http://aei.sagepub.com/Intervention

Assessment for Effective

http://aei.sagepub.com/content/35/1/24The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1534508409331653

2009 35: 24 originally published online 27 April 2009Assessment for Effective InterventionJulia C. Chappell, Tammy L. Stephens, Lloyd Kinnison and Johnnie D. Pettigrew

Reading FluencyEducational Diagnosticians' Understanding of Phonological Awareness, Phonemic Awareness, and

  

Published by:

  Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Assessment for Effective InterventionAdditional services and information for    

  http://aei.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://aei.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Apr 27, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record 

- Nov 12, 2009Version of Record >>

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

24

Educational Diagnosticians’ Understanding of Phonological Awareness, Phonemic Awareness, and Reading Fluency

Julia C. ChappellTammy L. StephensLloyd KinnisonTexas Woman’s University, Denton

Johnnie D. PettigrewDenton Independent School District, Denton, Texas; Texas Woman’s University, Denton

This article summarizes the results of a study involving 42 educational diagnosticians from North Texas. The study was conducted to determine diagnosticians’ perceived understanding of early literacy development and their ability to effectively choose and interpret assessments of phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and reading fluency. The results sug-gested that the educational diagnosticians who participated in the study were not sufficiently knowledgeable in identifying the numerous components of reading (e.g., phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and fluency); nor were they prepared to choose appropriate assessment instruments to assess selected components of reading.

Keywords: phonological awareness; phonemic awareness; fluency; assessment; reading

Preventing and identifying reading difficulty as early as possible is critically important. Reading problems

are common in school, with approximately 20% of stu-dents experiencing some level of reading difficulty (Shaywitz, 2003), and students who experience difficulty with reading are likely to have problems in other aca-demic areas too (Hallahan, Lloyd, Kauffman, Weiss, & Martinez, 2005). Moreover, approximately 90% of all children identified as learning disabled were referred for special education services because of reading difficulty (Kavale & Forness, 2000). In addition to reading diffi-culties negatively affecting other aspects of learning, students who are poor readers early in their schooling are likely to continue to struggle with reading throughout their lives (Good, Simmons, & Smith, 1998), and stu-dents who are not at least moderately fluent in reading by the third grade are unlikely to earn a high school diploma (Slavin, Karweit, Wasik, Madden, & Dolan, 1994).

Literacy is an area of great concern for educators, par-ents, and communities across the United States because of recent data that indicate a literacy crisis in this country. For example, two thirds of U.S. fourth-graders failed to read at a proficient level on group tests of reading (U.S. Depart-ment of Education, 2005). Thus, two important legislative

events provide guidance for reading instruction: No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2001) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improve ment Act (IDEA; 2004). Specifically, NCLB included sections to specifically address reading development in preschool and school-age children, whereas IDEA mandated the use of research-based reading instruction for all students prior to being referred to special education (Yell & Drasgow, 2007).

Reading Development

The National Reading Panel (NRP; 2000) was charged by the federal government with researching and identify-ing key skills and methods central to reading achieve-ment. The members examined more than 100,000 research studies and identified five essential components of reading instruction, (a) phonemic awareness, (b) pho-nics instruction, (c) reading fluency, (d) vocabulary development, and (e) reading comprehension. Phonemic awareness and phonics instruction are both aspects of the

Assessment for Effective Intervention

Volume 35 Number 1December 2009 24-33

© 2009 Hammill Institute on Disabilities

10.1177/1534508409331653http://aei.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: Correspondence should be sent to Tammy L. Stephens, Texas Woman’s University, 117 Stoddard Hall, Denton, TX 76204; e-mail: TStephens1@twu.edu.

Article

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chappell et al. / Phonological Awareness, Phonemic Awareness 25

broader construction of phonological awareness, defined as the awareness that words are made of a sequence of individual sounds that can be manipulated (phonemic awareness; National Research Council [NRC], 1998; NRP, 2000). It includes the awareness of larger spoken units of such as syllables and includes alliteration, into-nation, and rhyming words (Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement [CIERA], 2003; NRP, 2000). Phonological awareness is one of the best predic-tors of the ease of early reading acquisition (NRP, 2000) because children who begin school with little phonologi-cal awareness skill have difficulty acquiring alphabetic coding skill, which results in difficulty recognizing words and subsequent reading for meaning (Stanovich, 1994).

