Equipped for Reading Success

Chapter J NYASP November 17, 2017

David A. Kilpatrick, PhD State University of New York, College at Cortland [email protected] 1 Understand word-level reading development, including fluency 2 Learn why some children struggle in word reading 3 Learn the highly effective yet “elusive” research based reading interventions 4 Learn some “nuts-and-bolts” assessment information based upon research on reading acquisition and reading difficulties/disabilities “Any well-founded educational intervention must be based on a sound theory of the causes of a particular form of learning difficulty, which in turn must be based on an understanding of how a given skill is learned by typically developing children.” Snowling & Hulme (2011)

Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for reading and language difficulties: Creating a virtuous circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 1–23.  Claims about the gap between research and practice seem to stretch credulity ◦ Millions of grants dollars are spent each year and nobody in our educational system knows about it!?  Who’s claiming that? ◦ American Federation of Teachers ◦ Journal of Learning Disabilities ◦ U.S. Government ◦ Society for the Scientific Study of Reading  No one is to blame for this gap ◦ We all do the best we can with what we know  Studies show this gap exists in multiple fields ◦ Literacy education ◦ Early education ◦ Special education ◦ Educational administration ◦ (gulp!) school psychology  Behavioral psychology camp ◦ Learning theory; task analysis, practice, & reinforcement ◦ Reluctant to acknowledge the mound of empirical research on WM, RAN, but will at least acknowledge PA  But they demonstrate no clear understanding of where it fits in  Cognitive/IQ assessment camp ◦ Patterns of strengths and weaknesses ◦ Cross Battery Assessment  Neuropsychology camp ◦ Cool stuff but not much help for instruction/intervention ◦ Some focus on the un-validated subtypes of dyslexia  Broader reading research field camp ◦ Virtually non-existent “camp” in the school psychology field  Reading research in school psychology is self-generated ◦ We are asked to evaluate students with reading problems ◦ We are expected to make evidence-based recommendations ◦ We apply familiar empirical endeavors to the problem  Learning theory, cognitive/intellectual info, neuropsychology ◦ Most research in school psychology is unfunded & smaller scale  However . . . ◦ There is little or no awareness or interaction with the broader reading research field (the parallel empirical universe) ◦ All recommendations based on these conventional approaches yield 0-5 standard score point gains in reading, often lost at follow up ◦ The broader reading research has generated much better results!  Auditory vs. phonological

 Phonological vs. phonemic

 Orthography and orthographic

 Phonological awareness vs. phonics

 Sight word and sight word vocabulary

◦ Also called orthographic lexicon  Multiple definitions – organizations and popular  Researcher Definition: Word-level reading difficulty despite adequate opportunity and effort (all else is popular lore that’s been with us for over 100 years) • Got a recent boost from the chair of the UK Reading Panel

 Relationship to SLD in IDEA  Relationship to IDEA in general ◦ Cuts across many disability categories  Are there subtypes of dyslexia? ◦ PA vs. RAN vs. PA + RAN – possibly but uncertain ◦ Surface vs. phonological – almost certainly not  Efforts not informed by the broader empirical study of reading  From the “most common cause” to the “universal cause”  Weakness in one or more of the following: ◦ Phonemic awareness/analysis ◦ Phonemic blending/synthesis ◦ Rapid automatized naming ◦ Phonological working memory ◦ Nonsense word reading, letter-sound knowledge acquisition  Typically more than one of these, sometimes all  Very well established with no substantive alternatives 1) Kids who are average or better in all of these do not have dyslexia! (so long as the PA assessments are sensitive) 2) We don’t find poor word readers without one or more of these characteristics WORD-LEVEL READING SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND WORD-LEVEL READING DIFFICULTIES • Raw score improvements

