What Educators Need to Know About Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN)

From the Bulletin Learning Difficulties Australia www.ldaustralia.org What educators need | LDA Bulletin to know about Rapid (RAN) Naming Automatized Rapid about need know to Educators What Automatized Naming (RAN) In this article, Elizabeth numbers with What is RAN? automaticity, Norton defines the The rapid automatized naming (RAN) those intriguing Rapid task may be one of the simplest alphanumeric assessments that a child can perform. A stimuli can be Automatized Naming RAN task consists of an array of familiar used, and they (RAN) task, explains why items (such as objects, colors, letters, show a stronger or numbers) each repeated several relation with it is related to reading, and times, which the child is asked to name reading (e.g., argues that RAN can be a as quickly as possible. However, the Araújo et al., very useful component of simplicity of the RAN task is elegant 2015). The in light of its strong association with stronger relation for alphanumeric literacy assessment. reading and its predictive power to than non-alphanumeric stimuli may be presage reading ability years into the because the alphanumeric stimuli are future (Norton & Wolf, 2012). more closely related to reading and are There are three key aspects to a a smaller, closed set (that is, there is a RAN task that differentiate it from other limited set of items and no new items tasks and help explain its relationship can be created within that set via small with reading. Each is important for variations, as could be the case with understanding RAN and its role in colors or objects). The small set, typically reading assessment. First, the items 5-6 different items, is likely to be based to be named are presented in an array on the history of RAN tasks, which Abstract (i.e., a grid) and the child names the were developed to be used for adults items across each row from left to right. with aphasia who had lost some ability Rapid automatized naming (RAN) tasks Most tasks have 8-10 items per row to name familiar items (see Cutting & require children to name an array of and 4-5 rows, for somewhere around Denckla, 1999). Note that a variant task familiar items as quickly as possible, 40-50 total items. This mirrors the called the rapid alternating stimulus thus revealing the automaticity of many process of reading connected text, as it (RAS) task includes multiple item types of the same cognitive and linguistic requires similar sustained attention, eye such as colors and letters in one array. movements, monitoring, and cognitive skills central to reading. RAN ability Because traditional RAN is used more processing. Tasks that require naming broadly, that is the focus here. robustly correlates with reading ability, single items quickly (also called discrete across different grade levels, reading trial naming) are not nearly as strongly … the simplicity of the RAN measures, and languages. Despite related to reading ability as RAN is task is elegant in light of all that is known about RAN, many (Logan et al., 2011), likely because teachers and practitioners are unsure the demand of consistent, sustained its strong association with about how or why to employ RAN processing is absent. Researchers reading and its predictive tasks as part of literacy screening and who have used slightly different power to presage reading assessment. Here, the RAN task is arrangements of the grid or different numbers of items generally find similar ability years in the future … explained in terms of what it is and why results (Compton et al., 2002). it relates to reading. Next, the research The second key facet of the RAN The third feature that defines a on the RAN-reading relationship is task is that the child names familiar RAN task is that the items are named as reviewed. Finally, best practices for items. Often for young children these are quickly as possible and that the naming implementing RAN in literacy screening colors or familiar objects. For children time is used as the indicator of ability. and assessment are presented. who know their letter names and Most standardized RAN measures take Volume 52, No 1, June 2020 | 25 From the Bulletin Learning Difficulties Australia www.ldaustralia.org the total time to name the array. Some they analyze very large numbers of that RAN is not only a correlate, but a research measures calculate the time children and allow a more consensus powerful predictor of reading ability. per item, items per second, or time to view across studies. Two large meta- RAN as a deficit in dyslexia name a certain number of items (e.g., analyses found that the correlation Compton et al., 2002); however, these between RAN and single word reading Given the strong association between generally show similar patterns in their was r=0.41 (Swanson et al., 2003, RAN and reading, it makes sense relationship with reading. Qualitative with 2,991 individuals included