Phonemic awareness. Although phonemic awareness is only one aspect of phonological awareness, it is criti-cally important to reading development. Phonemes are the units of sound that are represented by the letters of the alphabet, so an awareness of phonemes is key to understanding the logic of the alphabetic principle, pho-nics, and spelling (NRC, 1998). Instructional strategies used when teaching phonemic awareness involve the student segmenting words into their smallest sounds. However, when students experience difficulty segment-ing words by individual sounds, instruction focuses on the division of words into the larger components of onset (the initial consonant or consonants) and rime (the vowel and the letters after it that form the remainder of the syl-lable) with eventual movement into segmenting by indi-vidual sounds (Gaskin, Ehri, Cress, O’Hara, & Donnelly, 1997; NRC, 1998; NRP, 2000; Whitaker, Harvey, Hassell, Linder, & Tutterrow, 2006).

Reading researchers suggest that phonemic awareness is acquired through a series of steps (Adams, 1990; Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001; Hempenstall, 2003; NRC, 1998; NRP, 2000; Spector, 1995; Stanovich, 1993; Yopp, 1992). When assessing pho-nemic awareness, researchers traditionally focus on com-ponents involving rhyming, alliteration, blending, segmenting, and phoneme manipulation. Although slight variations in the sequencing are suggested by some (Ehri et al., 2001), the researchers include all the previously men-tioned components (e.g., rhyming, blending, etc.). Hempenstall (2003) combined the stages derived by vari-ous reading researchers into the following comprehensive list of distinct stages of development:

The learner recognizes or demonstrates the following:

1. sentences are made up of words;2. words can rhyme—then production thereof;3. words can be broken down into syllables—then

production thereof;

4. words can be broken down into onsets and rimes—then production thereof;

5. words can begin with the same sound—then pro-duction of such words;

6. words can end with the same sound—then pro-duction of such words;

7. words can have the same medial sound(s)—then production of such words;

8. words can be broken down into individual phonemes—then production thereof;

9. sounds can be deleted from words to make new words—then production thereof;

10. the ability to blend sounds to make words; and11. the ability to segment words into constituent

sounds.

Educational diagnosticians must be able to effectively decipher the stage of phonemic awareness at which indi-vidual students are functioning to provide effective edu-cational recommendations. They must also be aware that the instruction of phonemic awareness focuses on teach-ing children to notice, focus on, and manipulate sounds in spoken language. Activities might include identifying the first sound in man as /m/ or recognizing that man, mall, and mix all have the same first sound of /m/. Students might also blend phonemes (/b/ /i/ /g/ makes big) or add or delete phonemes to create new words (/s/ to park makes spark) (CIERA, 2003).

Reading fluency. Binder (2003) defined fluency as “the combination of accuracy plus speed that character-izes competent performance” (p. 19). The increase in speed or pace of performance of a given skill after obtaining 100% accuracy increases retention and main-tenance of skills, as well as improved endurance and attention span (Binder, 1996). Fluency is gauged through the use of time dimensions. Generally, to measure flu-ency, the target behavior is measured for accuracy within a given amount of time.

Which elements of reading should be measured for fluency has been debated. For example, according to the NRP (2000), fluency refers to the ability to read text “quickly, accurately, and with proper expression” (pp. 3–5). In contrast, in a publication by the Partnership for Reading, fluency is defined as the ability to read text accurately and quickly (less emphasis on proper expres-sion or prosody) (CIERA, 2003). However it is measured, once developed, fluent oral reading is smooth, accurate, and expressive; and attention is turned to the comprehen-sion of the text being read.

Common fluency instruction includes modeling fluent reading, having students participate in repeated reading, and encouraging students to read silently. Teachers

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

26 Assessment for Effective Intervention

demonstrate how a reader’s voice can help make sense of written text when they model fluent reading (CIERA, 2003). Guided repeated reading instruction has been found to increase word recognition, fluency, and com-prehension (NRP, 2000). Choral reading, partner read-ing, tape-assisted reading, and reader’s theatre are ways that students can practice orally rereading texts (Rasinksi, 2004).

Assessment to Obtain NCLB and IDEA Goals

In both NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004), there is a need for effective, accurate screening and diagnostic testing in reading. According to NCLB, screening assess-ments must produce data that are reliable, valid, and based on scientific reading research. A screening is the first step in identifying at-risk children who may need special programs or added reading instruction. Diagnostic reading assessments must identify the child’s specific areas of strength and weakness and identify any difficul-ties that a child may have in learning to read. Furthermore, diagnostic reading assessments must provide informa-tion that assessment personnel may use to identify a potential cause of the reading difficulties and help to determine a possible reading intervention strategy or eligibility area (P.L. 107-110, §1208, 115 Stat. 1551). However, tests only provide the information; diagnosti-cians must exhibit the skills necessary to interpret the testing results and contribute to educational decision making.

