The purpose of this study was to analyze published decoding tests, at the item level, to determine what decoding skills and discrete letter-patterns are assessed, and identify potential instructional implications of these measures. Twenty published word list decoding tests, either used in research or within a Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS) framework, were included for analysis. Test items were coded at the syllable level to identify discrete letter-patterns that represent common decoding skills. Frequency of these skills, along with administration features, were analyzed to identify commonalities and differences between published decoding tests. Results show the published decoding tests analyzed vary in the number of decoding skills they measure. All tests showed potential for providing some diagnostic information to inform instructional practices. Implications for practice, directions for future research, and limitations are discussed.
Aimsweb. (2012). Nonsense Word Fluency [Measurement instrument]. Bloomington, IN: Pearson.
2.
BlevinsW. (2006). Phonics from A to Z (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Scholastic.
3.
CapizziA. M.FuchsL. S. (2005). Effects of curriculum-based measurement with and without diagnostic feedback on teacher planning. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 159–174.
4.
CarlsonJ. F.GeisingerK. F.JonsonJ. L. (Eds.). (2014). The nineteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Center for Testing.
5.
CarlsonJ. F.GeisingerK. F.JonsonJ. L. (Eds.). (2016). The twentieth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Center for Testing.
6.
CarverR. P. (1998). Predicting reading level in grades 1 to 6 from listening level and decoding level: Testing theory relevant to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 121–154.
7.
CarverR. P. (2003). The highly lawful relationships among pseudoword decoding, word identification, spelling, listening, and reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 127–154.
8.
ChallJ. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
9.
ChristoC.DavisJ. (2008). Rapid naming and phonological processing as predictors of reading and spelling. The California School Psychologist, 13, 7–18.
10.
Consortium on Reading Excellence. (2008). Core phonics surveys. In HoningB.DiamondL.NathanR. (Eds.), Assessing reading: Multiple measures for kindergarten through eighth grade (2nd ed., pp. 63–80). Novato, CA: Arena.
11.
DeeneyT. A. (2010). One-minute fluency measures: Mixed messages in assessment and instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63, 440–450.
12.
DiBenedettoB.RichardsonE.KochnowerJ. (1983). Vowel generalization in normal and learning disabled readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 754, 576–582.
13.
EasyCBM. (2006). Word reading fluency [Measurement instrument]. Eugene: University of Oregon.
14.
EhriL. C. (1997). Sight word learning in normal readers and dyslexics. In BlachmanB. (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications of early intervention (pp. 163–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
EhriL. C.WilceL. S. (1987). Cipher versus cue reading: An experiment in decoding acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 3–13.
16.
EngelmannS. (2007). Student-program alignment and teaching to mastery. Journal of Direct Instruction, 7, 45–66.
17.
FastBridge Learning. (2016a). Decodable word reading [Measure-ment instrument]. Minneapolis, MN.
18.
FastBridge Learning. (2016b). Nonsense word reading [Measure-ment instrument]. Minneapolis, MN.
19.
FastBridge Learning. (2016c). Sight word reading [Measurement instrument]. Minneapolis, MN.
20.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
FryE. B.KressJ. E. (2006). The reading teacher’s book of lists (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
FuchsD.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.CaffreyE. (2011). The construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment of young children learning to read: Implications for RTI frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 339–347.
23.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1990). The role of skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psychology Review, 19, 6–17.
24.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1996). Combining performance assessment and curriculum-based measurement to strengthen instructional planning. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 183–192.
25.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (2007). Using curriculum-based measurement to inform reading instruction. Reading and Writing, 20, 553–567.
26.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AllinderR. M. (1989). The reliability and validity of skills analysis within curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique, 14, 203–221.
27.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AllinderR. M. (1991). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57, 443–452.
28.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.HamlettC. L. (2003). The potential for diagnostic analysis within curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 13–22.
29.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
30.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PowellS. (2004). Using CBM for progress monitoring. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
31.
