. Psychometric Soc. 21: 199–202.

Stanovich, K. E., and Siegel, L. S. (1994). The phenotypic performance profile of reading-disabled children: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-differencemodel. J. Educ. Psychol. 86: 24–53.

Taylor, R. L. (2000). Assessment of Exceptional Students: Educational and Psychological Pro-cedures, 5th edn., Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Tindal, G. A., and Marston, D. B. (1990). Classroom-Based Assessment: Evaluating Instruc-tional Outcomes, Merrill, Columbus, OH.

Torgesen, J. K. (1993). Variations on theory in learning disabilities. In Lyon, G. R., Gray, D. B.,Kavanagh, J. F., and Krasnegor, N. A. (eds.), Better Understanding Learning Disabili-ties: New Views From Research and Their Implications for Education and Public Policies,Brookes, Baltimore, pp. 153–170.

Torgesen, J. K. (1995). The model of memory from an information processing perspective:The special case of phonological memory. In Reid Lyon, G. (ed.), Attention, Memory, andExecutive Function: Issues in Conceptualization and Measurement, Brookes, Baltimore,pp. 157–184.

Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Alternative diagnostic approaches for specific developmental readingdisabilities. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 13: 220–232.

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: Thelingering problem of treatment resisters. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 15(1): 55–64.

Torgesen, J. K., and Bryant, B. A. (1994). Test of Phonological Awareness, Pro-Ed, Austin, TX.

P1: GCR



Torgesen, J. K., Morgan, S., and Davis, C. (1992). The effects of two types of phonologicalawareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. J. Educ. Psychol. 84: 364–370.

Torgesen, J. K., and Wagner, R. K. (1998). Alternative diagnostic approaches for specific de-velopmental reading disabilities. Learn. Disabil. Res. and Pract. 13: 220–232.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., and Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonologicalprocessing and reading. J. Learn. Disabil. 27: 276–286.

Troia, G. A., Roth, F. P., and Graham, S. (1998). An educator’s guide to phonological awareness:Assessment measures and intervention activities for children. Focus Except. Child. 31: 1–12.

Vellutino, F. R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and Research, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Vellutino, F. R. (1991). Introduction to three studies on reading acquisition: Convergent findings

on theoretical foundations of code-oriented versus whole-language approaches to readinginstruction. J. Educ. Psychol. 83: 437–443.

Vellutino, F. R., and Scanlon, D. M. (1991). The preeminence of phonologically based skillsin learning to read. In Brady, S., and Shankweiler, D. (eds.), Phonological Processes inLiteracy: A Tribute to Isabelle Liberman, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 237–252.

Wagner, R. K., and Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causalrole in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychol. Bull. 101(2): 192–212.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Laughon, P., Simmons, K., and Rashotte, C. A. (1993). Thedevelopment of young readers’ phonological processing abilities. J. Educ. Psychol. 85:83–103.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., and Rashotte, C. A. (1994). The development of reading-relatedphonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latentvariable longitudinal study. Dev. Psychol. 30: 73–87.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., and Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of PhonologicalProcesses, Pro-Ed, Austin, TX.

Wagner, A. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R.,Donohue, J., and Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processingabilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: Afive-year longitudinal study. Dev. Psychol. 33: 468–479.

Walsh, D. J., Price, G. G., and Gillingham, M. G. (1988). The critical but transitory importanceof letter naming. Reading Res. Q. 23(1): 108–122.

Webb, M. W. (1983). A scale for evaluating standardized reading tests, with results for Nelson-Denny, Iowa, and Stanford. J. Reading 26: 424–429.

Wolf, M. (1991). Naming speed and reading: The contribution of congnitive neurosciences.Reading Res. Q. 26: 123–141.

Wolf, M., and Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslex-ias. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: 415–438.

Wolf, M., and Bowers, P. G., and Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading:A conceptual review. J. Learn. Disabil. 33: 387–407.

Worden, P. E., and Boettcher, W. (1990). Young children’s acquisition of alphabet knowledge.J. Reading Behav. 22: 277–295.

Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Res. Q.23: 159–177.

Yopp, H. K. (1992). A longitudinal study of the relationships between phonemic awareness andreading and spelling achievement. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco.

Yopp, H. K. (1995). A test for assessing phonemic awareness of young children. Read. Teacher49: 20–29.

Assessment of Phonological Awareness: Review of Methods and Tools

Documents

Transcript of Assessment of Phonological Awareness: Review of Methods and Tools