• Statistical significance • Normally, “statistically significant gain” ≠ “closing the gap” • Many abstracts are misleading • “Significant” often means 3 standard score point gains • Effect sizes • The most unsuspectingly misleading index of improvement • E.g., 0 SS improvement on national norms = 22 SS improvement?! • A <1 SS gain (.96) is nearly twice as effective as 22 SS gain (.53) • Standard score gains • Some high profile intervention researchers recommended this • The only one to indicate if a student is closing the gap The little known origins of RTI • TIER 1: Prevention research in 1980s-1990s • 50%-75% reduction in reading problems (reviewed by the National Reading Panel, 2000) • E.g. Foorman et al., (1998) Journal of Educational Psychology • TIER 2: Vellutino, et al. (1996) Journal of Educational Psychology • Reduced RD kids down to 3% under 30th %ile & 1.5% under 16th %ile! • Results maintained 3 years later • TIER 3: Torgesen et al., (2001) Journal of Learning Disabilities • Severely RD 3rd to 5th graders (mean standard score on Word ID = 67) • Mean improvement was 14 SS points at post test, 18 points 2 years later • 40% discontinued from special educational reading support • Replicated with older students and adults • A common faulty assumption is that there is a ‘statute of limitations’ on reading improvement

The little known origins of RTI • Doesn’t this all sound too good to be true? • RTI was designed to “capture” these amazing results • Yet focus seems to have shifted to the “framework” and “process” of RTI • The actual instructional approaches were lost in translation • Everyone has to find these elusive “research-based” approaches on their own • Those highly successful intervention approaches will be covered next To properly assess word-level reading difficulties, we need a • We all have a theory, but you may not know yours • If you can’t think of yours, just work backward from any interventions you use or recommend • Most approaches focus on identifying new words • Including phonics and whole language • What distinguishes skilled from poor word readers? • Ability to sound out/identify unfamiliar words • Ability to remember the words they read • This has been the dominant approach to reading for the last three decades • This theory of reading was developed in the 1960s • It has resisted any modifications based upon the thousands of scientific studies conducted since then • It is continuously affirmed as valid despite extensive evidence to the contrary • There is no evidence that it helps weaker readers catch up and and stay caught up • There is plenty of evidence that it does not • It is the most common “control group” instruction! Contextual • Skilled readers recognize most of the words they read. Context is not required to recognize familiar words. • Give any skilled reader a LIST of words – they can read it quickly and accurately – no context required • Poor readers know fewer words so they rely on context. Grammatical/Syntactic • Grammatical/Syntactic skills are virtually uncorrelated with word reading. Grapho-phonic • Skilled readers effectively sound out unfamiliar words via phonic decoding & set for variability (80% accuracy rate) • Poor readers are weak in phonic decoding. They have to rely on guessing from context to compensate (25% accuracy). • Input and storage are not the same thing • Input is visual, storage is orthographic, phonological, & semantic • Cattell’s findings in 1886 • Findings from the 1970s • Correlation between word reading & visual memory: zero to weak • RD (only) kids have equivalent visual memory to non-RD • 1960s to 1980s miXeD cAsE sTuDiEs • Kevin reading Calvin & Hobbes • Consider all the fonts and personal handwriting we read • Our “abstract representation” of every letter ◦ Word reading correlates strongly with phonological skills  Phonological awareness & Word Reading: r = .5 to .7;  Visual Memory & Word Reading: r = .1 to .2 ◦ Note how we sometimes “block” on names of people and things (visual memory), but never written words ◦ Most students who are deaf struggle tremendously with word-level reading  This should not be such a problem if word reading was based on visual memory!  Neuroimaging studies since 2000 show that visual memory and orthographic memory (memory for written words) involve different areas of the brain Orthographic mapping  Orthographic mapping is the process we use to turn an unfamiliar written word into an instantly accessible, and familiar “sight word”  Many factors affect reading fluency, but one is more powerful than all the others combined: Having a large sight vocabulary  Demonstration of a “sight vocabulary” ◦ Explicit and systematic phonics instruction displays superior results than whole word or whole language (three cueing, guided reading, balanced instruction)  This is true for all children but results “wash out” in the top half to two thirds of students by 3rd to 4th grade  Bottom third show ongoing benefit over time ◦ Too many, however, never “catch up” ◦ A small percentage cannot seem to learn via phonics ◦ No built-in mechanism or theory about fluency and building a sight vocabulary ◦ Three levels of response to phonics based upon the severity of the phonological-core deficit  (And you know all these students!)

