Do phonics assessments that contain pseudowords more accurately
Using Pseudowords to Determine Decoding Strengths and Weaknesses Caroline Walker, M.S., Ed. & Abbie Olszewski, Ph.D., CCC-‐SLP University of Nevada, Reno Results Introduc1on Ø Phonics is the system of rela1onships between le5ers and sounds. Ø To become literate in the English language, children must grasp the understanding of spelling-‐sound rela1onships. Authors, Date Choi, Desai, & Henderson (2014) Nonexperimental # Par1cipants / Descrip1on Dependent variable Eye movements (indica1on of ac1va1on of language processing networks) N = 33 Age: Mean = 21.48 years Sample Popula1on: Right handed, English speaking, college community; Male = 12 A5ri1on = 2 Ø There are two common methods for reading assessment: decoding real words and decoding invented nonwords (pseudowords). Galuschka, Krick, & Schulte-‐Korne (2014) Meta-‐analysis of RCT Under condi1ons: Normal Text (NT): 22 paragraphs read Pseudoword Text (PW): 22 paragraphs, wri5en in accordance with the phonotac1c rules of English Reading performance Reading performance (through phonics instruc1on) N = 22 Age: Children and adolescents Sample Popula1ons: Reading performance was below 25th percen1le, or at least one standard devia1on, one year, or one grade level below the expected level Ø Real words have meaning and may be recalled from memory. To decode a pseudoword, child must rely solely on his or her phonics skills. Pullen, Lane, Lloyd, Nowak, & Ryals (2005) Experimental Ø It is unclear if pseudowords demonstrate be5er mastery of decoding skills than real words. -‐ Mean effect size g’ = .32; I2 = 0 small but sta2s2cally significant -‐ Phonics instruc1on is the most frequently inves1gated treatment approach and the only approach whose efficacy on reading and spelling performance is sta1s1cally confirmed -‐ Severe reading and spelling difficul1es can be ameliorated with appropriate treatment Pseudoword Reading Rate & Accuracy -‐ Baseline: 45.6% -‐ Interven1on (aNer 10 treatments): 86.5% N = 9 Age = First graders Sample Popula1on = Struggling readers, a5ended private and parochial school in Florida Pseudoword reading rate & accuracy (number of words read correctly in 1 minute) Shankweiler et al. (1999) Nonexperimental Retrospec1ve Word reading N = 361 Ages: 7.5 to 9.5 year olds, elementary grades Sample Popula1on: Learning disabili1es & control without learning disabili1es (N = 51/361) Le5er accuracy Nonword Reading vs. Reading Comprehension -‐ r = .79, p < .0001 -‐ A child’s level of skill in passage comprehension is highly associated with skill in reading isolated words out of context, and almost as highly associated with ability to decode novel nonwords Le5er accuracy: Mean propor1on correct = .92 N = 29 Age: Mean = 7;3 years, first grade Sample Popula1on: Middle class suburban US popula1on Grapheme sound accuracy Grapheme sound accuracy: Mean propor1on correct = .78 Real word reading accuracy Real word reading test: Mean propor1on correct = .61 Nonword Pronuncia1on Accuracy Nonword Pronuncia1on Accuracy: with same VCs as real words :mean propor1on correct = .47 Treiman, Goswami, & Bruck (1990) Nonexperimental Word Reading vs. Nonword Reading -‐ r = .92, p < .0001 -‐ Word iden1fica1on is almost inseparable from the phonologically analy1c decoding process Nonword reading Reading comprehension Clinical Scenario I am a graduate student clinician at the University of Nevada, Reno. I am working with a 10 year old, 4th grade student who has difficul1es sounding-‐out (decoding) words when she reads, keeping le5ers in the right order when she writes, and pronouncing words accurately when she speaks. She has been labeled at school as having a reading disability. This semester I have focused on increasing her phonemic awareness and decoding abili1es. Eye Movements -‐ NT: Brain ac1va1on in well-‐established language network areas -‐ PW: Brain ac1va1on in an addi1onal network that included anterior/posterior cingulate and parietal cortex. Pseudo-‐reading requires more a5en1onal control and more fine-‐grained eye movement coordina1on compared to normal reading Ø Phonics skills are typically taught to elementary students and teachers assess the acquisi1on of skills through reading decoding. Results Children were more