Researchers have established that morphological awareness is an important skill because it contributes unique variance to word-level reading and reading comprehension; however, few studies include students with reading disorders. The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate whether training morphological awareness would improve morphological awareness skills of students with reading disorders. Ten students were administered four morphological awareness tasks pre and post treatment. Treatment focused on increasing students’ awareness of affixes through oral and written activities. Results revealed a significant group difference on one of the morphological awareness tasks (d = 2.58). Because this was an underpowered pilot study, effect sizes were calculated for all morphological awareness tasks and ranged from 0.28 to 2.58. Although not significant, the effect sizes across tasks offer promise to support a fully powered intervention study. Specific student diagnostic assessment information was included because interventions may have differential effects depending on the students’ strengths and weaknesses.
AbbottS. P.BerningerV. W. (1999). It’s never too late to remediate: Teaching word recognition to students with reading disabilities in grades 4-7. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 221–250. doi:10.1007/s11881-999-0025-x
2.
Al OtaibaS.ConnorC. M.FoormanB. R.GreulichL.FolsomJ. S. (2009). Implementing response to intervention: The synergy of beginning reading instruction and early intervening services. In ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 291–316). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
3.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431. doi:10.1177/00222194060390050401
4.
ApelK.BrimoD.DiehmE.ApelL. (2013). Morphological awareness intervention with kindergartners and first- and second-grade students from low socioeconomic status homes: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 161–173. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2012/12-0042)
5.
ApelK.DiehmE. (2013). Morphological awareness intervention with kindergarteners and first and second grade students from low SES homes: A small efficacy study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 65–75. doi:10.1177/0022219413509964
6.
ApelK.Wilson-FowlerE. B.BrimoD.PerrinN. A. (2012). Metalinguistic contributions to reading and spelling in second and third grade students. Reading and Writing, 25, 1283–1305. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9317-8
7.
ArnbakE.ElbroC. (2000). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209–240. doi:10.4236/ce.2012.37185
8.
BerningerV.AbbottS. (2003). PAL research-supported reading and writing lessons. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.
9.
BillingsleyF. F.WhiteO. R.MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
10.
BotheA. K.RichardsonJ. D. (2011). Statistical, practical, clinical, and personal significance: Definitions and applications in speech-language pathology. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20, 233–242. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0034)
11.
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, 144–179. doi:10.3102/0034654309359353
12.
CainK.OakhillJ. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 683–696. doi:10.1348/000709905X67610
13.
CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP. (2000). Phonological skills and comprehension failure: A test of the phonological processing deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 13, 31–56. doi:10.1023/A:1008051414854
14.
CarlisleJ. F. (1987). The use of morphological knowledge in spelling derived forms by learning-disabled and normal students. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 90–108.
15.
CarlisleJ. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 169–190. doi:10.1023/A:1008131926604
16.
CasalisS.ColéP.SopoD. (2004). Morphological awareness in developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 114–138. doi:10.1007/s11881-004-0006-z
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
18.
DeaconH.KirbyJ. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just “more phonological”? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223–238. doi:10.1017/S0142716404001110
19.
ElbroC. (1990). Differences in dyslexia: A study of reading strategies and deficits in a linguistic perspective. Copenhagen, Denmark: Munksgaard.
20.
EllisP. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GoodJ. E.LanceD. M.RaineyJ. (2015). The effects of morphological awareness training on reading, spelling, and vocabulary skills. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 36, 142–151.
22.
GoodwinA. P.AhnS. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annuals of Dyslexia, 60, 183–208. doi:10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x
23.
HenryM. (1993). Morphological structure: Latin and Greek roots and affixes as upper grade strategies. Reading and Writing, 5, 227–241. doi:10.1007/BF01027486
24.
KamhiA. G.KoenigL. A. (1985). Metalinguistic awareness in normal and language-disordered children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 16, 199–210. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.1603.199
25.
KoutsoftasD.HarmonM. T.GrayS. (2009). The effect of tier 2 intervention for phonemic awareness in a response-to-intervention model in low-income preschool classrooms. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 116–130. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0101)
26.
LarsenJ. A.NippoldM. A. (2007). Morphological analysis in school-age children: Dynamic assessment of a word-learning strategy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 201–212. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2007/021)
27.
Learning By Design. (2010). SPELL-Links Word List Maker [Computer software]. Evanston, IL: Author.
28.
LovettM. W.SteinbachK. A.FrijtersJ. C. (2000). Remediating the core deficits of development reading disability: A double-deficit perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 334–358. doi:10.1177/002221940003300406
29.
LyonG. R.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9
30.
McCutchenD.GreenL.AbbottR. D. (2008). Children’s morphological knowledge: Links to literacy. Reading Psychology, 29, 289–314. doi:10.1080/02702710801982050
31.
McLeodA. N.ApelK. (2015). Morphological awareness intervention: Study of a child with a history of speech and language impairment. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 36, 208–218. doi:10.1177/1525740114560371
32.
NationK.SnowlingM. (1998). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 69, 996–1011. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06157.x
33.
NunesT.BryantP. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. London, England: Routledge.
34.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. (2004). Post hoc power: A concept whose time has come. Understanding Statistics, 3, 201–230. doi:10.1207/s15328031us0304_1
35.
RomanA. A.KirbyJ. R.ParrilaR. K.Wade-WoolleyL. L.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, 96–113. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2008.01.004
36.
ShankweilerD.CrainS.KatzL.FowlerA. E.LibermanA. M.BradyS. A.. . .ShaywitzB. A. (1995). Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled children: Comparison of language skills in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychological Science, 6, 149–156.
37.
TongX.DeaconS. H.CainK. (2014). Morphological and syntactic awareness in poor comprehenders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 22–33. doi:10.1177/0022219413509971
38.
TongX.DeaconS. H.KirbyJ.CainK.ParrilaR. (2011). Morphological awareness: A key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 523–534. doi:10.1037/a0023495
39.
TorgesenJ. K.AlexanderA. W.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.VoellerK. K. S.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58. doi:10.1177/002221940103400104
40.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
41.
WasowiczJ.ApelK.MastersonJ. J.WhitneyA. (2004). SPELL-links to reading and writing. Evanston, IL: Learning By Design.
42.
WechslerD. (2003). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
43.
WerfelK. L. (2012). Contribution of linguistic knowledge to spelling performance in children with and without language impairment (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Vanderbilt.edu
44.
WolterJ. A.ApelK. (2010). Initial acquisition of mental graphemic representations in children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 179–195. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0130)
45.
WolterJ. A.WoodA.D’zatkoK. W. (2009). The influence of morphological awareness on the literacy development of first-grade children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 286–298. doi:10.1044/0161-1461
YoungA.BeitchmanJ.JohnsonC.DouglasL.AtkinsonL.EscobarM.WilsonB. (2002). Young adult academic outcomes in a longitudinal sample of early identified language impaired and control children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 635–645. doi:35400010117985.0070
48.
YsseldykeJ. E.ThurlowM. L.LangenfeldK. L.NelsonJ. R.TeelucksinghE.SeyfarthA. (1998). Educational results for students with disabilities: What do the data tell us? (Technical Report 23). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
