Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 1603–1618 | Cite as

Reliability and validity of the CTOPP Elision and Blending Words subtests for struggling adult readers

  • Alice O. Nanda
  • Daphne Greenberg
  • Robin D. Morris
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Adult literacy Reading Phonological awareness Learning disability Test reliability and validity CTOPP 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Oney, B. (2002). Phonological awareness in literacy acquisition: It’s not only for children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frederick, M., & Markwardt, T. (1997). Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  4. Greenberg, D., Ehri, L. C., & Perin, D. (1997). Are word-reading processes the same or different in adult literacy students and third-fifth graders matched for reading level? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Greenberg, D., Ehri, L. C., & Perin, D. (2002). Do adult literacy students make the same word-reading and spelling errors as children matched for word-reading age? Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Greenberg, D., Pae, H., Morris, R., Calhoon, M. B., & Nanda, A. O. (2009). Measuring adult literacy students’ reading skills using the Gray Oral Reading Test. Annals of Dyslexia, 59, 133–149. doi: 10.1007/s11881-009-0027-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Hock, M. F., & Mellard, D. F. (2011). Efficacy of learning strategies instruction in adult education. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 134–153. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2011.555291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. Mellard, D. F., Fall, E., & Woods, K. L. (2010). A path analysis of reading comprehension for adults with low literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 154–165. doi: 10.1177/0022219409359345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nanda, A., Greenberg, D., & Morris, R. (2010). Modeling child-based theoretical reading constructs with struggling adult readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 139–153. doi: 10.1177/0022219409359344PubMed#20179308.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Pae, H. P., Greenberg, D., & Morris, R. D. (2012a). Construct validity and measurement invariance of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III Form A. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9, 152–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pae, H. P., Greenberg, D., & Williams, R. S. (2012b). An analysis of differential response patterns on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IIIB in struggling adult readers and third-grade children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1239–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Patterson, M. B. (2008). Learning disability prevalence and adult education program characteristics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In C. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Read, C., & Ruyter, L. (1985). Reading and spelling skills in adults of low literacy. Remedial and Special Education, 6(6), 42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sabatini, J. (2002). Efficiency in word reading of adults: Ability group comparisons. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 267–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thinkfinity Literacy Network. (n.d.). Adult literacy print resources. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://literacynetwork.verizon.org/Adult-Literacy.109.0.html.
  21. Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  22. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S. (1997). Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the growth of word-reading skills in second-to fifth-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Venezky, R. L., & Sabatini, J. P. (2002). Introduction to this special issue: Reading development in adults. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 217–220. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0603_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  25. Weiderholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray Oral Reading Tests-Fourth Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  26. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of achievement. Itasca, Il: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alice O. Nanda
    • 1
  • Daphne Greenberg
    • 2
  • Robin D. Morris
    • 3
  1. 1. Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Educational Psychology and Special Education, College of EducationGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations