Printer Friendly

Phonological awareness abilities of 6-year-old children with mild to moderate phonological impairments.

Standardized and nonstandardized assessments of phonological awareness skills were administered to two groups of 6-year-old children. Group 1 passed a language screening but exhibited mild or moderate phonological impairments on the Assessment of Phonological Processes--Revised. Group 2 passed a language screening and exhibited no phonological errors. Results indicated that the children with phonological errors performed significantly more poorly on both the standardized and the nonstandardized tests of phonological awareness. This study provides further evidence that children with relatively mild phonological problems independent of concomitant language disorders should be considered at risk for phonological awareness problems.

Keywords: phonological awareness; articulation; children

**********

Several previously reported studies have demonstrated that children with expressive phonological disabilities perform more poorly on phonological awareness tasks than age peers without phonological impairment (Bird, Bishop, & Freeman, 1995; Catts, 1991a; Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999; Cowan & Moran, 1997; Larrivee & Catts, 1999; Magnusson & Naucler, 1993; Rvachew, Ohberg, Grawburg, & Heyding, 2003; Vellutino & Shub, 1992; Webster & Plante, 1992). These findings, however, have been somewhat equivocal in regard to two aspects: the presence of concomitant language problems and the severity of the phonological disorder. For example, Catts (1991b) suggested that children who have pure articulation disorders, without language disorders, are not at-risk for later phonological awareness difficulties. On the other hand, Rvachew et al. (2003) reported that children with expressive phonological delay performed poorly on tasks of phonological awareness when compared with peers independent of a language deficit. Furthermore, Cowan and Moran (1997) suggested that even children with mild articulation errors may perform more poorly on phonological awareness tasks than their same-age peers with no articulation problems.

Understanding the relationship between phonological awareness and phonological disorders is important for at least two reasons. First, defining the relationship between phonological performance and phonological awareness could help determine when phonological awareness testing and treatment should be part of the assessment and intervention with phonologically impaired children. Second, phonological awareness has been linked to reading problems (Blachman, 1984; Blachman & James, 1986; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Catts, 1991b; Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Lundberg, Olofsson, & Wall, 1980; Mann, 1984; Mann & Lieberman, 1984; Share, Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984; Stanovich, Cunningham, & Cramer, 1984; Torneus, 1984; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). More recently, Castles and Coltheart (2004) have questioned whether the link between phonological awareness and reading skill is causative in nature. After an extensive review of the literature, they concluded that there was no unequivocal evidence of a causal link between phonological awareness and the acquisition of reading and spelling skills. However, Hulme, Snowling, Caravolas, and Carroll (2005) have indicated the majority of evidence supports a causative relationship but that the nature of the relationship is part of a multicausal pattern. Determining those phonologically impaired children who are likely to exhibit phonological awareness problems could also provide an early indication of children at risk for reading problems.

To date, there is limited evidence that phonological disorders alone, independent of a language disorder, are associated with phonological awareness skills. Rvachew et al. (2003) reported that children with phonological disorders without accompanying language problems demonstrated difficulty with phonological awareness. However, the only aspect of language testing used to rule out a concomitant language disorder was a test of receptive vocabulary. Cowan and Moran (1997) also reported finding a relationship between phonological awareness and articulation disorders independent of language disorders, but that finding was not the main focus of the study and was based on a very small subgroup of participants.

The present study was designed to compare the phonological awareness skills of 6-year-old children who exhibit mild and moderate articulation disorders and no concomitant language impairments with those of age peers exhibiting no speech or language impairments.

Method

Participants

Participants in the present study were 24 students, 6 years of age (plus or minus 2 months), who attended elementary school in east-central Alabama. The participants ranged in age from 5 years 11 months to 7 years 2 months. Twenty-three participants were White, one was African American. The African American participant did not exhibit features of African American English on any test or in interaction with the examiner. All participants passed a pure-tone audiometric screening test at 25 dB HL ISO for 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz bilaterally (American National Standards Institute, 1989). All participants were also administered an oral-mechanism examination to rule out any gross motor or structural deviations. Students receiving special education services other than speech and language (e.g., emotionally conflicted, mentally retarded, multiple disabilities, and specific learning disabilities) were excluded from the participant pool.