Severe Moderate Mild

Level of Severity of the Phonological-Core Deficit An Introduction to Orthographic Mapping • Consider the difference between Chinese writing vs. alphabetic writing • We do not write words! • We write sequences of characters designed to represent sequences of phonemes in spoken words • Alphabetic writing involves phoneme-based characters • Poor cognitive access to the phonemes makes reading alphabetic languages very difficult • Phoneme skills are needed for BOTH sounding out new words AND remembering the words we read • Recall that we do not remember words by visual memory!  We teach ourselves most of the words we know  Orthographic learning occurs one word at a time  Orthographic learning is implicit – typically not much conscious thought  As students put in the work sounding out words, they are connecting phonemes with graphemes and forming orthographic connections  Sight words are highly familiar spellings (i.e., letter sequences), regardless of the visual look of the word ◦ e.g., bear, BEAR, Bear, bear, bear, BEAR , bear, bear, BEAR

 Sight words are anchored in LTM via a connection between something well established in LTM (the word’s pronunciation) and the stimulus that needs to be learned (the letter sequence in the word’s spelling)

 Phonemic segmentation and letter-sound skills are central to this connection-forming process  Both are independently well-established via multiple empirical approaches and designs

 Both help make sense of literally thousands of existing studies on reading development and reading difficulties

 Both theories indicate that ◦ Letter-sound skills and phonemic skills are central for written word memory (i.e., sight word acquisition) ◦ Visual memory plays no discernable role beyond in word level reading beyond letter recognition

 First apparent attempt to integrate these theories was 2015 ◦ Integrated version more powerful in explaining reading research findings than either alone • Thought to only relate do early learning of CVC words

• Not thought to be involved in sight word acquisition

• Not thought to be worth training after first grade

• Some still think it is not causal in reading – only a byproduct of learning to read • (This is actually true! — but only for the top 2/3rds of readers)  Orthographic mapping is the mental process we use to turn an unfamiliar written word into an instantly accessible, and familiar “sight word”  Orthographic mapping requires: ◦ Letter-sound proficiency ◦ Phonemic proficiency (this goes well beyond what is tested on our universal screeners) ◦ The ability to establish a relationship between sounds and letters unconsciously while reading  Orthographic mapping develops naturally in about 60%- 70% of students via exposure to literacy activities ◦ Most students learn to read regardless of how they were taught Phonological Reading Development Development

• Proficiency refers to automatic access to phonemes • This is instant access, either preconscious or unconscious • Only instant responses to phoneme manipulation tasks assess this • Very clear relationship between PA and reading • The importance of phoneme awareness for reading is actually UNDERRATED • Only one test is available that directly assesses phonological proficiency • Unfortunately it is not normed, but the good news is that it’s free! • Why deletion and substitution PA tasks are better assessments of phonemic proficiency • It’s all about automaticity and implicit access to the phonemic segments • Phonemic segmentation tasks do not necessarily assess that • Segmentation assessment is not enough • This all suggests we have not adequately tapped into the phonological processes in reading • Correlation between instant vs. non-instant responses and reading “Transparent” Words (i.e. words with one-to-one correspondence) PLTM /red/ /haz/ w i n Phoneme Orthographic Awareness/ Letter-Sound Mapping Analysis Knowledge /r/ /ĕ/ /d/ /h/ /ă/ /z/ /w/ /ĭ/ /n/ Phoneme Phoneme Blending Awareness/ Analysis r e d /win/ h a s Phonological LTM Activation Oral First: A mind Self-Teaching prepared to store words Hypothesis Print First: Mapping while reading Words that are “Opaque” (i.e. words without a one-to-one correspondence)

/m/ /ā/ /k/ /r/ /ē/ /d/ /c/ /ō/ /m/ m a k e r e a d c o m b Regular vs Irregular & Transparent vs Opaque

/h/ /ă/ /t/ /b/ /ā/ /k/ /s/ /ŭ/ /n/ /s/ /ĕ/ /d/

h a t b a k e s o n s a i d • Irregular and opaque words take longer to learn • Only 1-2 extra exposures for typical readers; many more for RD • Most irregular words are off by only one element • (said, put, comb, island; multiple violations are rare: one, iron) • Irregular words not a challenge for orthographic mapping • “Exception words are only exceptional when someone tries to read them by applying a [phonic] decoding strategy. When they are learned as sight words, they are secured in memory by the same connections as regularly spelled words . . .” (Ehri, 2005 p. 171-172) • Many regular words require mapping “adjustments like irregular words • Silent e words, vowel digraphs, consonant digraphs are all opaque • Multisyllabic “regular” words with vowel reduction require mapping adjustment, much like irregular words (e.g., holiday, market) • Irregular words are not the cause of reading problems in English • Even very regular orthographies (e.g., Italian, Spanish) have RD, and their RD is based upon poor orthographic mapping • It makes English phonic decoding harder to learn, but these irregularities are not the cause of poor sight word reading • Even regular words are poorly represented in the orthographic lexicons of poor readers • Current discussion of “orthographic processing” in school psychology is 10 years behind the research • Classic case of “correlation does not determine causation” • Orthographic “skills” result from orthographic mapping • Orthographic mapping maps words and word parts and patterns! (e.g., –ing, –tion, –ight) • Orthographic knowledge is a byproduct of learning to read, not a causal skill like PA & LS skills

• Current ideas floating around about orthographic processing implicitly posit word learning based upon visual memory • Intervention recommendations coming from such a notion have been shown to be ineffective

1) Studies of K-1 whole class or small group training of . Phonological awareness . Explicit and systematic letter-sound instruction

2) Forman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta (Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998)

(The Journal of Educational Psychology is rumored to no longer accept studies of this phenomenon because the finding is so well established!)  Overall improvement in reading scores

 Average of 8 standard score points

 Results did not always last after 1-2 year follow ups

HOWEVER . . .

 At-risk students averaged 13 standard score point gains!

 Gains increased to an average of 20 points at 6 month to 2 year follow ups!  At-risk readers benefit much more from phonics instruction than the top two-thirds of readers ◦ Typically developing readers will learn the code quite competently whether they are taught it or not ◦ This is often in spite of being taught via the three-cueing approach ◦ They find code-based reading easier and the three cues go into the background – struggling readers don’t have this advantage

 The bottom third is guaranteed to struggle without explicit and systematic ◦ This is due to their phonological weaknesses

 Making conclusions from studies of the whole range of skills and applying it to struggling readers has been problematic ◦ Those dismissive of phonics instruction and phonological awareness instruction routinely do this  285 first & second graders at or below the 18th percentile

 All received the same three-cueing general educational remediation (i.e., “Tier 2” in this case)

 Three different types of classroom instruction (Tier 1) ◦ Direct code: Explicit teaching of phonemic awareness & letter sounds ◦ Embedded code: Taught phonological awareness to the onset-rime level and focused on word families (cat, sat, hat, rat) ◦ Implicit code: No phonological awareness taught, letter sounds taught as needed (this was the school’s standard whole language program – experimental version out performed the school’s!)  Direct code outperformed the other two and had an overall average normed standard score (96 vs. 88 & 89)

 44%-46% of the Embedded Code and Implicit Code groups showed little or no progress

 Only 16% of Direct Code group showed little or no progress

 16% (“treatment resistors”) of that original ≤18th percentile group suggests that only 2% should have serious struggles!

 The Direct Code results also represent a 64% reduction in serious reading difficulties compared to the other two instructional and remedial approaches* *Note that the third and fourth bullets are using different reference points (untreated ≤18th percentile vs. treated comparisons)  Shapiro & Solity (2008) ◦ British Journal of Educational Psychology ◦ 434 kindergarteners, primarily low SES, half were comparison group ◦ Did whole class phonological awareness and letter-sound instruction Results at year’s end: ◦ The prevention group had 5% of students with reading problems (based on the district’s criteria) ◦ The comparison group displayed 20% of students with reading problems (based upon district’s criteria) ◦ That represents a 75% reduction in reading problems based exclusively upon Tier 1 general educational instruction!  Phonological awareness instruction and letter-sound instruction combined had the best results ◦ Doing only one or the other had lesser results  But still better than not doing either ◦ Doubling up on letter-sound instruction did not help when phonological awareness instruction was not included!