familiar with number of real words that could poten1ally help pronuncia1on. VC units play a role in pronuncia1on of nonwords. First graders pronounced High-‐frequency VC nonwords (.49) significantly more accurately than Low-‐ frequency VC nonwords (.41) I need to assess her phonics abili1es through decoding accuracy and know that this can be done using both real words and pseudowords. Since pseudowords do not have meaning, I am curious if they accurately determine a student’s decoding strengths and weaknesses. Discussion Clinical Ques1on Ø External Evidence: Pseudoword decoding accuracy gradually increases with phonics instruc1on, indica1ng that pseudoword reading accuracy is a coordinated set of skills related to phoneme-‐grapheme instruc1on. fMRI analysis indicated that pseudowords are read similarly to real words, however, more a5en1onal control and fine-‐grained eye movements are necessary for nonword decoding. Students who are poorer readers have more difficulty reading pseudowords than students who have typical reading abili1es. Pseudowords are not all constructed the same. Nonwords with frequent-‐occurring vowel-‐consonant combina1on from the English language are easier to decode than nonwords constructed with infrequently occurring vowel-‐consonant combina1ons. Evidence supports pseudowords as measures of decoding strengths and weaknesses in certain condi1ons with specific students. The PICO (pa1ent, interven1on, comparison, outcome) framework, was used to construct the foreground ques1on (Gillam & Gillam, 2008): Ø Evidence Internal to Client: Andrea wishes to read at grade level. Her mother feels that she will benefit from direct phonics instruc1on. Do phonics assessments that contain pseudowords more accurately assess an elementary student’s ability to decode, than an assessment that uses only grade-‐level real words? Methods Databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO, ASHA Ø Evidence Internal to Clinical Prac2ce: Evidence supports pseudowords as measures of decoding strengths and weaknesses in certain condi1ons with specific students. Ø Evidence Based Prac2ce Clinical Decision: Andrea has a reading disability, and therefore research indicates that she would be unable to decode pseudowords with the same accuracy as typical forth grade readers. However, she is aware of her decoding deficits, Andrea will oNen guess words she is reading as a way to compensate for her struggle to understand sound-‐ spelling rela1onships. Therefore, pseudowords will be used to assess her true decoding performance without reliance on memory. However, the graphemes used in construc1on must have been specifically taught to Andrea and the VC combina1on must occur with high-‐frequency within real words. References Choi, W., Desai, R., & Henderson, J. (2014). The neural substrates of natural reading: a comparison of normal and nonword text using eyetracking and fMRI. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1024. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01024 Search terms: reading, reading disability, phonics, decoding, pseudowords, Galuschka, K., Ise, E., Krick, K., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2014). Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE, 9(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089900 nonwords, dyslexia, and assessment Gillam, S., & Gillam, R. (2008). Teaching graduate students to make evidence-based intervention decisions. Topics in Language Disorders, 28(3), 212-228. Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., Lloyd, J. W., Nowak, R., & Ryals, J. (2005). Effects of explicit instruction on decoding of struggling first grade students: A data-based case study. Education & Treatment of Children, 28(1), 63-75. Retrieved from www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net Appraisal: 10 studies achieved 85% reliability on 10 appraisal points with Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S. & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading,3(1), 69-94. Retrieved from https://www.triplesr.org/ independent reviewer. Treiman, R., Goswami, U., & Bruck, M. (1990). Not all nonwords are alike: Implications for reading development and theory. Memory & Cognition, 18(6), 559-567. doi: 10.3758/BF03197098
© Copyright 2024