To rule out language problems, all participants were administered the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals--Fourth Edition, Screening Test (CELF-4 Screening; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2004). This instrument was chosen because according to the norming information provided by the CELF-4, the screener was found to overidentify children as having language disorders, when in fact they did not. The investigators felt that the use of such a conservative screening measure provided an efficient method of ruling out language disorders. That conservative aspect of the CELF-4 instrument was a significant factor in selecting it for use in the present study. To pass the CELF-4, a participant had to achieve or exceed a designated criterion score provided in the test manual for various age groups. The score achieved by each participant as well as the criterion score for that subject are presented in Appendix A. After passing the CELF-4, all participants were administered the Assessment of Phonological Processes--Revised (APP-R; Hodson, 1986) to assess their phonological ability. This assessment was selected because the APP-R provides a composite phonological deviancy score that is used to categorize phonological impairment as mild, moderate, severe, or profound. Based on performance on the APP-R, the participants were assigned to two groups of 12.

Group 1 (impaired). Participants in this group passed the CELF-4 and achieved composite phonological deviancy scores on the APP-R, which placed them in the mild or moderate category. The types of errors exhibited by each participant in Group 1 are shown in Appendix A. This group consisted of 2 girls and 10 boys ranging in age from 5 years 11 months to 7 years, with an average age of 6 years 5 months. The most common errors were in the liquid (phonemes/r/and/1/) category. Some participants exhibited phonological process errors. For example, 7 of the 12 still exhibited consonant sequence omission. However, these children were, for the most part, inconsistent in the use of these processes.

Group 2 (nonimpaired). Participants in this group passed the CELF-4 and did not exhibit articulation and phonological errors on the APP-R. This group consisted of 6 girls and 6 boys ranging in age from 6 years 3 months to 7 years 2 months, with an average age of 6 years 9 months.

Procedure

Each participant was administered the Test of Phonological Awareness Skills (TOPAS; Newcomer & Barenbaum, 2003). The TOPAS is a standardized test of phonological awareness skills. The test consists of four subtests: rhyming, incomplete words, sound sequencing, and sound deletion.

The rhyming portion involves the investigator reading a phrase with a word missing. The participant is asked to supply the missing word that should rhyme with a stressed word in the phrase. For example, "The frog sat on the__[log]."

The incomplete word portion involves the investigator reading a word with a syllable or phoneme missing. The participant is required to give the investigator the entire target word. For example, "I'm going to say part of the word, I want you to tell me what the whole word I was trying to say is abbage (target word: cabbage)."

The sound sequencing portion involves the investigator training the participant to associate different colored blocks with sounds. The participant is then asked to listen to a nonword sequence of sounds and arrange the colored blocks in a corresponding sequence. For example, "The blue block says 'b' and the red block says 'a' and yellow block says 'z.' Now I will say the sounds, and you put the blocks in the same order, 'b,a,z,a' [blue, red, yellow, red]."

The sound deletion subtest requires the participant to say what a word spoken by the investigator would be if a sound was deleted. For example, "Say stop without the 's.'"

From the raw scores obtained from these four subtests, a standard score is determined. Also, once standard scores are determined for each of the subtests, a composite score can be obtained using each of the four standard scores.

Tyler (2005) suggested that both standardized and nonstandardized tests should be administered to assess the phonological awareness abilities of children. Previous research has often employed nonstandardized assessments. To compare the results of the present study with previous investigations that did not use a standardized test such as the TOPAS, participants were also administered three nonstandardized measures. These measures were similar to those used by Cowan and Moran (1997). This nonstandardized assessment consisted of three tasks: phoneme counting, rhyming, and phoneme blending. The scores used to compare the nonstandardized subtests were simply a percentage of the items performed correctly on each task.

The phoneme counting task required the participants to listen to sounds in isolation and in sequences (C, V, CV, VC, or CVC) produced by the investigator. The participants were then instructed to tap with a pencil to indicate the number of sounds produced.

The rhyming task required the participant to simply say "yes" or "no" when asked whether two simple words rhymed, for example, "Do fun and sun rhyme?" The phoneme blending portion required the participant to blend between two and three phonemes into familiar words, for example, "What word does r-e-d make?"

Each participant was tested individually in a quiet room of his or her school by the first author or a graduate student in speech language pathology. The graduate student was in her final semester of a master's degree program and had completed all of the course work related to articulation and language assessment. To ensure that both examiners scored the tasks in a similar manner, the first author and graduate student administered the first 12 assessments together scoring the responses independently. The two were in agreement on 100% of responses. Because they appeared to be well calibrated to what was expected on each task, the two examiners scored the remaining subjects separately. During assessment, the participants were seated at a table with the examiner seated behind the subject. This positioning eliminated visual cues.

Results

The means and standard deviations of the scaled scores for each subtest on the TOPAS are presented for both groups in Table 1.

The participants' performance on the TOPAS was subjected to a two-factor (Group x Task) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures. The results of the ANOVA indicated that the nonimpaired group performed significantly better, F(1, 23) = 8.399, p = .008, than the phonologically impaired group on the TOPAS. The ANOVA also indicated that there was a significant difference, F(3, 72) = 6.366, p = .0007, among the scores attained on the subtests of the TOPAS. There was no significant interaction between the group and task factors. A Newman-Keuls post hoc analysis was performed to identify significant differences among the four TOPAS subtests. The results of the Newman-Keuls are presented in Table 2.

From Table 2, it can be seen that scores on the sound-sequencing subtest were significantly higher than scores on the rhyming and the incomplete word subtests. No other significant differences were detected. It should be noted, however, that the difference between the phoneme deletion subtest and the rhyming subtest was very close to significant at the .05 level. The Q value obtained when comparing these two subtests was 3.713, and the criterion level for significance at .05 was 3.737.

Participants were also compared on the TOPAS composite score. The nonimpaired group demonstrated a mean composite score of 124.083 (SD = 12.36) compared to a mean score of 106.917 (SD = 18.84) for the phonologically impaired group. This indicates a better performance by the nonimpaired group. A two-tailed t test indicated that this difference was significant (t = -2.647, df = 22, p = .0147).

In addition to the standardized TOPAS, the participants in the present study were also administered three nonstandardized phonological awareness tasks, which have been used in previous investigations. These tasks included rhyming, phoneme counting, and phoneme blending. The means and standard deviations of the percentage of correct responses on each of these tasks for both groups are presented in Table 3.

The performance of the participants on these nonstandardized tasks was subjected to a two-factor (Group x Task) ANOVA with repeated measures. Results of the ANOVA indicated that, as on the TOPAS, the nonimpaired group performed significantly better, F(1, 23) = 6.191, p = .021, than the phonologically impaired group. The ANOVA also indicated that there was a significant difference, F(2, 48) = 15.535, p = < .0001, among the scores attained on these three phonological awareness tasks. There was no significant interaction between the group and task factors. A Newman-Keuls post hoc analysis was performed to identify significant differences among the three nonstandardized tasks. The results of the Newman-Keuls are presented in Table 4. From Table 4, it can be seen that all three tasks differ significantly from each other with the best performance on sound blending, next best on rhyming, and the poorest performance on phoneme counting.