 Instructions in both phonological awareness and letter- sounds had to be explicit and systematic ◦ The instruction “as needed” approach was no better than not doing it at all

 Both whole class & small group instruction worked well  Tier 1 instruction – What is effective K-1? ◦ KEY COMPONENTS ◦ Phonological Awareness ◦ Letter-Sound Knowledge ◦ Connecting phonological awareness to word-level reading ◦ Good teaching techniques based on general learning principles  Seems to be the focus of RTI efforts  Early, rigorous development of PA and LS skills in K-1 dramatically reduces the number of struggling readers  Quick Survey: ◦ How many of you work in schools that have a formalized, systematic, whole class, Tier 1 PA training in K-1?  Programs used in studies with highly successful outcomes ◦ Experimenter designed – not commercially available  ◦ Florida Center for Reading Research (pieces of these experimenter designed approaches) – all free! www.fcrr.org ◦ Road to the Code (Benita Blachman et al.) ◦ Phonemic Awareness in Young Children (Adams et al.) ◦ Ladders to Literacy (O’Connor et al.) ◦ Interactive Strategies Approach (Scanlon, et al.) ◦ Other programs:  Rosner program – long track record of success in schools  Equipped for Reading Success (studies underway; based on Rosner) www.equippedforreadingsuccess.com  Most of these programs are effective for K-1 prevention & early intervention, but not for Gr. 2-12 remediation ◦ Other programs are more well suited for intervention (see below)  Numerous reviews of intervention research and meta- analyses have been conducted since 1999  They routinely look at the obvious factors: ◦ Socioeconomic Status (SES) ◦ Age of students (e.g., 2nd graders vs. 5th graders vs. 9th graders) ◦ Length of intervention (e.g., 35 hours? 65 hours? 110 hours?) ◦ Group size (e.g., 1:1? 1:3? 1:5? 1:8? whole class?) ◦ Severity of problem (2nd percentile? 10th? 20th? 30th?)  Contrary to the expectations, the first two show small effects and the other three show no consistent effects ◦ SES showed greater impact with reading comprehension, however  Unlike all the other reviews, the “Big W” involved looking at intervention outcomes in standard score points and working backward from there to the techniques that brought about those outcomes  This is all good news!  We can’t change kids’ SES or age or initial severity, and we typically don’t have enough personnel for 1:1 group sizes  This means that what we control (instruction) can make the most difference!  A breakthrough in intervention research?  About 85%-90% of intervention studies show 0 to 9 SS point improvements while about 10%-15% of intervention studies show 12.5 to 25 SS point improvements  Results maintained at 1, 2, 3 & 4 year follow ups (depending on the study)  Results from the 0-9 studies often lost in follow up studies  Summer 2014: The 0-9 category can be subdivided in two ◦ 0 to 5 SS points and 6 to 9 SS points  Thus a “tripartite” division within the intervention research ◦ Minimal results group: 0 to 5 standard score improvements  Mostly 2-4 points ◦ Moderate results group: 6 to 9 standard score improvements  Mostly 6-7 points ◦ Highly successful group: 12.5 to 25 standard score point improvements  Mostly 14-17 points  Studies in all three categories cut across age, SES, and severity level of reading difficulty ◦ Thus, these factors cannot explain the disparity in outcomes  Studies in all three groups used explicit, systematic phonics instruction ◦ Thus, phonics is not “the answer” ◦ (But it’s an important part of the answer: All studies not using phonics were in the minimal outcome group) Three categories based on outcomes align with three different intervention approaches relative to orthographic mapping!

 This provides confirmation of the orthographic mapping hypothesis  Superb alignment of theory with empirical outcomes  Minimal Group (0 – 5 SS improvements) ◦ None formally trained phonological awareness/analysis ◦ Most did explicit, systematic phonics ◦ All provided reading practice with connected text  Moderate Group (6-9 SS improvements) ◦ All did explicit, systematic phonics ◦ All provided reading practice ◦ Nearly all trained phonological segmentation and/or blending  This is “basic phonological awareness” (mastered by most at end of 1st grade)  Highly Successful Group (12-25 improvements) ◦ Aggressively addressed and “fixed” PA issues using advanced PA training ◦ All did explicit, systematic phonics ◦ All provided reading practice with connected text  Conclusions consistent with orthographic mapping  Unless their problem with advanced phonemic awareness is fixed, poor word-level readers don’t catch up  Advanced phonemic awareness is necessary for sight word development and if they don’t have it, they cannot efficiently add to their sight vocabulary  REVIEW: ◦ Phonemic proficiency and letter-sound proficiency and why they are important Phonological Reading Development Development