Diagnosticians and assessment personnel play a key role in choosing, administering, and interpreting screen-ings and diagnostic assessments. Educational diagnosti-cians are often viewed as the “gatekeepers” to intervention and remedial services as they perform screenings and assessments of children who may be in need of early intervention. Therefore, educational diagnosticians must be knowledgeable in an array of assessment instruments and must be familiar with the skills assessed by each. Furthermore, diagnosticians must choose appropriate instruments when answering referral questions.

According to the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC’s) “Knowledge and Skill Base for Educational Diagnosticians” (2003), educational diagnosticians must be competent in selecting appropriate assessment instru-ments; qualified to administer and interpret tests; and able to make individualized recommendations for eligi-bility, instruction, and transition based on assessment data. Moreover, the Council for Educational Diagnostic Services has made additional recommendations for Educational Diagnostician standards to be included in the publication of the 2008 CEC standards, including

· Standard III: Evaluates assessment techniques based on learning theories

· Standard III: Utilizes resources and methods that address student learning, rates, and learning styles

· Standard III: Recommends best practices in research based instructional methods

· Standard IV: Assesses basic academic skills for-mally and informally

· Standard IV: Recommends instructional strategies based on assessment results (Frawley, 2007)

Purpose of the Study

To ensure that those charged with the responsibility of assessing students can effectively choose, administer, and interpret evaluations and make appropriate recom-mendations of scientifically based reading instruction, it is important to determine whether diagnosticians at least perceive that they have an understanding of early literacy development. Moreover, self-perceptions about their ability to effectively choose and interpret assessments designed to assess early literacy skills may also be useful information. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to survey educational diagnosticians about their per-ceived knowledge of early reading development and assessment of early literacy skills. The following research questions guided the study: (a) To what extent do diag-nosticians have knowledge about which assessment tools are most appropriate to measure phonological aware-ness, phonemic awareness, and fluency? and (b) To what extent do diagnosticians perceive that they are adequately trained in the processes of learning to read and in deter-mining early reading difficulty?

Method

Participants

One hundred fifty educational diagnosticians from several North Texas independent school districts were solicited for participation in the study via e-mail. Educational diagnosticians completing an alternative certification program as well as those completing tradi-tional university programs were invited to participate. Fifty-eight of the 150 potential participants actually par-ticipated in the study, 42 of whom consistently answered all questions. To alleviate the potential internal validity threat, incomplete surveys were excluded from the data-base, which resulted in a total of 42 participants.

Of the participants, 95% received their diagnostician training through a traditional university preparation pro-gram, whereas 5% had completed training through an

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chappell et al. / Phonological Awareness, Phonemic Awareness 27

alternative certification program. At the time of the completion of the survey, 100% of the participants had already completed their training to be a diagnostician, 75% (29 diagnosticians) had completed their training within the past 4 years, and 1 had completed certification training in 1970. Sixty percent of respondents (25 diag-nosticians) indicated they were responsible for assessing elementary or preschool age children, and 40% reported assessing students at the secondary level including voca-tional assessments. Approximately 12% (5 diagnosticians) indicated being bilingual. Table 1 provides a summary of participant diagnosticians’ years of experience as a teacher and a diagnostician.

Survey Development and Validation

A 19-item survey was developed to assess educational diagnosticians’ general knowledge of early reading skills. The survey was developed to obtain input from educational diagnosticians about (a) background infor-mation, (b) reading assessment instrument knowledge and usage, (c) general knowledge of early reading skills, and (d) perceptions of training received within their preparation programs.

There were 7 forced-choice items in the demographics section, including years of experience as a teacher and diagnostician, type of training program attended (e.g., university or alternative certification), the year and level of the last reading course taken, and the level of the diag-nostician position held. Of the remaining 12 items, 4 queried participants’ general understanding of phono-logical awareness, phonemic awareness, and reading fluency; 5 asked about participants’ general knowledge of assessment instruments used to assess reading skills; and 3 questioned participants’ perceptions of the training they received in reading assessment.

A panel of experienced reading teachers and an edu-cational diagnostician was convened to assist with the item development. The panel consisted of a kindergarten

teacher, a reading specialist, a Reading Recovery teacher, and a preschool/elementary-level educational diagnosti-cian. Each panel participant was instructed to focus on phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and read-ing fluency when creating questions for the survey instrument and to use the definitions identified by the NRP (2000).

The researchers and panel participants reviewed the reading research pertaining to the acquisition of phone-mic awareness. The panel identified Hempenstall’s (2003) comprehensive compilation of phonemic aware-ness stages as the basis for the survey items. These stages represent a detailed and specific list based on current research (e.g., Ehri et al., 2001; NRC, 1998; NRP, 2000; Stanovich, 1994; Yopp, 1992). The stages were presented on the survey in a list format from which participants were instructed to select the correct order of typical acquisition.

In addition to items about reading development, the panel identified assessment instruments available for assessing phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and reading fluency. The list of available instruments was included on the survey, and participants were asked to identify those instruments they typically used when assessing reading. Participants were asked to rank given tests in the order of frequency of administration, with 1 being the most frequently administered, 2 being the next most frequently administered, and so on. If there was a test on the list provided that they did not administer, they were to indicate “N/A.”

The draft survey was reviewed for clarity and accu-racy by a select group of reading professors. Copies of the draft survey were provided to the professors who edited and provided comments for possible rewording for clarity. Copies of the edited surveys were collected and reviewed by the panel, and changes deemed appro-priate by panel members were incorporated into the survey. Specifically, adjustments in word usage to ensure clarification of the terminology related to phonemic awareness were made. Following survey development, in an attempt to obtain content validity, 28 graduate stu-dents enrolled in an educational diagnostician training program read over the survey to provide additional feed-back regarding clarity. Students were asked to write feedback notes on the draft survey. Upon completion, surveys were collected and revisions were made to selected survey questions based on student feedback. The internal consistency of the survey was examined using Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimate for each sur-vey item. The result of the alpha reliability estimate for the survey was .63.

Table 1 Participant Diagnosticians’ Years of

Educational Experience (N = 42)

Years’ Experience Teaching Diagnostician

0–2 0 183–5 8 116–10 18 511–15 7 316–20 5 221–25 2 226+ 2 1

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

28 Assessment for Effective Intervention

Procedure

An electronic copy of the survey, titled Phonological Awareness, Phonemic Awareness, and Fluency Survey for Educational Diagnosticians, was created and distrib-uted with Survey Monkey (http://www.surveymonkey .com) software. The survey link was included in a cover letter describing the study, which was electronically mailed to potential participants. The link to the survey was available for 2 weeks. At the end of the time period, it was closed to participants and the results were down-loaded for analysis. Data from the electronic survey were tabulated using a function of Survey Monkey. Results of data analysis are presented below.

Results

Diagnosticians’ Knowledge of Reading

Just more than half of the respondents (n = 22, 52%) correctly defined phonological awareness, and 26 (62%) correctly defined phonemic awareness. Thirty-two par-ticipants (76%) accurately identified phonological aware-ness skills as a predictor of reading success. Participants appeared to be the most knowledgeable about the area of reading fluency. Approximately 80% (n = 34) of the respondents identified the correct components of reading fluency. Additionally, when asked to identify elements they assessed when measuring the reading fluency of their students, participants identified prosody (31%), automaticity (67%), and accuracy (74%).

A final reading question asked participants to sequence events that occur in the developmental stages of phone-mic awareness (based on Hempenstall, 2003). Study participants experienced difficulty in the identification of the stages of phonemic awareness acquisition. None of

the respondents correctly placed all items in the appropri-ate sequence. Of the 42 respondents, 25 (60%) placed Hempenstall’s (2003) first stage of phonemic awareness as the last. Furthermore, only 4 (10%) participants cor-rectly identified “recognition that sentences are made up of words” as the first step of phonemic awareness acquisi-tion. Although only 7 (17%) participants correctly identi-fied “recognition that words can rhyme” as the second stage of phonemic awareness development, respondents were aware that the phenomena occurs early in the pho-nemic awareness process, as 24 (57%) ranked this item as one of the first three steps. Table 2 shows the correct response as well as participant responses. Most frequent responses for each item are in bold type.

Diagnosticians’ Use of Assessment Tools

As shown in Table 3, the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III ACH; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) appeared to be the most frequently admin-istered instrument, followed by the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second Edition (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2002). Specifically, 25 participants (59%) indicated the WJ-III ACH to be their first choice when assessing read-ing components, whereas 12 of the participants (29%) ranked the WIAT-II as their first choice for assessment purposes. The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Second Edition (KTEA-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004b) was identified as the third most frequently administered instrument, followed by curriculum-based measurement (CBM). Although only 2 of the participants (5%) ranked the KTEA-II as most often used, it was ranked in the top three by 54% of the participants, indicating a high usage of the instrument. Finally, CBMs were ranked fourth (14%) in terms of most frequent usage by participants; however, a large percentage (n = 21, 50%) of study

Table 2 Diagnosticians’ Knowledge of the Stages of Phonemic Awareness (N = 42)

Respondents’ Order

Stages of Phonemic Awareness Correct Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Recognition that sentences are made up of words 1 4 4 2 2 0 0 5 25Recognition that words can rhyme 2 8 7 9 2 5 5 5 1Recognition that words can begin with the same sound, end 3 4 9 8 7 8 5 1 0 with the same sound, or have the same medial soundRecognition that words can be broken down into syllables 4 3 0 4 9 6 10 8 2Recognition that words can be broken down into onsets and rimes 5 1 7 4 7 5 5 8 5Recognition that words can be broken down into individual phonemes 6 13 4 7 3 2 6 4 3Recognition that sounds can be deleted from words to make new words 7 0 2 1 11 8 10 8 2Ability to blend sounds to make words 8 9 9 7 1 8 1 3 4

Note: Bold numbers indicate the most frequent responses for each item.

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chappell et al. / Phonological Awareness, Phonemic Awareness 29

participants reported not using CBM for assessment purposes.

Additional analysis of the participants’ response to the question pertaining to assessment usage indicated that educational diagnosticians who participated in the study typically used comprehensive achievement instruments (e.g., WJ-III ACH and WIAT-II) when assessing reading skills more often than they used instruments designed specifically to assess reading. For example, none of the participants ranked their usage of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised (WRMT-R; Woodcock, 1987), the Gray Oral Reading Tests—4th Edition (GORT-4; Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001), the Gray Oral Reading Tests–Diagnostic (GORTD; Bryant & Wiederholt, 1991), or the Test of Early Reading Ability–3rd Edition (TERA-3; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999b) as a first choice. Additionally, only 6 (14%) of the participants ranked the usage of informal reading inventories within the top three.

Diagnosticians’ Knowledge of Assessment Tools

Diagnosticians were asked if they were aware of any instruments that could be utilized in the assessment of phonological awareness. Fifty-five percent of the respon-dents indicated that they were aware of such assessment instruments; however, almost half of the participants (45%) reported not being aware of assessments that gauge phonological awareness. The Cramer’s V was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between participants’ ability to select the correct definition of phonological awareness and their self-reported aware-ness of assessments used to test phonological awareness. Each case was coded by knowing or not knowing the

correct definition of phonological awareness, and then each case was coded as being aware or not of assessments that test phonological awareness. Specifically, a contin-gency analysis was conducted sorting cases into a four-by-four contingency table (e.g., knows the definition, does not know the definition as column headings; aware of assessments, not aware of assessments as the row head-ings). No significant differences existed between the vari-ables, χ²(df = 1, N = 42) = .091, p > .05. Knowledge of the correct definition of phonological awareness did not appear to increase participants’ ability to identify assess-ments that measure phonological awareness skills.

Diagnosticians were also asked the same question as it pertained to phonemic awareness and fluency. Fifty-five percent indicated that they were aware of assess-ments to measure phonemic awareness; however, 45% of the participants indicated they were not. The Cramer’s V test was used to determine whether there was a signifi-cant difference between participants’ ability to select the correct definition of phonemic awareness and their self-reported awareness of assessments used to test phonemic awareness. Each case was coded by knowing or not knowing the correct definition of phonemic awareness, and then each case was coded as being aware or not of assessments which test phonemic awareness. A contin-gency analysis was conducted sorting cases into a four-by-four contingency table (e.g., knows the definition, does not know the definition as column headings; aware of assessments, not aware of assessments as the row headings). No significant differences existed between the variables, χ²(df = 1, N = 42) = .023, p > .05. Knowledge of the definition of phonemic awareness did not appear to increase respondents’ likelihood of identifying assess-ment instruments that measure this skill.

Table 3 Frequency of Assessment Administration (N = 42) (in percentages)

Rank

Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N/A

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement 59 31 — 3 — — — — — — 7Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement–2nd Edition 5 25 24 7 2 — — — — — 37Peabody Individual Achievement Test–Revised — — — 2 2 — — — — — 96Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–2nd Edition 29 22 26 3 — 3 — — — — 17Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised — 3 — 10 — 5 — — — — 82Gray Oral Reading Tests–4th Edition — — 12 7 2 5 2 — — — 72Gray Oral Reading Tests–Diagnostic — — 2 — 2 — 5 2 — — 89Test of Early Reading Ability–3rd Edition — 3 — 5 5 — — 2 — — 85Curriculum-Based Measurement 5 3 12 10 17 — — — 3 — 50Informal Reading Inventory 2 7 — 14 2 10 3 3 3 — 56

Note: A dash (—) indicates that no participants ranked this test.

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

30 Assessment for Effective Intervention

Finally, when asked about fluency, 69% indicated knowledge of assessments that could be utilized to assess fluency. However, 31% reported that they were not aware of such instruments.

When participants reported they were aware of assess-ments that assess reading abilities, they were asked to provide the names of specific tests they used when assess-ing phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and fluency. The three most frequently named instruments for assessing both phonological and phonemic awareness were the WJ-III (selected by 11 and 12 participants, respectively) and the WIAT-II (selected by 7 and 5 par-ticipants, respectively). Six participants reported using the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999a) when assessing phonological awareness, whereas 5 reported using the CTOPP when assessing phonemic awareness. The most frequently named instruments that measure fluency were the WJ-III (16), the GORT-4 (14), and the WIAT-II (6). Instruments were considered “frequently administered” if they were rated by most participants as among the top three utilized.

Diagnosticians’ Perceptions of Training

Finally, in an attempt to investigate participant diag-nosticians’ perception of their training in the process of learning to read and in determining early reading diffi-culty, participants were asked to respond to a series of statements. The statements and participants’ responses are provided within Table 4.

Participants overwhelmingly (98%) agreed that diag-nosticians need to be trained in the developmental process

of reading. One respondent explained, “I don’t have enough training in reading. I was a secondary teacher before I became a diagnostician.” Consequently, a major-ity (90%) of the diagnosticians also indicated agreement that preparation programs should require new educa-tional diagnosticians to complete a developmental read-ing course. One respondent explained that a course directed toward diagnosticians would be beneficial. The diagnostician wrote, “When studying to become a diag-nostician, I felt that my skills in reading were poor and tried to take a reading assessment class. The class I was able to take did not address my needs for appropriate informed assessment.”

Similarly, about half of diagnosticians surveyed (45%) indicated that they have the needed skills to effectively interpret evaluations and make appropriate recommenda-tions of scientifically based reading instruction as it pertains to phonological awareness or phonemic aware-ness, whereas 24% disagreed and 31% were neutral. Furthermore, 48% of the participants who completed the survey indicated that they believed they had the appro-priate skills to effectively interpret recommendations as they pertain to fluency. However, 33% reported not hav-ing the necessary skills, and 19% remained neutral.

More than half of the diagnostician participants (57%) did not feel that in-service or professional development requirements have provided sufficient training opportu-nities, whereas 19% reported being neutral. Consequently, 24% either agreed or strongly agreed that in-services and/or professional development had provided sufficient training. Ironically, some of the participants explained that area districts and region centers do offer beneficial courses that are not always listed for diagnosticians.

Table 4 Diagnosticians’ Perceptions of Training (N = 42) (in percentages)

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Diagnosticians should be trained in the developmental process of 2 0 0 38 60 reading instruction.I have the skills needed to effectively interpret evaluations and 0 24 31 43 2 make appropriate recommendations of scientifically based reading instruction as it pertains to phonological awareness and phonemic awareness.I have the skills needed to effectively interpret evaluations and make 0 33 19 45 3 appropriate recommendations of scientifically based reading instruction as it pertains to phonological and phonemic fluencyDiagnostician preparation programs should require new educational 0 0 10 45 45 diagnosticians to complete a course in developmental reading.In-service or professional development requirements have provided 0 57 19 17 7 sufficient training for the educational diagnostician to determine the phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and fluency of a student referred for special education assessment.

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chappell et al. / Phonological Awareness, Phonemic Awareness 31

Discussion

Results indicate that diagnosticians in this study do not feel they are sufficiently educated in reading and the stages of phonemic awareness. Additionally, study results indicate that educational diagnosticians are not fre-quently administering assessment instruments designed specifically for reading assessment (e.g., GORT-D, WRMT-R). Instead, they are utilizing the more compre-hensive norm-referenced assessments that have subtests that assess reading (e.g., WJ-III ACH, WIAT-II).