Discussion

The results of this study are consistent with previous research that has demonstrated that children with phonological disorders perform more poorly on phonological awareness tasks than do children without phonological impairments (Bird et al., 1995; Catts, 1991a; Catts et al., 1999; Cowan & Moran, 1997; Larrivee & Catts, 1999; Magnusson & Naucler, 1993; Rvachew et al., 2003; Vellutino & Shub, 1992; Webster & Plante, 1992). Some authors (Bishop & Adams, 1990) have suggested that children with phonological disorders and accompanying language problems are more likely to experience problems in phonological awareness than children with phonological problems and no accompanying language problems. The results of the present study indicate that children with mild and moderate phonological disorders independent of any coexisting language disorder performed more poorly on both standardized and nonstandardized tests of phonological awareness than did a control group of children without phonological errors. This finding supports the suggestion by Cowan and Moran (1997) that children with much milder degrees of expressive phonological impairment than previously described are at risk for problems with phonological awareness. The results of the present study are also consistent with the findings of Bird et al. (1995) and Rvachew et al. (2003) that phonological disorders independent of a language disorder can affect children's phonological awareness skills.

The present study did not examine the reading or spelling abilities of the participants. There is, however, extensive literature that links phonological awareness abilities and later abilities in reading and spelling (Blachman, 1984; Blachman & James, 1986; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Ehri et al., 2001; Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Lundberg et al., 1980; Mann, 1984; Mann & Lieberman, 1984; Share et al., 1984; Stanovich et al., 1984; Torneus, 1984; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). If children with mild to moderate phonological disorders are at risk for phonological awareness deficits, school personnel should, at the very least, closely monitor the reading development of children who exhibit such disorders. Because phonological awareness assessments are generally not lengthy and tend to be game-like in nature, they are quick and easy to administer. Such evaluations could easily be added to the typical speech and language assessments performed in school settings, providing valuable predictive information regarding the potential for later reading problems. Diligence on the part of school personnel in the early identification of phonological awareness problems is critical as children with mild articulation or phonological disorders alone may not qualify for remedial services. The present study demonstrated that a readily available standardized test, such as the TOPAS, appeared to yield the same results as those nonstandardized tasks used in research. Such tests could be employed in routine phonological assessments to provide the benefits of a standardized test.

There are at least two caveats that should be noted regarding the above suggestions. First, with regard to the performance on the TOPAS it must be pointed out that although the mild to moderately phonologically impaired children in the present study performed more poorly on tasks of phonological awareness as compared with the control group, they did not, in most cases, score outside the average range for their age group according to the test's normative data. On the TOPAS, scaled scores are used to compute an ability score. This score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The authors of the TOPAS consider an ability score of 90 or above to be average. All but three of the phonologically impaired participants (Subjects I-l, I-2, and I-7) scored in the average range for their age. This finding supports the observation reported by Bird et al. (1995) that children with mild or moderate articulation impairments generally do not score lower than what is considered normal for their age. It is not clear whether the participants who performed lower on the TOPAS but were still within the average range would be seriously at risk for reading problems. This appears to be an area for future research.

The second caution regarding the above suggestions is broader in scope and has to do with the nature of the relationship between phonological awareness, reading, and expressive phonological abilities. A clear cause-and-effect relationship among those three variables has not been clearly delineated to date. Hulme et al. (2005) stated that although the existing evidence does support a causal relationship between phonological awareness and the ability to learn to read, the nature of that relationship is not simple. There are other aspects of a child's knowledge involved in learning to read. They noted that "it is far more effective to examine the role of phonological skills in learning to read in a context of a multi-causal model in which there may be moderated and mediated relationships operating." (p. 362). To parse out the cause and effect factors in the triangular relationship between phonological awareness, expressive phonological skill, and reading ability requires considerably more research. For example, Rvachew (2006) and Rvachew and Grawburg (2006) demonstrated that children with speech sound disorders are at greater risk of delayed phonological awareness skills if they have poor speech perception or poor receptive vocabulary skills. Their research suggested that speech perception skills and receptive vocabulary size each explained unique variance in phonological awareness at the end of kindergarten. However, prekindergarten articulation abilities did not predict unique variance in phonological awareness a year later. They recommend that in addition to phonological awareness, the assessment of children with speech sound disorders should also include speech perception and receptive vocabulary.

The performance of both groups of children on the TOPAS rhyming tasks requires some discussion. On the TOPAS, both groups exhibited their weakest performance on the rhyming task. (Rhyming was tied with the incomplete word task for the nonimpaired group). Rhyming is often cited as one of the earliest developing phonological awareness skills (Goldsworthy, 1998; Justice & Schuele, 2004). The method of assessing rhyming ability on the TOPAS is rhyme supply, one of the latter rhyming skills to develop but usually in place by about age 5 (Goldsworthy, 1998; Justice & Schuele, 2004). However, on the TOPAS, the participants were required to supply not only a word that rhymed with a stimulus word but also one that was semantically appropriate given the context (e.g., the fat CAT wore an ugly__[hat]). The added semantic component may have increased the difficulty level and contributed to the weak performance on rhyming.

A potential limitation of the present study was that the articulation-impaired group included only two girls whereas the control group included six girls and six boys. Very little is known about gender differences in the development of phonological awareness skills; however, it has been demonstrated that girls tend be slightly ahead of boys in phonological development, particularly up to age 6 (Kenny & Prather, 1986; Smit, Hand, Freilinger, Bernthal, & Bird, 1990). On the tasks of phonological awareness, the girls in the phonologically disordered group were not the highest scorers on either standardized or nonstandardized tasks of phonological awareness. Thus, despite the fact that the groups were not evenly balanced for gender, it does not appear that gender can account for the differences between the two groups. Informal comparison of the performance of the female participants to the male participants in the control group also does not appear to suggest any systematic differences between genders.

The present study raises several issues that suggest a need for additional research. Among these issues are the following: In the present study, participants with mild and moderate phonological disorders performed more poorly on phonological awareness tasks than those with no phonological impairment; however, the impaired group was still in the average range according to the TOPAS. The effects of such an apparently mild delay in phonological abilities on reading are not clear and merit further investigation.

Although the presence of reduced phonological awareness skills in children with mild and moderate phonological impairments has now been demonstrated in at least three studies, the others being Cowan and Moran (1997) and Rvachew et al. (2003), the numbers of participants in both were small and the distribution of participants geographically limited. Larger scale studies are needed before wide application of these findings can be fully encouraged.
Appendix A
Performance of Participants on the CELF-4 Screener and the
APP-R--Impaired

Subject   Gender   CELF-4      APP-R      Errors (a)

I-1       Male     14 (12)   19.80 (mi)   1, 2, 5, 8, 10
I-2       Male     14 (14)   25.70 (mo)   1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10
I-3       Male     14 (14)   15.45 (mi)   6
I-4       Male     20 (16)   26.42 (mo)   5, 8
I-5       Female   16 (12)   24.37 (mo)   5, 7, 8
I-6       Male     14 (12)   25.32 (mo)   2, 4, 5, 8, 10
I-7       Male     11 (11)   24.38 (mo)   2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
I-8       Male     18 (12)   23.61 (mo)   2, 4, 5, 8
I-9       Female   22 (14)   17.20 (mi)   2, 4, 5, 6, 8
I-10      Male     15 (12)   19.93 (mo)   1, 4, 5, 6, 8
I-11      Male     19 (12)   15.25 (mi)   2
I-12      Male     12 (12)   15.00 (mi)   SD

Performance of Participants on the CELF-4 Screener and the
APP-R--Nonimpaired

Subject   Gender   CELF-4      APP-R         Errors (a)

N-1       Female   19 (16)       NA             None
N-2       Male     23 (16)       NA             None
N-3       Male     16 (16)       NA             None
N-4       Female   14 (14)       NA             None
N-5       Male     23 (14)       NA             None
N-6       Male     23 (14)       NA             None
N-7       Female   19 (14)       NA             None
N-8       Male     20 (14)       NA             None
N-9       Female   16 (14)       NA             None
N-10      Male     16 (14)       NA             None
N-11      Female   23 (19)       NA             None
N-12      Female   19 (12)       NA             None

Note: In the CELF column, the first number indicates the participant's
standard score, whereas the number in parenthesis indicates the
criterion score for that participant based on age. The APP-R column
has their phonological deviancy score as determined by the scoring
methods on that particular assessment. The abbreviations "mi"
represent a mild score and "mo" represent a moderate score. The errors
column gives the type of errors as indicated on the score sheet of the
APP-R.