1. Early Phonological 1 Letter Name & Letter Awareness Sound Knowledge Rhyming, Alliteration, Syllable Segmentation, First Sound Awareness 2 Phonic Decoding & 2. Basic Phonemic Basic Spelling Skills Awareness Segmentation & Blending 3 Orthographic Mapping 3. Advanced Phonemic (i.e., efficient sight word Awareness acquisition - a rudimentary Best assessed via phonemic version of #3 overlaps with manipulation (and timed) #2)  The three part “formula” used in the studies with highly successful outcomes 1 Aggressively train phonological awareness to the advanced level 2 Teach and/or reinforce letter-sound knowledge & skills (phonics) 3 Extensive opportunities to read connected text  Do these sound familiar . . . ? What are we missing? ◦ Phonological awareness assessment training is typically segmentation  Only takes a child to an ending 1st grade level  Not enough PA for orthographic mapping ◦ Phonological awareness training assumed not to be helpful with older students ◦ Phonological awareness assessments only take us to the basic level – we do not assess the advanced level on our current tests (I’ll provide you with the one exception)  The following interventions have been studied in the empirical reading literature and have been shown to yield 2 to 4 standard score point improvements: ◦ Repeated Readings, READ 180, Reading Recovery, Fast ForWord, Read Naturally, Failure Free Reading, Seeing Stars, and Great Leaps ◦ School psychologists recommend these not knowing they have already been studied and shown to have limited results  Students almost never “catch up” with these approaches  Most of these have studies with “statistically significant” results!  So they can all themselves “research based”!  “Gold Standard” phonic programs (i.e., Wilson, Orton-Gillingham, DISTAR/Reading Mastery) ◦ These can yield huge improvements in Word Attack (15-25 SS points), but modest improvements in general word identification (e.g., 3-5 SS points) ◦ They do not develop phonological proficiency, which is needed for orthographic mapping/sight word development ◦ Phonological-core deficit students only develop PA skills to the level that we teach them  Also, reading comprehension interventions in the presence of significant word reading difficulties are minimally helpful  Programs used in studies with highly successful outcomes ◦ Experimenter designed – not commercially available  ◦ Lindamood (ADD now LiPS)  Be cautious about the one they are promoting now – has limited results ◦ Interactive Skills Program (now in book form) ◦ PhonoGraphix ◦ Read, Write, Type (only one study so far) ◦ Discover Reading (Reading Foundation, Alberta, Canada) ◦ Other programs using advanced PA training not in these studies:  Rosner program – long track record of success in schools  Equipped for Reading Success (studies underway) is the only program based upon Orthographic Mapping–should have equivalent results to the others but is easier to implement (based on the Rosner program) ◦ All studies with highly successful outcomes (12-25 groups) did “advanced” phonological awareness training! • The term Sight word has multiple definitions in education: • Phonically irregular word (also called “exception words”) • Known words that are instantly familiar – regardless of phonic regularity • Sight vocabulary – the pool of familiar words • Researchers also call this the “orthographic lexicon” • Sight words are effortless & pre-cognitive—words “pop out” • Reading approaches focus on encountering new words • How do we store words? • The elusive key to reading fluency is: SIGHT VOCABULARY SIZE • With a large sight vocabulary: Most (or all) words “pop out”; reading is fast and accurate • With a limited sight vocabulary: • Reading is effortful and often • Conclusion: Word-reading fluency is a BY-PRODUCT of a large and ever expanding sight vocabulary – it is not a separate reading-related skill in dependent of other word reading factors • It is good for assessment, however With help from the “Simple View of Reading” Reading Comprehension is the product of: LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION and WORD-LEVEL READING • The first diagnostic question of any student struggling in reading comprehension is: • What if you read it to him or her? • Explains the three well established RD subtypes • DYSLEXIA—Good language comprehension, poor word reading • Most LD struggling readers and many ED kids fit this pattern • HYPERLEXIA—Good word reading, poor language comprehension • Some kids with SLI, ID, and Autism fit this pattern • Often not detected until late elementary school • MIXED or COMBINED TYPE—Poor language comprehension, poor word reading • Most kids with SLI & ID, some LD, ED, Autism fit this pattern • (Compensator—Strong language skills, poor word reading) • Not as well studied as the other three • Typically high IQ with mildly dyslexic pattern • Reading skills average, far below potential, reading is a chore and they avoid it • Phonic Decoding skills are based on • Letter-sound knowledge and skills (Untimed or (timed) nonsense word reading subtests) • Oral Blending (Phonological synthesis) (CTOPP/CTOPP-2; WJ-IV) • Often grouped with phonological awareness • Word Specific Knowledge is based on • Letter-sound proficiency • (TOWRE-2 and KTEA-3 have timed nonsense word reading) • Phonemic awareness proficiency • (Phonological Awareness Screening Test [PAST]; CTOPP/CTOPP-2)  Word Learning is also affected by • Rapid Automatized Naming or RAN • (CTOPP/CTOPP-2 and other tests) • Phonological short-term memory (phonological loop of working memory) • (WISC-IV Digit Span; CTOPP/CTOPP-2 and other tests) • Not all helpful tests are helpful at all age levels • TOWRE/TOWRE-2 is excellent 1-5/6; limited in MS & HS • In elementary school, it’s a good assessment of “sight vocabulary” • Often differs from untimed graded words lists—may be diagnostic • Timed vs. untimed patterns reversed for younger vs. older RD • KTEA-3 has a subtest that works around this problem • TIWRE doesn’t seem helpful in MS & HS (I haven’t tried elementary) • CTOPP-2 Elision gets less sensitive in MS & HS • CTOPP Phoneme Reversal helpful in MS & HS • CTOPP-2 should have kept the Phoneme Reversal subtest • Blending is generally not useful past about end of 2nd • Except for the most severe cases – other PA tasks will catch it • May be good for establishing SLD in older students • Segmentation is almost never the best PA assessment • Other tips • Reading Fluency from WJ-III probably better with younger students (ceiling effect—older, poor readers can do well) • TOSWRF-2 is an excellent test for elementary; could be a group screener or 1:1 • When two PA tasks differ, generally go with the lower one • If the student did not seem to understand the task or try, and word reading is fairly strong, assume the lower is inaccurate • Avoid the PA and WM composites on the CTOPP/CTOPP-2 • Too often strong Blending cancels out weak Elision • Nonword repetition often dissimilar score to Memory for Digits • Only RAN composite seems potentially useful • Other tips • Treat any PA score at or below 30th percentile with caution because about 1/3 of population has mild to severe PA issues that can affect reading • Thus, a 8 on a CTOPP-2 PA subtest is NOT “average” and deserves further attention. A 9 is borderline. Treat only 10 or higher on Elision and Phoneme Isolation as ruling out PA issues • How to spot a COMPENSATOR • IQ > RC > Word Id > Nonsense words > PA • My “secret short cut” battery • WASI/WASI-2 plus Digit Span & Information give all you need • Information correlates with RC r = + .60 but not with word reading • Subtest reliability issues and why I include the WRAT-4 (PAST) • Not to be confused with another online test with the same acronym • “Phonological awareness Skills Test” • Materials available • Data on reliability and validity • Tends to correlate with reading better than anything on the market (at worst, equal to what is on the market) yet it is free • Five alternate versions for progress monitoring • Detailed instructions on administration and scoring  Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST) ◦ Acronym has double meaning

 Based on Rosner & Simon (1971) ◦ Reworked and improved by McInnis ◦ It is “third generation Rosner” ◦ CTOPP Elision is “first cousin once removed”

 Outstanding correlation with reading ◦ .6 to .8 elementary students; .5 adults  Based on phonological manipulation ◦ Uses segmentation, isolation, & blending  Also looks at automaticity of PA  Provides feedback for every item  Takes 6-10 minutes to give  Keyed into remediation program  Five versions for progress assessment  Great supplement for CTOPP  Requires some training  Currently free to use  Not normed – criterion based  Two scoring systems: timed, untimed ◦ 0, 1, X ◦ Timing  Routing - to speed administration  Correction for each incorrect item  Discontinuation rule  Pacing  Tabulation  David Kilpatrick  [email protected]