The Computer-based Orthographic Processing Assessment (COPA) is a newly developed assessment to measure orthographic processing skills, including rapid perception, access, differentiation, correction, and arrangement. In this study, cognitive diagnostic models were used to test if the dimensionality of the COPA conforms to theoretical expectation, evaluate individual items’ quality, and examine the validity and the learning sequence of each skill. Results showed that the COPA captures five distinctive operating attributes, but some items could be revised to increase their item quality. Correlations with external variables confirmed that performances on the COPA are more strongly related to literacy outcomes than to oral language outcomes but that the COPA also demonstrates discriminant validity relative to even proximal measures of word reading and spelling. The mastery probabilities and best-fitting hierarchical model indicate that four of the five attributes follow a learning progression that is consistent with information processing theory and that was assumed by developers of the COPA.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.
2.
ApelK. (2009). The acquisition of mental orthographic representations for reading and spelling development. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1525740108325553.
ApelK.BrimoD.Wilson-FowlerE. B.VorstiusC.RadachR. (2013). Children develop initial orthographic knowledge during storybook reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(4), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.692742.
5.
ApelK.HenbestV. S.MastersonJ. (2019). Orthographic knowledge: Clarifications, challenges, and future directions. Reading and Writing, 32(4), 873–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9895-9.
6.
ApelK.Thomas-TateS.Wilson-FowlerE. B.BrimoD. (2011). Acquisition of initial mental graphemic representations by children at risk for literacy development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(2), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000403.
7.
BarkerT. A.TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K. (1992). The role of orthographic processing skills on five different reading tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(4), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/747673.
8.
BerningerV. W.CartwrightA. C.YatesC. M.SwansonH. L.AbbottR. D. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades. Reading and Writing, 6(2), 161–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01026911.
9.
BerningerV. W.YatesC.LesterK. (1991). Multiple orthographic codes in reading and writing acquisition. Reading and Writing, 3(2), 115–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00420030.
10.
BurtJ. S. (2006). What is orthographic processing skill and how does it relate to word identification in reading?Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00315.x.
11.
CassarM.TreimanR. (1997). The beginnings of orthographic knowledge: Children’s knowledge of double letters in words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.631.
12.
CastlesA.NationK. (2006). How does orthographic learning happen? In AndrewsS. (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing. (pp. 151–179). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841211.
ÇeliközN.ErişenY.ŞahinM. (2019). Cognitive learning theories with emphasis on latent learning, gestalt and information processing theories. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the Word, 9(3), 18–33. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED598366.pdf.
15.
ChalmersK. A.BurtJ. S. (2008). Phonological and semantic information in adults’ orthographic learning. Acta Psychologica, 128(1), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.12.003.
16.
ChenW.-H.ThissenD. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986022003265.
17.
ChenY.-H.SenkS. L.ThompsonD. R.VoogtK. (2019). Examining psychometric properties and level classification of the van Hiele geometry test using CTT and CDM framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 54(4), 733–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12235.
18.
ChenY.‐J. IWilsonM.IreyR. C.RequaM. K. (2020). Aninnovative measure of orthographic processing: Development and initial validation. Language Testing, 37(3), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220909310.
19.
ChenY.‐J. I.CunninghamA. E.Rabe-HeskethS.HinshawS. P.IreyR. C. (2021). The effect of orthographic neighbors on second-grade students’ spelling acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.291.
20.
ChungS. C.ChenX.DeaconS. H. (2018). The relation between orthographic processing and spelling in grade 1 French immersion children. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(2), 290–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12104.
21.
ColtheartM. (2005). Modeling reading: The dual-route approach. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook. (pp. 6–23). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch1.
22.
ComptonD. L.GilbertJ. K.KearnsD. M.OlsonR. K. (2020). Using an item-specific predictor to test the dimensionality of the orthographic choice task. Annals of Dyslexia, 70(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-020-00202-0.
23.
ConradN. J.DeaconS. H. (2016). Children’s orthographic knowledge and their word reading skill: Testing bidirectional relations. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(4), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1183128.
24.
ConradN. J.HarrisN.WilliamsJ. (2013). Individual differences in children’s literacy development: The contribution of orthographic knowledge. Reading and Writing, 26(8), 1223–1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9415-2.
25.
CunninghamA. E (2006). Accounting for children’s orthographic learning while reading text: Do children self-teach?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95(1), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.03.008.
26.
CunninghamA. E.PerryK. E.StanovichK. E. (2001). Converging evidence for the concept of orthographic processing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14(5/6), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011100226798.
27.
de la TorreJ. (2008). An empirically based method of Q-Matrix validation for the DINA model: Development and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45(4), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2008.00069.x.
28.
de la TorreJ. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34(1), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998607309474.
de la TorreJ.MinchenN. D. (2019). The G-DINA model framework. In von DavierM.LeeY.-S. (Eds.), Handbook of diagnostic classification models: Methodology of educational measurement and assessment (pp. 155–169). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05584-4_7.
31.
de la TorreJ.van der ArkL. A.RossiG. (2018). Analysis of clinical data from cognitive diagnosis modeling framework. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 51(4), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1327286.
32.
DeaconS. H.ChenX.LuoY.RamirezG. (2013a). Beyond language borders: Orthographic processing and word reading in Spanish–English bilinguals. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01490.x.
33.
DeaconS. H.CommissaireE.ChenX.PasquarellaA. (2013b). Learning about print: The development of orthographic processing and its relationship to word reading in first grade children in French immersion. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1087–1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9407-2.
34.
DiBelloL. V.RoussosL. A.StoutW. F. (2007). Review of cognitively diagnostic assessment and a summary of psychometric models. In C. R. Rao, S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics (vol. 26, Psychometrics, pp. 979–1030). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
35.
DunnL. M.DunnD. M. (2012). Peabody picture vocabulary test (PPVT-4). Pearson Education Inc.
36.
EhriL. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In SnowlingM.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135–154). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch8.
37.
EhriL. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356.
38.
GeorgiouG. K.ParrilaR.KirbyJ. R. (2009). RAN components and reading development from Grade 3 to Grade 5: What underlies their relationship?Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(6), 508–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903034796.
39.
GraingerJ. (2018). Orthographic processing: A ‘mid-level’ vision of reading: The 44th Sir Frederic Bartlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(2), 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1314515.
40.
HagiliassisN.PrattC.JohnstonM. (2006). Orthographic and phonological processes in reading. Reading and Writing, 19(3), 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-4123-9.
41.
HarmM. W.SeidenbergM. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106(3), 491–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.106.3.491.
42.
HensonR. A.TemplinJ. L.WillseJ. T. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74(2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9089-5.
43.
HsuY.TsaiT. (2007). EZLID: A SAS® macro for local item dependence assessment. NorthEast SAS Users Group.
44.
JangE. E. (2009). Cognitive diagnostic assessment of L2 reading comprehension ability: Validity arguments for fusion model application to LanguEdge assessment. Language Testing, 26(1), 31–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208097336.
45.
JohnsonM. S.SinharayS. (2018). Measures of agreement to assess attribute-level classification accuracy and consistency for cognitive diagnostic assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 55(4), 635–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12196.
46.
KirbyJ. R.DesrochersA.RothL.LaiS. S. V. (2008). Longitudinal predictors of word reading development. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.103.
47.
LeeY.-S.de la TorreJ.ParkY. S. (2012). Relationships between cognitive diagnosis, CTT, and IRT indices: An empirical investigation. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(2), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9196-3.
48.
LeightonJ. P.GierlM. J.HunkaS. M. (2004). The attribute hierarchy model: An approach for integrating cognitive theory with assessment practice. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41(3), 205–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2004.tb01163.x.
49.
McGrewK. S.SchrankF. A.WoodcockR. W. (2007). Woodcock Johnson III normative update technical manual rolling meadows. Riverside Publishing.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). U. S. Government Printing Office.
53.
OlsonR. K.KlieglR.DavidsonB. J.FoltzG. (1985). Individual and developmental differences in reading disability. In WallerT. (Ed.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 4, pp. 1–64). Academic Press.
54.
PasquarellaA.DeaconH.ChenB. X.CommissaireE.Au-YeungK. (2014). Acquiring orthographic processing through word reading: Evidence from children learning to read French and English. International Journal of Disability, 61(3), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.932579.
55.
PaulsenJ.ValdiviaD. S. (2021). Examining cognitive diagnostic modeling in classroom assessment conditions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1–18. (online first)https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2021.1891008.
56.
PerfettiC. A.HartL. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In GorfeinD. S. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 67–86). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10459-000.
57.
PerfettiC. A.HartL. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In VerhoevenL.ElbroC.ReitsmaP. (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.11.14per.
58.
PommerichM.SegallD. O. (2008). Local dependence in an operational CAT: Diagnosis and implications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45(3), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2008.00061.x.
59.
RahbariN.SénéchalM.Arab-MoghaddamN. (2007). The role of orthographic and phonological processing skills in the reading and spelling of monolingual Persian children. Reading and Writing, 20(5), 511–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9042-x.
RojasG.de la TorreJ.OleaJ. (2012, April). Choosing between general and specific cognitive diagnosis models when the sample size is small. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Vancouver, Canada. Pearson
62.
RomanA. A.KirbyJ. R.ParrilaR. K.Wade-WoolleyL.DeaconS. H. (2009). Toward a comprehensive view of the skills involved in word reading in Grades 4, 6, and 8. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(1), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.01.004.
63.
RotheJ.Schulte-KörneG.IseE. (2014). Does sensitivity to orthographic regularities influence reading and spelling acquisition? A 1-year prospective study. Reading and Writing, 27(7), 1141–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9479-7.
64.
RoussosL. A.DiBelloL. V.StoutW.HartzS. M.HensonR. A.TemplinJ. L. (2007). The fusion model skills diagnosis system. In LeightonJ. P.GierlM. J. (Eds.), Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications. (pp. 275–318). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611186.
65.
SAS Institute, Inc. (2020). SAS/STAT 15.2® user’s guide: The IRT procedure.
66.
SeidenbergM. S.McClellandJ. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.96.4.523.
67.
SenS.CohenA. S. (2021). Sample size requirements for applying diagnostic classification models. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 621251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.621251.
ShareD. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72(2), 95–129. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2481.
70.
ShareD. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87(4), 267–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.001.
71.
SimonH. A. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In EstesW. K. (Ed.), Handbook of learning & cognitive processes: V. Human information. (p. 271–295). Lawrence Erlbaum.
72.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. https://doi.org/10.2307/747605.
73.
Sun-AlperinM. K.WangM. (2011). Cross-language transfer of phonological and orthographic processing skills from Spanish L1 to English L2. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(5), 591–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9221-7.
von DavierM. (2008). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61(2), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711007x193957.
76.
WagnerR. K.BarkerT. A. (1994). The development of orthographic processing ability. In BerningerV. W. (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge I: Theoretical and developmental issues. (pp. 243–276). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3492-9_8.
77.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192.
78.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing (CTOPP). Pro-Ed.
79.
WoodcockR. W.MatherN.McGrewK. S. (2007). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Riverside Publishing.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