(a.) 1 = Syllable Omission; 2 = Consonant Sequence Omission; 3 =
Prevocalic Singleton Omission; 4 = Postvocalic Singleton Omission; 5 =
Strident Deficiencies; 6 = Velar Obstruent Deficiencies; 7 = Liquid(1)
Deficiencies; 8 = Liquid Deficiencies; 9 = Nasal Deficiencies; 10 =
Glide Deficiencies.

Appendix B
Nonstandardized Phonological Awareness Tasks Used in the Present Study

Phoneme Blending Subtest

Subject #: -- Group: -- Date: -- Test #: --
Examiner: --            Time to Administer: --

Directions: Tell me what word we would have if these sounds were put
together.

Examples: d-o, b-all, b-e-d

Section 1:

                     Response

 1. a-t                 --
 2. th-e                --
 3. z-oo                --
 4. i-f                 --
 5. o-n                 --
 6. u-p                 --
 7. b-ee                --
 8. g-o                 --
 9. t-o                 --
10. s-ew                --

Section 2:
                     Response

1.  st-ep               --
2.  f-at                --
3.  fl-ag               --
4.  1-ong               --
5.  j-ump               --
6.  gr-een              --
7.  ch-ip               --
8.  th-in               --
9.  m-ilk               --
10. sl-ide              --

Section 3:
                     Response

1.  c-a-t               --
2.  d-e-sk              --
3.  v-a-n               --
4.  h-ou-se             --
5.  w-a-sh              --
6.  r-e-d               --
7.  y-e-11              --
8.  m-a-n               --
9.  b-ir-d              --
10. c-u-t               --

Total number correct = -- out of 30 = -- %

Phoneme Counting Subtest

Subject #: -- Group: -- Date: -- Test #: --

Examiner: --            Time to Administer: --

Directions: We are going to play a listening and tapping game today.
I'm going to say some words and sounds and tap them after I say them.
Listen, so you'll see how to play the game.

Examples: /u/, boo, boot; /ae/, as, had; /o/, toe, tall; /i/, ma, cut

Directions: Now we are ready to play the real game. I'll say a word
or sound, but I won't tap it because you know how to play the game
yourself. So, you say the word after me then tap it. After each word,
be sure to put your pencil down so I'll know you've finished tapping.

                     Response

1. is                   --
2. /[??]/               --
3. my                   --
4. toy                  --
5. /d[??]/              --
6. /i/                  --
7. /soap/               --
8. /I/                  --
9. his                  --
10. pout                --
11. mine                --
12. out                 --
13. red                 --
14. /ae/                --
15. cough               --
16. pot                 --
17. /u/                 --
18. heat                --
19. he                  --
20. /a/                 --
21. pa                  --
22. mat                 --
23. /t[??]/             --
24. so                  --
25. /ai/                --
26. up                  --
27. /au/                --
28. /U/                 --
29. /toys/              --
30. Cake                --
31. Cool                --
32. /e/                 --
33. Ed                  --
34. cup                 --
35. at                  --
36. book                --
37. lay                 --
38. /o/                 --
39. /[theta]/           --
40. give                --
41. chew                --
42. wing                --
43. Joe                 --
44. yam                 --
45. shirt               --
46. this                --
47. blue                --
48. snow                --
49. bath                --
50. grow                --

Total number correct = -- out of 50 = -- %

Rhyming Subtest

Subject #: -- Group: -- Date: -- Test #: --

Examiner: --            Time to Administer: --

Directions: Do you know what a rhyme is? A rhyme is "words that sound
the same at the end." I'm going to say two words and you say "yes" if
they rhyme or "no" if they do not rhyme.

Examples: cat/hat, man/fan, child's name with rhyme

Counterexamples: run/green, bag/bat, dog/mall.

