Early Language and Literacy Test Analysis



At-a-Glance Test Review: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

|Name of Test: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) |

|Author(s): Richard K. Wagner, Joseph K. Torgesen, and Carol A. Rashotte |

|Publisher/Year (Please provide original copyright as well as dates of revisions): Pro-Ed 1999 |

|Forms: Two forms, ages 5 and 6 years, and 7 through 24 years |

|Age Range: 5 years, 0 months to 24 years, 11 months |

|Norming Sample: The normative sample was prepared by PRO-ED using their staff, customer base, and sites they set up in Tallahassee, Kansas City, and Auburn, WA. The norming was carried out in |

|Fall, 1997 and Spring, 1998. |

|Total Number: 1 656 |

|Number and Age: 5 through 24 years |

|Location: 30 states, 4 major geographic regions |

|Demographics: Data are presented by region, gender, race, ethnicity, rural or urban residence, family income, parent education, and disability. |

|Rural/Urban: yes 78% urban, 22% rural compared to U.S. school population 75% urban and 25% rural |

|SES: by income range, closely matches U.S. school population |

|Other (Please Specify): parent education by less than bachelor’s degree, bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree. |

|Disability categories: no disability, learning disability, speech-language disorder, mental retardation, and other handicap. Percentages close to U.S. school population data are presented. |

|Comment: Elsewhere, perhaps in the TNL, I read that the percentage of the population with speech-language disorders was estimated to be 7%. |

|Summary Prepared By (Name and Date): Eleanor Stewart 27 July 2007 |

|Test Description/Overview: |

|Purpose of Test: The purpose of this test is to assess phonological skills, to identify those students who are performing below their peers, to profile strengths and weaknesses for intervention, |

|to document progress, and to use CTOPP as a tool in research. |

|Theoretical Model: Theory: The framework presented consists of three kinds of phonological processing important to the development of written language: phonological awareness, phonological memory,|

|and rapid naming. Each is described as distinct but interrelated. The authors state, |

|“Phonological awareness, phonological memory, and rapid naming represent three correlated yet distinct kinds of phonological processing abilities. These abilities are correlated rather than |

|independent, in that confirmatory factor analytic studies reveal that the correlations between them are substantially greater than zero. They are distinct rather than undifferentiated, in that the|

|correlations between them are less than one. In general, phonological awareness and phonological memory tend to be more highly correlated with one another than with rapid naming. In addition, the |

|three kinds of phonological processing abilities tend to become less correlated with development. For very young children, phonological awareness and phonological memory can be nearly perfectly |

|correlated” (Wagner, Torgeson, & Rashotte, 1999, pp. 6-7). A schema is presented in Figure 1.1 (paper copy of Chapter 1 is on file). |

|The subtests are constructed on the basis of the research tasks used to explore phonological skills. |

|Areas Tested: |

|Subtests are: |

|Elision* |

|Blending Words* |

|Sound Matching* |

|Memory for Digits* |

|Nonword Repetition* |

|Rapid Color Naming* |

|Rapid Object Naming* |

|Rapid Letter Naming |

|Phoneme Reversal |

|Blending Nonwords |

|Segmenting Words |

|Segmenting Nonwords |

|*Core Subtests for ages 5 and 6 years. Supplemental subtest at this age: Blending Nonwords. |

|Comment: I learned a great deal from reading this section of the manual and would encourage clinicians to do the same. |

|Who can Administer: The authors state that examiners should have extensive training in testing as well as a thorough understanding of test statistics. Comment: I also think that the examiner |

|should be very familiar with phonology especially if you want to consider error data which I do. Clinically, errors are of interest to me. |

|Administration Time: The authors state test time is approximately 30 minutes. Comment: I think that more time is likely. |

|Test Administration (General and Subtests): Chapter 2 addresses, “Information to Consider Before Testing”. Procedures include: practice items, feedback on practice items, prompting for timed |

|subtests, discontinue rules, and instructions specific to each form (subtests to be given for that age range). Entry points and ceilings are uniform with all subtests beginning with the first |

|item, and all but the Sound Matching and rapid naming subtests have ceilings of three consecutive failed items. These exceptions are noted in the manual and on the record form. Six examples of |

|proper ceiling use are provided. Chapter 3 provides “Administration and Scoring of the CTOPP” for each subtest with age ranges identified. This chapter offers specific instructions for |

|administering and scoring each subtest. Scripted examiner instructions to the student appear in red type. These are the same instructions that appear in blue in the test booklet. Though the |

|instructions in the manual describe using an audiocassette recorder and cassette of stimulus items, the version of CTOPP currently available uses a CD as previously described. |

|Test Interpretation: Chapter 4, “Interpreting the CTOPP” is dedicated to information on recording, analyzing, and using CTOPP scores as well as interpreting test scores and composites and |

|conducting discrepancy analyses. |

|Standardization: Age equivalent scores Grade equivalent scores Percentiles Standard scores Stanines |

|Other (Please Specify) Composite Scores are determined from the sums of standard scores. |

|Reliability: The entire norming sample was used. |

|Internal consistency of items: Results: “100% of the alphas for the CTOPP subtests reach .70; 76% attain .80…and 19% attain .90, the optimal level” (Wagner, Torgeson, & Rashotte, 1999, p. 68). |

|Test-retest: The Tallahassee study involved 91 participants in three age ranges (n=32 ages 5 through 7 years, n=30 ages 8 through 17 years, and n=29 ages 18 through 24 years) after a two-week |

|interval. Correlation coefficients ranged between .68 and .97 for the 5 to 7 year range, .72 to .93 for 8 to 17, and .67 to .90 for 18 to 24 years. |

|Inter-rater: Two staff members at PRO-ED independently scored 30 protocols from 5 and 6 years olds and 30 protocols from 7-24 year olds. Results were reported to be .98. |

|Validity: |

|Content: The authors provide an overview of the research on phonological skills in Chapter 1 “Rationale and Overview” and in Chapter 7, “Validity of Test Results”, as well as discuss the tasks |

|which were chosen based on those used in research studies to assess these skills. Criterion Prediction Validity: The results of several studies were reported. The CTOPP was compared with: 1. |

|Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R); 2. TOWRE; 3. Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC). Refer to Test Analysis for details. |

|Construct Identification Validity: |

|The confirmatory factor analysis performed confirms the construct validity of the CTOPP. “The model provided an excellent fit to the data…Comparative Fit Index (CFI) for the present model of .99 |

|approached the maximum possible value of 1.00” (Wagner, Torgeson, & Rashotte, 1999, p. 98). |

|Age differentiation: Coefficients were calculated and vary from low to high. The authors state, “These coefficients are high enough to demonstrate the developmental nature of the subtest’s |

|contents. Because a relationship with age is a long-acknowledged characteristic of most phonological processing abilities, the data found…support the construct validity of the CTOPP” (Wagner, |

|Torgeson, & Rashotte, 1999, p. 101). |

|Group differentiation: Using mean standard scores for the entire normative sample and 8 identified subgroups, outcomes were as expected. Participants identified with speech/learning disabilities |

|and language disabilities performed poorly. African American children scored slightly below average but the authors defend this outcome pointing to their earlier research that demonstrated that |

|that “performance on measures of phonological awareness is more modifiable by environment/language/training experience than is performance of measures of memory or rapid naming.” (Wagner, |

|Torgeson, & Rashotte, 1999, p.103). |

|Differential Item Functioning: Item bias was examined with male/female, European and non-European Americans, African Americans, other races, and Hispanic and other ethnic groups. 25 suspect items |

|were eliminated. Delta scores for the groups ranged between .86 and .99 (x=.98). Therefore, differential item functioning was not evidenced. |

|Other: none |

|Summary/Conclusions/Observations: Both Chapters 1 and 7 are valuable for clinicians wanting to have an overview of phonological skills, their theoretical basis, what processes are involved, how to|

|assess, and implications. Given the implications of the student’s test performance in terms of academic achievement in reading, I think that clinicians need to be thoroughly knowledgeable about |

|the information in this manual. The authors have done a very good job of describing why it is important to test phonological processing skills, how this is done, and how to interpret the findings.|

| |

|My guess is that the average clinician might need to be encouraged to read the entire manual but it is worthwhile to do so. |

|Despite the reservations about reliability noted, overall the reviewers favour this test for its use of theory, task construction, and sound psychometric foundations. I concur. |

|Clinical/Diagnostic Usefulness: Yes, to this test. I would feel confident that I identified a student in need, and supported in reporting results as well as in planning intervention. |

References

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1997). Statistical abstract of the United States (117th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Wagner, R., Torgeson, J., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

To cite this document:

Hayward, D. V., Stewart, G. E., Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Lovell, M. A. (2008). At-a-glance test review: Comprehensive test of phonological processing (CTOPP). Language, Phonological Awareness, and Reading Test Directory (pp. 1-4). Edmonton, AB: Canadian Centre for Research on Literacy. Retrieved [insert date] from

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download