Nearly half of the educational diagnosticians who participated in the study were unable to correctly iden-tify the definition of phonological awareness; only about half of those responsible for identifying early reading difficulties know its definition, even though almost 80% recognize that it is a predictor in learning to read. Such findings indicate a major deficit in the area of diagnosti-cian preparation, especially because these individuals are responsible for identifying students’ strengths and weak-nesses in reading and will consequently recommend strategies for improving student deficit.

Similar results were found for phonemic awareness. Although more participants correctly identified the defi-nition of phonemic awareness, 40% of the participants inaccurately identified the definition. Most preschool/elementary diagnosticians were able to successfully define phonemic awareness, indicating at least some knowledge of this skill, but only 60% of all participant diagnosticians were able to select the appropriate term. If the remaining 40% were reassigned to a preschool or elementary campus, they might not be able to be as effective without a basic understanding of this skill and its role in reading development. Additionally, none of the participants were able to identify the acquisition stages of phonemic awareness in appropriate order. However, more recent graduates of preparatory programs appeared to have more knowledge of phonemic awareness, as 60% of new diagnosticians were able to determine the correct definition, compared to 40% of the respondents with 3 or more years of experience as an educational diagnostician.

More promising results were obtained for reading flu-ency, where a large percentage of participants correctly identified the elements of fluency as including prosody, automaticity, accuracy, and oral reading rate. Specifically, when assessing fluency, participants were provided with a list of reading components and asked to identify those components that contribute to fluency. Participant diag-nosticians appeared to have a strong grasp of the defini-tion of fluency in that only 5% indicated they did not know which reading elements (e.g., prosody, automatic-ity, accuracy) to measure when assessing fluency. Results

obtained for reading fluency were promising with the integration of reading fluency within the eligibility area for learning disability (IDEA, 2004). On the other hand, it was somewhat interesting that more participants were not using CBM to assess reading fluency with the increased use of CBM for progress monitoring under response-to-intervention (RTI) diagnostic and service-delivery models.

Participants appeared to experience difficulty when asked to identify appropriate tests for assessing phono-logical and phonemic awareness. Some participants reported using the GORT-4, but it does not directly test phonological or phonemic awareness. The GORT-D includes the skills of onset recognition, rhyme recogni-tion, and blending, but few participants selected this scale. Additionally, one respondent indicated using the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–Second Edition (K-ABC; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a), which is an intelligence scale and does not appear to offer infor-mation regarding phonological or phonemic awareness. Results indicate that diagnosticians are not necessarily using assessments that measure the elements these diag-nosticians report to measure, indicating a need for more emphasis being placed on the use of such assessments during preparation programs.

Educational diagnosticians’ perceptions of their own abilities indicate they are aware of their areas of need for additional training, specifically in the area of reading. Only just less than half of the participants indicated that they believed that they had the skills to effectively select and administer tests, interpret data, and make instruc-tional recommendations for phonological and phonemic awareness and reading fluency.

Potential Limitations

There are several limitations to the current study that should be considered. First, the findings were based on a relatively small sample of educational diagnosticians from a single geographical location, which makes gener-alizability of the study questionable. Second, the data were collected with a survey that was developed by the lead researcher. Although survey questions were created based on a review of reading literature, experts in the field assisted with its creation, and it was field-tested prior to administration, any survey instrument is suscep-tible to misinterpretation by the respondents. Third, internal reliability of the survey was found to be below the minimum criteria of .70 suggested by George and Mallery (2003). Finally, the study relied on educational diagnosticians’ self-report on assessment practices,

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

32 Assessment for Effective Intervention

which also raises questions about the validity of the data obtained. Although reliability may be in question, the information obtained from the participating diagnosti-cians is useful in creating a general picture of their understanding, knowledge, and perceptions of reading acquisition and reading preparation. Perhaps this study is best perceived as a pilot study of a potentially useful survey instrument.

Implications for Practice

Universities, local education agencies, and region ser-vice centers might consider the results of this study and begin considering the changing roles of educational diagnosticians when designing and planning training opportunities, especially for reading skills development and assessment. University programs should perhaps further examine implementing a requirement to com-plete a reading assessment course that also includes lit-eracy development. Moreover, regional service centers might include diagnosticians as potential target audiences when early literacy courses are offered.

In light of changes in special education law and for the goal of NCLB to be reached, data from screenings and diagnostic assessments need to be used in conjunc-tion with other assessments to improve instruction and determine effective interventions, which makes it impor-tant that preparation programs place emphasis on infor-mal measures. Furthermore, assessments should not simply be used as qualifying tools; instead, diagnosti-cians should have the knowledge needed to interpret scores and provide suggested educational recommenda-tions. Amid such changes, educational diagnosticians must be prepared to work even more closely with other professionals in gathering and evaluating data to estab-lish effective interventions. Stephens, Kinnison, Naquin, and Rueter (2007) suggested that diagnosticians must expand or redefine their roles through the implementa-tion of RTI. Data obtained from curriculum-based mea-surements, curriculum-based assessments, and progress monitoring will enable diagnosticians to recommend individualized scientifically based interventions based on a student’s profile and progress or lack thereof.

References

Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197.

Binder, C. (2003). Doesn’t everybody need fluency? Performance Improvement, 2(3), 14–20.

Bryant, B. R., & Wiederholt, J. L. (1991). Gray Oral Reading Tests–Diagnostic. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA). (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teach-ing children to read (2nd ed.). Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2003). Knowledge and skill base for educational diagnosticians. In What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educa-tors. Arlington, VA: Author.

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.

Frawley, P. (2007). Proposed advanced common core standards. Retrieved May 15, 2008, from http://www.unr.edu/educ/ceds/

Gaskin, J. W., Ehri, L. C., Cress, C., O’Hara, C., & Donnelly, K. (1997). Procedures for word learning: Making discoveries about words. The Reading Teacher, 50, 312–327.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Smith, S. B. (1998). Effective aca-demic interventions in the United States: Evaluating and enhanc-ing the acquisition of early reading skills. Educational and Child Psychology, 15, 56–70.

Hallahan, D. P., Lloyd, J. W., Kauffman, J. M., Weiss, M. P., & Martinez, E. (2005). Learning disabilities: Foundations, charac-teristics, and effective teaching. Reading, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hempenstall, K. (2003, March). Phonemic awareness: What does it mean? A 2003 update. EdNews. Retrieved March 3, 2007, from http://www.ednews.org/articles/523/1/Phonemic-awareness-What-does-it-mean/Page1.html

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004a.). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–Second edition. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004b.). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement—Second edition. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 279–296.

National Reading Panel. (2000). 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. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002).Rasinski, T. (2004). Assessing reading fluency. Honolulu, HI: Pacific

Resources for Education and Learning.Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete

science-based program for overcoming reading problems at any level. New York: Knopf.

Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., Wasik, B. A., Madden, N. A., & Dolan, L. J. (1994). Success for all: A comprehensive approach to preven-tion and early intervention. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, &

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chappell et al. / Phonological Awareness, Phonemic Awareness 33

B. A. Wasik (Eds.), Preventing early school failure (pp. 175–205). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Spector, J. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Applications of principles of direct instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 37–51.

Stanovich, K. E. (1993). The language code: Issues in word recogni-tion. In S. R. Yussen & M. C. Smith (Eds.), Reading across the life span (pp. 111–135). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47, 280–291.

Stephens, T. L., Kinnison, L., Naquin, G., & Rueter, J. (2007). The changing roles for educational diagnosticians with a response- to-intervention framework in the identification of students with learning disabilities, DiaLog Journal, 36(2), 16–20.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2005). Analysis of state K–3 reading standards and assessments: Final report. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 12, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/reading/state-k3- reading.pdf

Wagner, R., Torgeson, J., & Rashotte, C. (1999a). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, J. (1999b). Test of Early Reading Ability–3rd edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Whitaker, S. D., Harvey, M., Hassell, L. J., Linder, T., & Tutterrow, D. (2006). The FISH strategy: Moving from sight words to decoding. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(5), 14–18.

Wiederholt, J., & Bryant, B. (2001). Gray Oral Reading Tests–4th edition (GORT-4). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2007). The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 and the 2006 regulations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 194–201.

Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. Reading Teacher, 45(9), 696–703.

Julia C. Chappell, MEd, is a graduate of Texas Woman’s University. She is currently employed as an educational diag-nostician in Arlington, Texas.

Tammy L. Stephens, PhD, is an assistant professor of special education at Texas Woman’s University. Her research interests include effective assessment practices, data-based decision making, teacher preparation and retention, and evidence-based interventions.

Lloyd Kinnison, EdD, is a professor of special education at Texas Woman’s University. His research interests include assessment, mental retardation and developmental disabilities, and teacher preparation.

Johnnie D. Pettigrew, EdD, is an educational diagnostician with Denton Independent School District and an adjunct pro-fessor at Texas Woman’s University. Her areas of interests are early childhood assessment, readiness for reading, and learning disabilities.

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on March 26, 2014aei.sagepub.comDownloaded from