Development and validation of Extract the Base: An English Derivational Morphology Test for third through fifth grade monolingual students and Spanish-speaking English language learners
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2012
Development and validation of Extract the Base: An English Derivational Morphology Test for third through fifth grade monolingual students and Spanish-speaking English language learners
This study describes the development and validation of the Extract the Base test (ETB), which assesses derivational morphological awareness. Scores on this test were validated for 580 monolingual students and 373 Spanish-speaking English language learners (ELLs) in third through fifth grade. As part of the validation of the internal structure, which involved using the Generalized Partial Credit Model for tests with polytomous items, items on this test were shown to provide information about students of different abilities and also discriminate amongst such heterogeneous students. As part of the validation of the test’s relationship to criterion, items were shown to correlate with measures of word identification, reading comprehension, and vocabulary measures. Differences in performances for fluent English students and ELLs, students of varied home language environments, and different grade levels were noted. Additionally, the task was validated using a dichotomous scoring system to provide reliability and validity information using this alternate scoring method.
AldersonJ. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AndersonR. C.FreebodyP. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In GuthrieJ. T. (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
3.
AnglinJ. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (10), Serial # 238.
4.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BerkoJ. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.
6.
BondT.FoxC. (2001). Applying the Rasch model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
BowersP. N.KirbyJ. R.DeaconS. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 144–179.
8.
BritainM. (1970). Inflectional performance and early reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 34–38.
9.
CarlisleJ. F. (1987). The use of morphological knowledge in spelling derived forms by learning-disabled and normal students. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 90–107.
10.
CarlisleJ. F. (1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(3), 247–266.
11.
CarlisleJ. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In FeldmanL. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
CarlisleJ. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24(3–4), 291–322.
13.
CarlisleJ. F.FlemingJ. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239–253.
14.
CarlisleJ. F.NomanbhoyD. M. (1993). Phonological and morphological awareness in first graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 177–195.
15.
CarlisleJ. F.StoneC.A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 428–449.
16.
CasalisS.ColeP.SopoD. (2004). Morphological awareness in developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 114–138.
17.
CasalisS.Louis-AlexandreM-F. (2000). Morphological analysis, phonological analysis and learning to read French: A longitudinal study. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 303–335.
18.
ClarkE. V. (1982). The young word-maker: A case study of innovation in the child’s lexicon. In WannerE.GleitmanL. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
ChomskyN.HalleM. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
20.
DeaconS. H.KirbyJ. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just ‘more phonological’? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223–238.
21.
DerwingB.BakerW. (1979). Recent research on the acquisition of English morphology. In FletcherP.GarmanM. (Eds.), Language acquisition (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
ElbroC.ArnbakE. (1996). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209–240.
23.
FowlerA.LibermanI. (1995). The role of phonology and orthography in morphological awareness. In FeldmanL. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
GoodwinA. (in press). Does meaning matter for reading achievement? Untangling the role of phonological recoding and morphological awareness in predicting reading and vocabulary achievement for Spanish-speaking English language learners. 60th Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association.
25.
GoodwinA. P.AhnS. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(2) 183–208.
26.
GoodwinA.AhnS. (2011). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Unpublished manuscript.
27.
Hancin-BhattB.NagyW. (1994). Lexical transfer and second language morphological development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 289–310.
28.
KerlingerF. N. (1999). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Wadsworth Publishing.
29.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. K. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 783–804.
30.
KindlerA. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000–2001 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
31.
KuY. M.AndersonR. C. (2003).Development of morphological awareness in Chinese and English. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 399–422.
32.
KuoL. J.AndersonR. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161–180.
33.
LinacreJ. M.WrightB. D. (2000). Winsteps. University of Chicago: MESA Press.
34.
MahonyD. L. (1994). Using sensitivity to word structure to explain variance in high school and college level reading ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 19–44.
35.
MahonyD.SingsonM.MannV. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 191–218.
36.
MenkenK. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as a language policy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
37.
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education).
38.
NagyW.AndersonR. (1984). The number of words in printed school English. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.
39.
NagyW.BerningerV.AbbottR. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134–147.
40.
NagyW.BerningerV.AbbotR.VaughanK.VermeulenK. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second-grade readers and at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 730–742.
41.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2009). The nation’s report card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010–458). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
NunesT.BryantP.PretzlikU.HurryJ. (Eds.) (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. London and New York: Routledge.
44.
PerfettiC. A.DunlapS. (2008). Learning to read: General principles and writing system variations. In KodaK.ZehlerA. (Eds.), Learning to read across languages (pp. 13–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
PinalA.YoungS.MalabongaV. (2004). Comparative study of literacy components research proposal. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
46.
PinkerS. (1999). Words and rules: Ingredients of language. New York: Perennial.
47.
ReedD. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K-12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(1), 36–49.
48.
ShankweilerD.CrainS.KatzL.FowlerA. E.LibermanA. M.BradyS. A. et al. (1995). Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled children: Comparison of language skills in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychological Science, 6(3), 149–156.
49.
SiegelL. S. (2008). Morphological awareness skills of English language learners and children with dyslexia. Topics in Language Disorders, 28(1), 15.
50.
SingsonM.MahonyD.MannV. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 219–252.
51.
TaylorD. B.MrazM.NicholsW. D.RickelmanR. J.WoodK. D. (2009). Using explicit instruction to promote vocabulary learning for struggling readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 205–220.
52.
TylerA.NagyW. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(6), 649–667.
53.
VerhoevenL.PerfettiC. (2003). Introduction to this special issue: The role of morphology in learning to read. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 209–217.
54.
WangM.KoI. Y.ChoiJ. (2009). The importance of morphological awareness in Korean-English biliteracy acquisition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 132–142.
55.
WoodcockR.W. (1991). Woodcock language proficiency battery-revised, English form: Test book. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
