Reliability and validity of the CTOPP Elision and Blending Words subtests for struggling adult readers
- 635 Downloads
Almost half of American adults struggle with reading but there is a dearth of reading-related assessments for these adults. In turn, researchers and practitioners use assessments designed for children with these adults. This study examined the psychometric and descriptive attributes of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Elision and Blending Words subtests with struggling adult readers. The sample included 207 native English speaking adults reading between the third- and fifth-grade levels. Analyses included comparisons of struggling adult readers to the CTOPP norm group. Results revealed lower overall performance and reliability and validity for struggling adult readers compared to the norm group. In addition, analyses included comparisons of performance, reliability, and validity within the group of struggling adult readers by age. The older adults had lower overall performance as well as more questionable reliability and validity. This study raises concern about administering and interpreting Elision and Blending Words subtests with struggling adult readers.
KeywordsAdult literacy Reading Phonological awareness Learning disability Test reliability and validity CTOPP
This paper represents part of a larger study that was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute for Literacy, and the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education—grant # R01 HD43801.
- Frederick, M., & Markwardt, T. (1997). Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
- Greenberg, D., Wise, J., Morris, R., Fredrick, L., Rodrigo, V., Nanda, A., et al. (2011). A randomized-control study of instructional approaches for struggling adult readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 101–117. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2011.555288PubMed#22180789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., & Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES Report 2007-480). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007480.
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Perin, D. (1991). Test scores and adult literacy instruction: Relationship of reading test scores to three types of literacy instruction in a worker education program. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 1, 46–51.Google Scholar
- Thinkfinity Literacy Network. (n.d.). Adult literacy print resources. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://literacynetwork.verizon.org/Adult-Literacy.109.0.html.
- Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
- Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
- Weiderholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray Oral Reading Tests-Fourth Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
- Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of achievement. Itasca, Il: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar