Using semantics, grammar, phonology, and rapid naming tasks to predict word identification
1. Study Findings
1.1. Rapid naming tests highly correllated with reading(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.1.1. Moderate degree of relationship(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.1.2. Does not satisfy positive prediction of technique(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.2. Phonology is a better predictor of pseudoword reading than it is of exception word reading(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.2.1. use of a word identification composite that is composed of an exception word reading test (sight decoding) and a pseudoword reading test (sound decoding) might obscure this potentially important relationship(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.2.2. relationship was not observed in data(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.3. Rapid naming is a better predictor of exception word reading than of pseudoword reading(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.3.1. use of a word identification composite that is composed of an exception word reading test (sight decoding) and a pseudoword reading test (sound decoding) might obscure this potentially important relationship(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.3.2. relationship was not observed in data(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.4. classified children as poor or good readers on the basis of their performance on the word identification composite(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.4.1. sample includes children who read poorly for a variety of reasons(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.4.2. different identification criteria would have changed the results of the study(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.4.3. study used only to predict poor reading skills as opposed to identifying subtypes of poor readers (Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.5. Tests for semantics and grammar drove the results(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.5.1. different tests would have gotten different results(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.5.2. the utility of many different cognitive and linguistic measures predict reading abilities(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
1.6. 75% criteria for identification suggested as the level which must be met for successful intervention(Hammill, Mather, Allen, & Roberts, 2002)
2. Semantics
2.1. Tests
2.1.1. Logical sentences
2.1.2. Listening vocabulary
2.1.3. Spoken vocabulary
2.1.4. Spoken analogies
2.1.5. Spoken sentence construction
3. Phonology
3.1. Tests
3.1.1. Sound deletion
3.1.2. Sound blending
3.1.3. Rhyming sequences
4. Rapid Naming Tasks
4.1. Tests
4.1.1. Rapid letter naming
4.1.2. Rapid word naming
4.1.3. Rapid letter marking
4.1.4. Rapid word marking