                     Response

1.  pig/big             --
2.  gum/sum             --
3.  sun/stove           --
4.  sandal/candle       --
5.  thing/rug           --
6.  buzz/fuzz           --
7.  mat/hat             --
8.  cub/come            --
9.  yellow/fellow       --
10. top/cop             --
11. watch/wish          --
12. lathe/fade          --
13. train/mean          --
14. chair/bear          --
15. bike/kite           --
16. the/she             --
17. cage/maid           --
18. bath/half           --
19. yell/mess           --
20. snake/lake          --

Total number correct = -- out of 20 = -- %


Authors' Note: The authors are grateful to the faculty, staff, parents, and students of Smiths Station Primary School and Beulah Elementary School in Lee County, Alabama, for their cooperation in this project. We also express thanks to Heather Rutledge who assisted in the collection of data. Portions of this study were presented at the 2006 Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association in Miami Beach, Florida. The Test of Phonological Awareness Skills was provided without cost to the authors by PRO-ED. PRO-ED had no involvement in the preparation of the present work. Please address correspondence to Keri Leigh Gernand, 35 Legends Way, Evans, GA 30809; e-mail: kerileigh@gmail.com.

References

American National Standards Institute. (1989). Specification for audiometers (ANSI $3.6-1989). New York: Author.

Bird, J., Bishop, D. V. M., & Freeman, N. H. (1995). Phonological awareness and literacy development in children with expressive phonological impairments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 446-462.

Bishop, D. V. M. & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective study of the relationship between specific language impairment, phonological disorders, and reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 1027-1050.

Blachman, B. A. (1984). Relationship of rapid naming ability and language analysis skills to kindergarten and first grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 610-622.

Blachman, B. A., & James, S. (1986, October). A longitudinal study of metalinguistic abilities and reading achievement in primary grade children. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A casual connection. Nature, 301,419-421.

Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2004). Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition, 91, 77-112.

Catts, H. W. (1991a). Facilitating phonological awareness: Role of speech-language pathologists. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 196-203.

Catts, H. W. (1991b). Early identification of reading disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 12, 1-16.

Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331-361.

Cowan, W. E., Moran, M. J. (1997). Phonological awareness skills of children with articulation disorders in kindergarten to third grade. Journal of Children's Communication Development, 18, 31-38.

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shnahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.

Goldsworthy, C. (1998). Sourcebook of phonological awareness training: Children's classic literature. San Diego, CA: Singular.

Hodson, B. W. (1986). Assessment of phonological processes-revised. Danville, IL: Interstate.

Hulme, C., Snowling, M., Caravolas, M., & Carroll, J. (2005). Phonological skills are (probably) one cause of success in learning to read: A comment on Castles and Coltheart. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 351-365.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255.

Justice, L. M., & Schuele, C. M. (2004). Phonological awareness: Description, assessment, and intervention. In J. Bernthal & N. Bankston (Eds.), Articulation and Phonological Disorders, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kenny, K., & Prather, E. (1986). Articulation in preschool children: Consistency of productions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 29-36.

Larrivee, L. S., & Catts, H. W. (1999). Early reading achievement in children with expressive phonological disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 118-128.

Lundberg, I., Olofsson, A., & Wall, S. (1980). Reading and spelling skills in the first school years predicted from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21, 159-173.

Magnusson, E., & Naucler, K. (1993). The development of linguistic awareness in language-disordered children. First Language, 13, 93-111.

Mann, V. A. (1984). Longitudinal prediction and prevention of early reading difficulty. Annals of Dyslexia, 34, 117-136.

Mann, V. A., & Lieberman, I. (1984). Phonological awareness and verbal short-term memory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 592-599.

Newcomer, P. L., & Barenbaum, E. (2003). Test of phonological awareness skills. Austin, TX: PRO ED.

Rvachew, S. (2006). Longitudinal predictors of implicit phonological awareness skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 165-176.

