The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

Presentation by: Pat Veleno & (name withheld)

Overview
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Description of Materials Recommended Use Major Features Administration Scoring and Interpretation Technical Qualities Evaluation/Summary

CTOPP: Description of Materials

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing: Examiners Manual Profile/Examiner record booklets for both versions Picture Book Audio CD Authors: Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte (1999) Cost: $395.00 Cdn through Psycan Educational and Clinical Resources Published by: PRO-ED Inc.

Purpose: Introduction & Recommended Uses

Purpose What does it measure? Phonological Awareness Phonological Memory Rapid Naming Who is the CTOPP designed for? Individuals aged 5- 0 to 24-11 years Who can use it? When would you use it? Theoretical basis

Major Features of the CTOPP

Two Versions:
First version intended for individuals aged 5 and 6 Contains seven core subtests, one supplemental test Second version intended for individuals aged 7 to 24-11 Contains six core subtests, six supplemental tests Audio CD included for both versions

Major Features: Subtests

Subtests intended to measure aspects of phonological functioning Based on results of experimental investigations and statistical research Include: Subtests in the Phonological Awareness Composite Elision (EL) Blending Words (BW) Sound Matching (SM)

Example: Sound Matching

Developed to probe phonological awareness of 5 and 6 year old children Examinee asked to identify words that share a common initial or final segment Important skill for early readers

Major Features: Subtests contd

Subtests in the Phonological Memory Composite Memory for Digits (MD) Nonword Repetition (NR) Subtests in the Rapid Naming Composite Rapid Color Naming (RC) Rapid Object Naming (RO)

Example: Rapid Colour Naming

Time required to name a series of items is more predictive of reading performance than is time to name individually presented items, and also is more practical (Stanovich, 1981) Less predictive of reading than rapid naming of digits/letters Phonological process of interest: retrieval of phonological codes from LTM

Example: Rapid Object Naming

Major Features: Subtests contd

Subtests in the Alternate Rapid Naming Composite Rapid Digit Naming (RD) Rapid Letter Naming (RL)

Example: Rapid Digit Naming

Example: Rapid Letter Naming

Major Features: Subtests contd

Subtests in Alternate Phonological Awareness Composite
Blending Nonwords (BN) Segmenting Nonwords (SN)

Subtests not included in any composite

Segmenting Words (SW) Phoneme Reversal (PR)

Entry Points and Ceilings

Each subtest begins with first item Ceiling is three incorrect answers in a row for most subtests (except Sound Matching and rapid naming, which is four incorrect in a row)

Administration
Individually administered Requires approximately 30 minutes to administer the core subtests All subtests include practice items Prompting used on time subtests For all subtests administration begins with first item and continues until ceiling is achieved (or last item is administered) Use of audio CD

Scoring & Interpretation

Raw scores from the subtests can be converted into: Percentiles Standard scores with a mean of 10 and standard deviation of 3 Age and grade equivalents (to be used with caution) Composite Scores: Phonological Awareness Phonological Memory Rapid Naming

Standardization of the Test

Sample/Norms 1,656 individuals living in 30 states in 1997/1998 Sample is representative of the U.S. population, based on 1997 US Census data Methods for selecting norming sites

Technical Characteristics
Reliability Three potential sources of error identified: Content sampling (subtests: .77 to .93 ; composites: .83 to .95) Time sampling (.67 to .97) Interscorer differences (>.95) Validity Examiners manual reports on: Content-description Criterion-prediction Construct identification

Evaluation
Strengths:
Valuable tool for identifying difficulties with phonological functioning Students at risk for reading disorders Evaluating progress re: remedial programs Research purposes Audio CD reduces examiner bias

Weaknesses:
Issues with convergent validity Not appropriate for ESL students Further study required

References
Anthony, J. L., Williams, J. M., McDonald, R., & Francis, D. J. (2007). Phonological processing and emergent literacy in younger and older preschool children. Annals of Dyslexia, 57(2), 113-137. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from EBSCO database. Haight, S. L. (2006). Test Review: Check APA. Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. [Electronic version]. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 81-83. Havey, J. M., Story, N., & Buker, K. (2002). Convergent and concurrent validity of two measures of phonological processing. Psychology in the Schools, 39(5), 507-514. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from PsycINFO database. Hintze, J. M., Ryan, A. L., Stoner, G. (2003). Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills and the comprehensive test of phonological processing. School Psychology Review. 32(4): 541-566. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from EBSCO database. McLoughlin, J. A. & Lewis, R. B. (2008). Assessing students with special needs. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Psycan clinical and educational resources. (n.d.). Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.psycan.com/Product/Details.aspx?ProductID=119 88 Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E. (2007). Assessment in special and inclusive education. (10th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.