Letter-name identification has been widely used as part of early screening to identify children who might be at risk for future word reading difficulty. The goal of the present study was to examine whether a reduced set of letters could have similar diagnostic accuracy rather than a full set (i.e., 26 letters) when used as a screen. First, we examined whether a hierarchical scale existed among letters by using a Mokken scale analysis. Then, we contrasted diagnostic accuracy among the 5, 10, 15, and 20 easiest letters, with all 26 letters by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and indices of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power, and negative predictive power. Results demonstrated that a hierarchical scale existed among items in the letter-name knowledge test. In addition, assessing students on the easiest 15 letters was not statistically distinguished from all 26 letters in diagnostic accuracy. The implications of the results for the use of a Mokken scale analysis in educational research are discussed.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
American Institute for Research. (2007). Reading First state APR data. Author.
3.
FeuermanM.MillerA. R. (2008). Relationships between statistical measures of agreement: Sensitivity, specificity and kappa. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14, 930–933.
4.
FoormanB.TorgesenJ.CrawfordE.PetscherY. (2009). Assessments to guide reading instruction in K-12: Decisions supported by the new Florida system. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35(5), 13–19.
5.
FoormanB. R.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J. (2004). Texas Primary Reading Inventory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
6.
FoormanB. R.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.CarlsonC. D.ChenD.MouzakiA.. . . TaylorR. H.(1998). Technical report: Texas Primary Reading Inventory (1998 ed.). Houston, TX: Center for Academic and Reading Skills and University of Houston.
7.
FoulinJ. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read?Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 129–155.
8.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A.SmithS.LaimonD.DillS. (2001). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (5th ed.). Eugene: University of Oregon.
9.
HanleyJ. A.McNeilB. J. (1983). A method for comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 830-843.
10.
InvernizziM.MeierJ. D.SwankL.JuelC. (1999). Phonological awareness literacy screening. Charlottesville: University of Virginia.
11.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582-600.
12.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174–185.
13.
KempenG. I. J. M.MyersA. M.PowellL. E. (1995). Hierarchical structure in ADL and IADL: Analytical assumptions and applications for clinicians and researchers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48, 1299–1305.
14.
KimY.-S.PetscherY.FoormanB.ZhouC. (2010). The contributions of phonological awareness and letter-name knowledge to letter sound acquisition—A cross-classified multilevel model approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 313-326.
15.
LoniganC. J. (2006). Development, assessment, and promotion of pre-literacy skills. Early Education and Development, 17, 91–14.
16.
LoniganC. J.BurgessS. R.AnthonyJ. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596–613.
17.
LoniganC. J.WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (2007). TOPEL: Test of Preschool Early Literacy. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
18.
MaddenR.GardnerE. F.CollinsC. S. (1983). Stanford Early School Achievement Test. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
19.
McBride-ChangC. (1999). The ABCs of the ABCs: The development of letter-name and letter-sound knowledge. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 285-308.
20.
McCardleP.ScarboroughH. S.CattsH. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16, 230–239.
21.
MeijerR. R.SijtsmaK.SmidN. G. (1990). Theoretical and empirical comparison of the Mokken and Rasch approach to IRT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 283–298.
22.
MokkenR. J.LewisC.SijtsmaK. (1986). Rejoinder to “The Mokken Scale: A critical discussion.”Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 279-285.
23.
MokkenR. J. (1997). Nonparametric models for dichotomous responses. In van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 351–367). New York, NY: Springer.
24.
MolenaarI. W.SijtsmaK. (2000). User’s manual MSP5 for Windows. Groningen, The Netherlands: IEC ProGAMMA.
25.
MoorerP.SuurmeijerTh. P. B. M.FoetsM.MolenaarI. W. (2001). Psychometric properties of the RAND-36 among three chronic diseases (multiple sclerosis, rheumatic diseases, and COPD) in the Netherlands. Quality of Life Research, 10, 637–645.
26.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Screening tools chart. Washington, DC: Author.
27.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
29.
O’ConnorR. E.JenkinsJ. R. (1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197.
30.
PetscherY.KimY.-S.FoormanB. R. (2011). The importance of predictive power in early screening assessments: Implications for placement in the RTI framework. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(3), 158-166.
31.
RathvonN. (2004). Early reading assessment: A practitioner’s handbook. New York, NY: Guilford.
32.
ReidD. K.HreskoW. P.HammillD. D. (1981). The Test of Early Reading Ability. Austin, TX: Pro-ED.
33.
ScanlonD. M.VellutinoF. R. (1997). A comparison of the instructional backgrounds and cognitive profiles of poor, average, and good readers who were initially identified as at risk of reading failure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 191–215.
34.
ScarboroughH. S. (1998). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 115–136.
35.
SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.CarlsonC. D.FoormanB. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–282.
36.
ShareD. L. (2004). Knowing letter names and learning letter sounds: A causal connection. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 213–233.
37.
SijtsmaK. (1998). Methodology review: Nonparametric IRT approaches to the analysis of dichotomous items scores. Applied Psychological Measurment, 22, 3-31.
38.
SpeeceD. H.MillsC.RitcheyK. D.HillmanE. (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education, 36, 223–233.
39.
SwetsJ. A. (1988). Measuring the diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285–1293.
40.
Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI; 2006–2008). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
41.
TreimanR.KesslerB. (2003). The role of letter names in the acquisition of literacy. In KailR. (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 31, pp. 105–135). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
42.
Van BoxelY. J. J. M.RoestF. H. J.BergenM. P.StamH. J. (1995). Dimensionality and hierarchical structure of disability measurement. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 76, 1552–1555.
43.
WatsonR. (1996). The Mokken scaling procedure (MSP) applied to the measurement of feeding difficulty in elderly people with dementia. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 33, 385-393.
44.
WatsonR.DearyI.AustinE. (2007). Are personality trait items reliably more or less “difficult”? Mokken scaling of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1460–1469.
45.
WoodcockR.MatherN.SchrankF. A. (1997). Woodcock Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
