; Comparing Parents Evaluations of Readiness Abilities to Assessed Phonological Awareness
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Comparing Parents Evaluations of Readiness Abilities to Assessed Phonological Awareness

VIEWS: 90 PAGES: 6

  • pg 1
									2

Parents’ Impressions of Readiness Skills in Relation to Assessed Phonological Awareness
Francine Giocondo, Judy Flax, Alexandria Reilly, Teresa Realpe-Bonilla, Naseem Choudhury, April A. Benasich
Center for Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Rutgers University

Successful Use of Parent Questionnaires
Early Language Development
"

!

MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI)
(Fenson, et al. 1993)

"

Language Development Survey (Rescorla, 1989)

!

Behavior and Attention
"

Conners’ Parent Rating Scale (Conners, 1997)

!

Overall functioning
" "

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (Sparrow, Balla,Cicchetti 1981) Autism Diagnostic Inventory (Le Courteur, Lord, Rutter 2003)

American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association Miami Beach, November, 2006

1

3

Successful Use of Parent Questionnaires
!

4

Use of Parent Questionnaires
! Pros:
"

Emergent and Early Literacy
"

Parents see their child in multiple naturalistic settings. PQ have proven to be very reliable and a useful correlate to clinical and research testing. Help to identify children in need of special services. If there is a problem, parents are empowered to be a part of the solution.

Preschool-age, parent report correlated with test scores of children with SLI only (Boudreau 2005) At age 6, parent report correlated with test scores of TD children, but not SLI children (Hauerwas & Stone 2000) Parent Ratings of Everyday Cognitive & Academic Abilities (PRECAA) increase accuracy of clinical diagnosis of RD & ADHD from ages 8-16yrs (Dewey, Crawford, Kaplan 2003)

"

"

"

"

"

5

6

Use of Parent Questionnaires
! !

Aims
To compare parent ratings of early pre-reading skills to assessed performance at 5 years using standardized measures to answer the following questions:
1. Can parents accurately rate early reading skills of their 5-year-olds? If yes, which pre-literacy skills? What might explain discrepancies between parent ratings and standard scores?

Cons:
"

May not fully understand context or construct being assessed
• Ex: CDI- Parent said each word to see if child could repeat it.

"

May overestimate child’s ability May misinterpret findings 2. 3.

"

7

8

Methods
!

MEASURES ! Phonological Awareness
Performance on phonological awareness is a strong predictor of later reading (Scarborough 1989, Juel 1991, Stanovich 1986, Wagner 1994)
"

Participants
"

23 5-year-olds (16 Females, 7 Males) Includes children with a family history of SLI (n=6) and control children (n=17) SES =85% highest social strata

"

Letter Identification (Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-R) • Identify upper and lower case letters Sound Blending (Comprehensive Test Phonological
Processing-(CTOPP)
• “What word do these sounds make?” “num-ber”

"

"
"

All children completed a comprehensive 5 year neuropsychological battery including measures of phonological awareness.
"

Sound Matching (CTOPP)
• “Which words start with the same sound as: pan: pig, hat, cone”

9

MEASURES
Phonological Awareness " Elision/Deletion (CTOPP)
• “Say baseball…..” “Now say it again without saying base”

10

Phonological Awareness
Range in Performance scores:
Identified 5 year olds at risk for early reading delays (i.e.scores in the lowest quartile)

!

"

Rhyming

(Phonological Awareness Test- PAT)”

Test Scores Min Max
Letter i.d.

78 7 7 7

124 18 14 14

Blending Matching Elision

11
!

Do parents identify the same weaknesses revealed by standardized tests?

Parent Ratings

12

Early Reading Constructs and Parent Questionnaire
Construct i.d. letters of alphabet Pre-Literacy Question
Group of letters forms a word Id’s and names printed letters of alphabet

!

Pre-Literacy Rating Scale: CELF-Preschool-2 (Wiig 2004)
• “Understands group of letters forms a word”

• “Identifies and names 5 or more letters” • “Says the sound that 5 or more letters make” • “Joins 2 letters to make a syllable or word” • “Joins 3 letters to make a syllable or word”
!