Rvachew, S., & Grawburg, M. (2006). Correlates of phonological awareness in preschoolers with speech-sound disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 74-87.

Rvachew, S., Ohberg, A., Grawburg, M., & Heyding, J. (2003). Phonological awareness and phonemic perception in 4-year-old children with delayed expressive phonology skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 463-471.

Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (4th edition). Toronto, Canada: Psychological Corporation.

Share, D., Jorm, A., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences in reading acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1309-1324.

Smit, A., Hand, L., Freilinger, J., Bernthal, J., & Bird, A. (1990). The Iowa articulation norms project and its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 779-798.

Stanovich, K., Cunningham, A., & Cramer, B. (1984). Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 175-180.

Torneus, M. (1984). Phonological awareness and reading: A chicken and egg problem? Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1346-1358.

Tyler, A. A. (2005). Assessment for determining a communication profile. In A. G. Kamhi & K. E. Pollock (Eds.), Phonological disorders in children (pp. 43-50). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321-365.

Vellutino, F. R., & Shub, M. J. (1992). Assessment of disorders in formal school language: Disorders in reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 2, 20-33.

Webster, P. E., & Plante, A. S. (1992). Effects of phonological impairment on word, syllable, and phoneme segmentation and reading. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 176-182.

Keri Leigh Gernand

University of Minnesota Medical Center-Fairview

Michael J. Moran

Auburn University

Keri Leigh Gernand is a speech language pathologist at the University of Minnesota Medical Center-Fairview. Her interests include pediatric speech and language disorders as well as feeding and swallowing.

Michael J. Moran is a professor in and graduate coordinator for the speech language pathology program at Auburn

University. He teaches courses in phonology, voice disorders, and craniofacial anomalies. In addition to several articles in the area of phonology and dialectal differences, he is co-author of the text Communication Disorders in the Classroom.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Scaled Scores on
Each Subtest of the TOPAS for Phonologically
Impaired and Nonimpaired Groups

                     Impaired       Nonimpaired

Subtest              M      SD       M      SD

Rhyming             9.83    2.82   12.58    2.07
Incomplete word    10.92    2.94   12.58    1.83
Sound sequencing   11.83    3.74   15.75    2.34
Phoneme deletion   11.42    4.23   14.42    3.85

Note: TOPAS = Test of Phonological Awareness Skills.

Source: Newcomer & Barenbaum, 2003.

Table 2
Q Values for the Newman-Keuls Comparisons Among Subtests

                               Subtest I         Subtest II
                                Rhyming       Incomplete Eord

Subtest I-Rhyming                                  1.177
Subtest II-Incomplete word
Subtest IV-Sound deletion

                               Subtest IV       Subtest III
                             Sound Deletion   Sound Sequencing

Subtest I-Rhyming                3.713             5.614 **
Subtest II-Incomplete word       2.535             4.437 **
Subtest IV-Sound deletion                          1.901

** p < .01.

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of
the Percentage of Correct Responses on Each
of Three Nonstandardized Phonological
Awareness Tasks for Two Groups

                      Impaired      Nonimpaired

Task                 M      SD       M      SD

Phoneme counting   60.17   26.28   76.00   14.82
Rhyming            75.83   13.95   85.42    7.82
Blending           80.00   26.26   97.58    3.39

Table 4
Q Values for the Newman-Keuls Comparisons
Among Three Nonstandardized Phonological
Awareness Tasks

                           Task I
                          Phoneme    Task II    Task III
                          counting   Rhyming    Blending

Task I-Phoneme counting              4.740 **   7.827 **
Task II-Rhyming                                 3.087 *

* p < 05. ** p < .01.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Sage Publications, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Gernand, Keri Leigh; Moran, Michael J.
Publication:Communication Disorders Quarterly
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 22, 2007
Words:5676
Previous Article:Rhyming and vocabulary: effects of lexical restructuring.
Next Article:Contextualized approach to language and literacy (Project CALL): capitalizing on varied activities and contexts to teach early literacy skills.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters