Achievement and cognitive tests are used extensively in the diagnosis and educational placement of children with reading disabilities (RD). Moreover, research on scholastic interventions often requires repeat testing and information on practice effects. Little is known, however, about the test—retest and other psychometric properties of many commonly used measures within the beginning reader population, nor are these nationally normed or experimental measures comparatively evaluated. This study examined the test—retest reliability, practice effects, and relations among a number of nationally normed measures of word identification and spelling and experimental measures of achievement and reading-related cognitive processing tests in young children with significant RD. Reliability was adequate for most tests, although lower than might be ideal on a few measures when there was a lengthy test—retest interval or with the reduced behavioral variability that can be seen in groups of beginning readers. Practice effects were minimal. There were strong relations between nationally normed measures of decoding and spelling and their experimental counterparts and with most measures of reading-related cognitive processes. The implications for the use of such tests in treatment studies that focus on beginning readers are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Costenbader, V.K., & Adams, J.W. (1991). A review of the psychometric and administrative features of the PIAT-R: Implications for the practitioner. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 219—228.
3.
Dean, R.S. (1979). The use of the PIAT with emotionally disturbed children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 629—631.
4.
Denckla, M.B., & Rudel, R.G. (1974). Rapid automatized naming of pictured objects, colors, letters and numbers by normal children. Cortex, 10, 186—202.
5.
Denckla, M.B., & Rudel, R.G. (1976). Rapid automatized naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471—479.
6.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1997). The case for early reading intervention. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 243— 264). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
7.
Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., Stuebing, K.K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6—23.
8.
Frijters, J., Steinbach, M., De Palma, M., Temple, M., Lovett, M., Wolf, M., et al. (2002, February). Word identification speed and learning transfer of reading disabled children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society, Toronto, ON, Canada.
9.
Gaskins, I.W., Downer, M.A., & Gaskins, R.W. (1986). Introduction to the Benchmark School word identification/vocabulary development program. Media, PA: Benchmark School.
10.
German, D.J. (1989). Test of word finding: Technical manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
11.
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1990). Kaufman brief intelligence test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
12.
Lombardino, L.J., Morris, D., Mercado, L., DeFillipo, F., Sarisky, C., & Montgomery, A. (1999). The Early Reading Screening Instrument: A method for identifying kindergarteners at risk for learning to read. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 34, 135—150.
13.
Lovett, M.W., Borden, S.L., DeLuca, T., Lacerenza, L., Benson, N.J., & Brackstone, D. (1994). Treating the core deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically-and strategy-based reading programs. Developmental Psychology , 30, 805—822.
14.
Lovett, M.W., Lacerenza, L., Borden, S.L., Frijters, J.C., Steinbach, K.A., & De Palma, M. (2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 263—283.
15.
Lundberg, J., Frost, J., & Peterson, O.Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263—284.
16.
Markwardt, F.C. (1989). Peabody individual achievement test—Revised manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
17.
McCullough, B.C., & Zaremba, B.A. (1979). Standardized achievement test used with learning disabled and non—learning disabled adolescent boys. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 65—70.
18.
Naglieri, J.A., & Pfeiffer, S.I. (1983). Stability and concurrent validity of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Psychological Reports, 52, 672—674.
19.
Olson, R., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., & Rack, J. (1994). Measurement of word recognition, orthographic, and phonological skills. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 229—242). Baltimore: Brookes.
20.
Olson, R., Wise, B., Conners, F., Rack, J., & Fulkner, D. (1989). Specific deficits in component reading and language skills: Genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 339— 348.
21.
O'Shaughnessy, T.E., & Swanson, H.L. (2000). A comparison of two reading interventions for children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 33, 257—277.
22.
SAS Institute. (1988). SAS procedures guide, release 6.03. Cary, NC: Author.
23.
Shull-Shenn, S., Weatherly, M., Morgan, S.K., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (1995). Stability reliability for elementary-age students on the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery—Revised (Achievement section) and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 86—92.
24.
Smith, M.D., & Rogers, C.M. (1978). Reliability of standardized assessment instruments when used with learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 23—31.
25.
Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: Early phoneme awareness and phonics teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learners. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 587—605.
26.
Torgesen, J.K., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 1—21.
27.
Torgesen, J.K., & Wagner, R.K. (1996). The comprehensive test of reading related phonological processes. Tallahassee, FL: Author .
28.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency (TOWRE): Examiner's manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
29.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing (CTOPP): Examiner's manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
30.
Wilkinson, G.S. (1993). The wide range achievement test: Administration manual (3rd ed.). Wilmington, DE: Jastak.
31.
Wolf, M., Bally, H., & Morris, R. (1986). Automaticity, retrieval processes, and reading: A longitudinal study in average and impaired readers. Child Development, 57, 988—1000.
32.
Wolf, M., Goldberg O'Rourke, A., Gidney, C., Lovett, M., Cirino, P., et al. (2002). The second deficit: An investigation of the independence of phonological and naming-speed deficits in developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 15, 43—72.
33.
Wolf, M., Miller, L., & Donnelly, K. (2000). Retrieval, automaticity, vocabulary, elaboration, orthography (RAVE-O): A comprehensive, fluency-based reading intervention program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 375—386.
34.
Woodcock, R.W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests—Revised: Examiner's manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
