Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-3
Monster,P.I.: Validation Evidence for an Assessment of Adolescent Language That Assesses Vocabulary Knowledge,Morphological Knowledge,and Syntactical Awareness
Assessment of language skills for upper elementary and middle schoolers is important due to the strong link between language and reading comprehension. Yet, currently few practical, reliable, valid, and instructionally informative assessments of language exist. This study provides validation evidence for Monster, P.I., which is a gamified, standardized, computer-adaptive assessment (CAT) of language for fifth to eighth grade students. Creating Monster, P.I. involved an assessment of the dimensionality of morphology and vocabulary and an assessment of syntax. Results using multiple-group item response theory (IRT) with 3,214 fifth through eighth graders indicated morphology and vocabulary were best assessed via bifactor models and syntax unidimensionally. Therefore, Monster, P.I. provides scores on three component areas of language (multidimensional morphology and vocabulary and unidimensional syntax) with the goal of informing instruction. Validity results also suggest that Monster, P.I. scores show moderate correlations with each other and with standardized reading vocabulary and reading comprehension assessments. Furthermore, hierarchical regression results suggest an important link between Monster, P.I. and standardized reading comprehension, explaining between 56% and 75% of the variance. Such results indicate that Monster, P.I. can provide meaningful understandings of language performance which can guide instruction that can impact reading comprehension performance.
AdlofS. M.HoganT. P. (2019). If we don’t look, we won’t see: Measuring language development to inform literacy instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 210–217.
2.
BrimoD.ApelK.FountainT. (2017). Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 57–74.
3.
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353
4.
BoweyJ. A.PatelR. K. (1988). Metalinguistic ability and early reading achievement. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(4), 367–383.
5.
CainK. (2007). Syntactic awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a special relationship?Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(4), 679–694.
6.
CarlisleJ. F. (1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(3), 247–266.
7.
Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
8.
ChoS.GoodwinA. (2017). Modeling learning in doubly multilevel binary longitudinal data using generalized linear mixed models: An application to measuring and explaining word learning. Psychometrika, 82(3), 846–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9496-y
9.
ClarkD. B.Tanner-SmithE. E.KillingsworthS. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 86(1), 79–122.
10.
CrossonA. C.LesauxN. K. (2013). Does knowledge of connectives play a unique role in the reading comprehension of English learners and English-only students?Journal of Research in Reading, 36(3), 241–260.
11.
DeaconS. H.KiefferM. (2018). Understanding how syntactic awareness contributes to reading comprehension: Evidence from mediation and longitudinal models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(1), 72–86.
12.
EllemanA. M.LindoE. J.MorphyP.ComptonD. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 1–44.
13.
FoormanB. R.KoonS.PetscherY.MitchellA. M.TruckenmillerA. J. (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in grades 4-10: A bi-factor approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 884–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000026
14.
FoormanB. R.PetscherY.StanleyC.TruckenmillerA. (2017). Latent profiles of reading and language and their association with standardized reading outcomes in kindergarten through tenth grade. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(3), 619–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1237597
15.
GarcíaJ. R.CainK. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 74–111.
16.
GoodwinA. P. (2016). Effectiveness of word solving: Integrating morphological problem-solving within comprehension instruc-tion for middle school students. Reading and Writing, 29(1), 91–116.
17.
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.
18.
GoodwinA. P.AhnS. (2013). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(4), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689791
19.
GoodwinA. P.ChoS. J. (2016). Unraveling word learning: Reader and item-level predictors of word learning within comprehension instruction for fifth and sixth graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(6), 490–514.
20.
GoodwinA. P.PetscherY.CarlisleJ. F.MitchellA. M. (2017). Exploring the dimensionality of morphological knowledge for adolescent readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 91–117.
21.
GoodwinA. P.PetscherY.JonesS.McFaddenS.ReynoldsD.LantosT. (2020). The monster in the classroom: Assessing language to inform instruction. The Reading Teacher, 73(5), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1870
22.
GoodwinA. P.PetscherY.ReynoldsD.LantosT.GouldS.TockJ. (2018). When complexity is your friend: Modeling the complex problem space of vocabulary. Education Sciences, 8(4), Article 169.
23.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
24.
GraesserA. C.McNamaraD. S.KulikowichJ. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11413260
25.
HadleyE.DickinsonD.Hirsh-PasekK.GolinkoffR. (2019). Building semantic networks: The impact of a vocabulary intervention on preschoolers’ depth of word knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.225
26.
HartR.CasserlyM.UzzellR.PalaciosM.CorcoranA.SpurgeonL. (2015). Student testing in America’s great city schools: An inventory and preliminary analysis. Council of the Great City Schools. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED569198.pdf
27.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. K. (2012). Knowledge of words, knowledge about words: Dimensions of vocabulary in first and second language learners in sixth grade. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 347–373.
28.
KiefferM. J.PetscherY.ProctorC. P.SilvermanR. D. (2016). Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? Modeling the contributions of language comprehension skills to reading comprehension in the upper elementary grades. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(6), 436–454.
29.
KuY. M.AndersonR. C. (2003). Development of morphological awareness in Chinese and English. Reading and Writing, 16(5), 399–422.
30.
Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). The dimensionality of language ability in young children. Child Development, 86(6), 1948–1965.
31.
LoganJ. K.KiefferM. (2017). Evaluating the role of polysemous word knowledge in reading comprehension among bilingual adolescents. Reading and Writing, 30(8), 1687–1704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9745-1
32.
MacGinitieW.MacGinitieR.MariaK.DreyerL. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading test (4th ed.). Riverside Publishing Company.
33.
MitchellA.Savill-SmithC. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the literature. Learning Skills Development Agency.
34.
NagyW.AndersonR. (1984). The number of words in printed school English. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.
35.
NagyW.CarlisleJ. F.GoodwinA. P. (2014). Morpho-logical knowledge and literacy acquisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509967
36.
NagyW.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108.
PachecoM. B.GoodwinA. P. (2013). Putting two and two together: Middle school students’ morphological problem solving strategies for unknown words. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(7), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.181
39.
PearsonP. D.HiebertE. H.KamilM. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 282–296.
40.
PerfettiC. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.
41.
PerfettiC.StafuraJ. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37.
SpencerM.MuseA.WagnerR.FoormanB.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.TigheE.BishopD. (2015). Examining the underlying dimensions of morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. Reading and Writing, 28(7), 959–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9557-0
44.
TaylorN. A.GreenbergD.Laures-GoreJ.WiseJ. C. (2012). Exploring the syntactic skills of struggling adult readers. Reading and Writing, 25(6), 1385–1402.
45.
TylerA.NagyW. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 649–667.
46.
TzurielD.GeorgeT. (2009). Improvement of analogical reasoning and academic achievements by the Analogical Reasoning Program (ARP). Educational and Child Psycho-logy, 26(3), 71–93.
47.
UccelliP.GallowayE. P.BarrC. D.MenesesA.DobbsC. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.104
48.
WrightT. S.CervettiG. N. (2017). A systematic review of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 203–226.
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.