GeisingerK. F.SpiesR. A.CarlsonJ. F.PlakeB. S. (Eds.). (2007). The seventeenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. C.Kame’enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
34.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD.Kame’enuiE.KaminskiR. A.WallinJ. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through third grade. Eugene: University of Oregon.
35.
GottardoA.ChiappeP.SiegelL. S.StanovichK. E. (1999). Patterns of word and nonword processing in skilled and less-skilled readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 465–487.
36.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
37.
HamiltonL.HalversonR.JacksonS. S.MandinachE.SupovitzJ.A. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/279
38.
HenryM. K. (2010). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
39.
HospJ. L.ArdoinS. P. (2008). Assessment for instructional planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 69–77.
40.
HospM. K.FuchsL. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade?School Psychology Review, 34, 9–26.
41.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
42.
JoshiR. M.AaronP. G. (2002). Naming speed and word familiarity as confounding factors in decoding. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 160–171.
43.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2014). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (3rd ed.) [Measurement instrument]. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
44.
MartensB. K.SteeleE. S.MassieD. R.DiskinM. T. (1995). Curriculum bias in standardized tests of reading decoding. Journal of School Psychology, 33, 287–296.
45.
MathersN.SammonsJ.SchwartzJ. (2006). Adaptations of the Names test: Easy-to-use phonics assessments. The Reading Teacher, 60, 114–122.
46.
MoatsL.TolmanC. (2009). Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS): The challenge of learning to read (Module 1). Boston, MA: Sopris West.
47.
MurrayM. S.MungerK. A.ClonanS. M. (2012). Assessment as a strategy to increase oral reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47, 144–151.
48.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The nation’s report card: Mathematics and reading assessments. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
49.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
50.
OlinghouseN. G.LambertW.ComptonD. L. (2006). Monitoring children with reading disabilities’ response to phonics intervention: Are there differences between intervention aligned and general skill progress monitoring assessments?Exceptional Children, 73, 90–106.
51.
ParkerD. C.BurnsM. K. (2014). Using the instructional level as a criterion to target reading interventions. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30, 79–94.
52.
PerfettiC. A. (1986). Continuities in reading acquisition, reading skill, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 11–21.
53.
PierceM.KatzirT.WolfM.NoamG. (2010). Examining the construct of reading among dysfluent urban children: A factor analysis approach. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 124–158.
54.
PritchardS. C.ColtheartM.PalethorpeS.CastlesA. (2012). Nonword reading: Comparing dual-cascaded and connectionist dual-process models with human data. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 1268–1288.
55.
ReutzelD. R.BrandtL.FawsonP. C.JonesC. D. (2014). Exploration of the consortium on reading excellence phonics survey: An instrument for assessing primary-grade student’ phonics knowledge. The Elementary School Journal, 115, 49–72.
56.
RitcheyK. D. (2008). Assessing letter sound knowledge: A comparison of letter sound fluency and nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 74, 487–506.
57.
SchrankF. A.MatherN.McGrewK. S. (2014). Woodcock Johnson Test of Academic Achievement (4th ed.): Word Attack [Measurement instrument]. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
58.
SpiesR. A.CarlonsJ. F.GeisingerK. F. (Eds.). (2010). The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
59.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency (2nd ed.) [Measurement instrument]. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
60.
Van der LelyH. K. J.MarshallC. R. (2010). Assessing component language deficits in the early detection of reading difficulty risk. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 357–368.
61.
WechslerD. (2005). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.) [Measurement instrument]. London, England: The Psychological Corporation.
62.
WillsonV. L.RupleyW. H.RodriguezM.MergenS. (1999). The relationships among orthographic components of word identification and spelling for grades 1-6. Reading Research and Instruction, 39, 89–102.
63.
WilsonS. B.LoniganC. J. (2010). Identifying preschool children at risk of later reading difficulties: Evaluation of two emergent literacy screening tools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 62–76.
WoodcockR. W.JohnsonM. B. (2014). Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement (4th ed.) [Measurement instrument]. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
66.
ZumetaR. O.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S. (2012). Using word identification fluency to monitor first-grade reading development. Exceptional Children, 78, 201–220.