Sound Matching

Id’s and names printed letters of alphabet Says sounds that familiar letters make

Spearman’s Rho-Correlation analysis revealed significant relationships between selected items of Emergent Reading Skills Set and early reading constructs.

13

Early Reading Constructs and Parent Questionnaire
Construct Sound Blending Pre-Literacy Question
Groups of letters form a word Says sounds that 5 familiar letters make Joins 2 letters to make a syllable or word Joins 3 letters to make a syllable or word Groups of letters form a word Says sounds that 5 familiar letters make Joins 2 letters to make a syllable or word Joins 3 letters to make a syllable or word

14

Results
of letters form a word

Construct Pre-Lit Q Letter-i.d. Understands group

Agree Disagree 78% 22%
Skill is present 13% of parents report child has skill, but not reflected in test. 9% of children have skill, parent does not recognize.

Elision

I.D. printed letters of 87% alphabet
Skill is present

13%
13% of parents report child has skill, but not reflected in test.

15

Results
Pre-Lit Q
i.d. printed letters of alphabet

16

Results
Agree Disagree 17%
8.5% parents report child has skill and not reflected in test score

Construct Sound Matching

Agree Disagree 83% 17%
Skill is present Parent reports child has skill and not reflected in test score.

Construct Pre-Lit Q
Sound Blending

Understands a group 83% of letters forms a word
Skill is present

Says the sounds that 74% letters make
Skill is present

26%
17% parents report child has skill and not reflected in test score. 9% had the skill and parents did not recognize

8.5% had skill, but
parent did not recognize

Says the sounds that letters make

70%
Skill is present

30%
22% parents report child has skill and not reflected in test score 8% had skill and parent did not recognize.

17

Results
Pre-Lit Q
Joins 2 letters for syllable or word

18

Results
Agree Disagree 70%
Skill is present

Construct Sound Blending

Agree Disagree 56%
52% Skill is present 4% did not have skill

Construct Pre-Lit Q
Elision (Deletion)
Understands group of letters forms a word

44%
4% parents report child has skill and not reflected in test score 40% had the skill and parents did not recognize

30%
22% parents report child has skill and not reflected in test score 8% of children have skill, parent did not recognize.

Joins 3 letters for syllable or word

48%
44% Skill is present 4% did not have skill

52%
4% parents report child has skill and not reflected in test score 48% had the skill and parents did not recognize

Says the sounds that 70% letters make
Skill is present

30%
21% parents report child has skill and not reflected in test score 9% of children have skill, parent did not recognize.

19

Results
Construct Pre-Lit Q Agree Joins 2 letters for 53% Elision (Deletion) syllable or word
44% Skill is present 9% did not have skill

20

Disagree 47%
13% parents report child has skill and not reflected in test score. 34% had skill parent did not recognize.

Summary and Insights
!

The strongest agreement between testing and parent ratings:
" " "

Letter Identification task Sound Matching task Range = 74%-87%

Joins 3 letters for 61% syllable or word
44% Skill is present 17% did not have skill

39%
4% parents report child has skill and not reflected in test score 35% had skill parent did not recognize.

!

Observation:
"

"

Both tasks are transparent in terms of what the question asks and what parents might intuitively observe as reading readiness abilities. Disagreement was primarily the parent over-estimating child’s ability.

21

Summary
!

22

Conclusions
!

The least amount of agreement between testing and parent ratings:
" "

"

Sound Blending task Elision/deletion task in relation to : “Joins 2 & 3 letters to make a word.” Range = 48% - 61%

Unlike observations of oral language, social skills, & other daily living activities, some observations of early reading skills are not always as transparent in daily activities. Overall parents and caregivers can be reliable informants for a child’s pre-literacy skills but simple “pre-training” of parents in the form of multiple examples of the construct should be available.

!

Observation:
" "

!

"

Skills not easily identifiable in everyday caregiver routines. Phonological awareness tasks & parent rated items require “thinking” (metalinguistic) about sounds. Parents greatly underestimated child’s ability.

23

Future Directions
!

Continue to collect questionnaire and PA data as children turn five (27 more to test) with examples related to questions Give questionnaire to parents to report at four years and include more questions that address other pre-literacy skills such as print/book knowledge and rhyming Begin to look at group differences (FH+ and FH-)

!

!


								
To top