that a child with poor RAN could have analyses can examine the types of across studies) and 0.45 (Araújo et dyslexia (an unexpected difficulty errors children make (for example, al., 2015, n=26,491). (Note that these with reading that is biologically are the errors self-corrected? Are correlations are absolute values; in based and not caused by primary they substitutions of similar visual or all cases, better RAN is associated sensory or perceptual problems, nor phonological forms?), but because the with better reading.) The correlation lack of effort or opportunity to learn stimuli should be highly familiar and able with text (sentence or paragraph) to read; Peterson, & Pennington, to be named automatically, there are reading was also 0.45 (Araújo et al., 2012). In 1999, Wolf and Bowers typically few errors. Errors also typically n=2,798). The relation with reading introduced the double-deficit contribute to the total time it takes a comprehension ranged from 0.45 hypothesis (DDH), suggesting that child to name the array and thus can be (Swanson et al., n=1,550) to 0.39 dyslexia could be caused by deficits in considered to factor into the total time. (Araújo et al., n=4,965). Restricting phonological awareness and/or RAN, analyses to just orthographically opaque and that children with both (double) Because RAN ability languages like English, Araújo and deficit would be the most severely depends on a large number colleagues found that the association affected. At that time, the field was dominated by the core phonological of perceptual and cognitive of RAN with reading accuracy was 0.44 (n=8,913) and with reading fluency was deficit view of dyslexia. Over the factors, one can think of RAN 0.55 (n=6,565). Together, these results past two decades, dozens – if not as the “check engine light” show that RAN is robustly related to hundreds – of studies have found that RAN deficits are common in children that indicates a problem, but reading, and in English, the strongest relations tend to be with speeded or with dyslexia and can exist on their What Educators need to know about Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) Naming Automatized Rapid about need know to Educators What doesn’t reveal the exact cause. fluency measures. own or in tandem with other deficits like PA. Thus, the view in the field RAN as a predictor of reading Overall, RAN is an important has begun to shift toward a multi- indicator because it shares many ability componential understanding of reading processes with reading. Wolf and Bowers In terms of RAN serving as a predictor ability and dyslexia, recognizing that LDA Bulletin | LDA Bulletin (2000) proposed a model of the RAN- of future reading ability, one meta- a weakness in RAN can cause poor reading relationship that highlights how analysis examined early predictors reading, but that RAN, phonological, RAN shares attention, visual recognition, focused on reading comprehension and other deficits can co-occur and integration, and access processes with (Hjetland et al., 2017). This analysis that profiles of children with dyslexia reading. One way to think of RAN is included 3,746 individuals who are highly heterogeneous (Norton & as a microcosm of reading because of completed RAN assessment at Wolf, 2012). their many shared processes (Norton around age 5 and then a reading & Wolf, 2012). Importantly, RAN is not comprehension assessment later, at The brain basis of RAN just a subcomponent of phonological around age 8. The correlation was Many of the patterns about RAN awareness (PA), as RAN improves found to be r=0.34. Similarly, of those and reading observed in behavior prediction of reading ability beyond PA studies included that also looked at are bolstered by the findings of measures alone (e.g., Kirby et al., 2010). word identification (n=3,285), the neuroimaging research. When adults correlation with earlier RAN scores complete RAN tasks and reading What does the was 0.37. Importantly there was one tasks during fMRI scanning, their research on RAN and outlier included in these analyses brains show highly similar patterns that was listed as having the opposite of activation, involving a host of reading show? RAN-reading relation, so these are regions that support visual, semantic, likely to under-estimate the strength of motor, articulatory, and sound- RAN as a correlate of reading the RAN-reading relation. Our group is symbol correspondence processing ability currently conducting a comprehensive (Cummine et al., 2015). In turn, Hundreds of studies with readers of meta-analysis of how early RAN research on deficits in dyslexia shows many different abilities, ages, and measures in preschool or kindergarten that RAN and PA are distinct; children languages have found significant relate to later reading, measured with PA and RAN deficits showed relations between faster RAN and around the end of grade 2 (McWeeny different patterns of brain activation stronger reading ability.

Load more