8/4/2019 Names Test

1/7

The Names Test: A Quick Assessment of Decoding AbilityAuthor(s): Pat CunninghamSource: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Oct., 1990), pp. 124-129Published by: International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200565 .

Accessed: 11/04/2011 18:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Reading Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Reading Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=irahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20200565?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=irahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=irahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20200565?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira

8/4/2019 Names Test

2/7

Pat Cunningham _

The Names Test:

A quick assessment

ofdecoding ability

Cunningham is a professor ofEducation at Wake Forest Universityin WinstonSalem, North Carolina.She has conducted research andwritten widely on the topics ofteaching and assessing decodingabilities.

My goals for reading instruction arefor children to enjoy reading, tolearn through reading, and to thinkabout what they read. To achieve these goals,it is essential that readers be able to recognizewords. For fluent reading, the majority ofwords encountered should be sight words, thatis, words that are immediately recognized andthat require none of the mediation (e.g., decoding) that may interfere with comprehension (Perfetti& Lesgold, 1979; Samuels &LaBerge, 1983).Even proficient readers, however, encounter words that are in their listening vocabularies but unfamiliar in print. In Beginning toRead, Adams (1990) estimates that95% of thedifferent words that children must read occurfewer than 10 times in every million words oftext. These words are encountered fewer than10 times in awhole year's worth of reading. Tobecome good readers, children must have

strategies for figuring out unfamiliar wordssuch as using context, structural clues, andknowledge of letter-sound relationships.While most readers use all three mediationstrategies, younger and less proficient readerstend to depend more on context (Stanovich,1980). Stanovich suggests that these less proficient readers use context tomake up for a deficit in letter-sound decoding skill; the overuse of

context, however, slows down the reader andtakes attention away from reading comprehension. According to Stanovich, good readers aremore able to rapidly decode words without using context. He concludes that this ability ap

pears to promote fluent reading. The ability todecode unfamiliar words using only lettersound relationships is thus recognized as animportant goal of reading instruction.Adams (1990) reviews and analyzes decades of research and makes a convincing casefor the necessity of rapid, automatic decoding.She concludes that "In summary, deep andthorough knowledge of letters, spelling patterns, and words, and of the phonologicaltranslations of all three, are of inescapable importance to both skillful reading and its acquisition" (p. 416).Limitations of existing decodingtests

In order to effectively enhance students'decoding skills, teachers must know something about their ability to decode words.There are many phonics tests available, butmost of these assessment devices are group

124 The Reading Teacher Vol. 44, No. 2 October 1990

8/4/2019 Names Test

3/7

paper-and-pencil tests. Tasks such as writingthe beginning letters under pictures, indicating whether vowels are long or short, and dividing words into syllables are commonlyused. Children who can spell the words findthese tasks easy, but the tasks may indicatetheir spelling knowledge (i.e., encoding ability) rather than their knowledge of lettersound relationships (i.e., decoding ability).

Many children who score well on thesepaper-and-pencil tasks cannot apply their decoding skills to actually pronounce unfamiliarwords. Teachers say that children "know theskills but just don't use them." Unfortunately,paper-and-pencil tests can only assess if children know certain letter-sound associations,not whether they can apply letter-soundknowledge to unfamiliar words.

A more valid way to decide if a child candecode unfamiliar words is to have the childattempt to read unfamiliar words. This procedure takes only a few minutes for each childand will yield useful information about thechild's decoding ability if an appropriatewordlist is used. Choosing or creating such a wordlist, however, is a complex task.If common or high frequency words areused, the reader may know them as sight

words; thus, one is not assessing decodingability. The validity of nonsense word tests isquestionable because many children refuse toeven try to pronounce nonsense words or,when they do pronounce them, they turn theminto real words. Further, an important part ofthedecoding process isknowing when to stop;readers generally stop when they arrive at apronunciation which is a word they know. Anonsense word task violates this expectation and thus may not be a valid indicator ofdecoding ability (Cunningham, 1975-76;Cunningham, 1976).Lists could be constructed from less familiar, low-frequency words. This is probablythe best solution, but it is difficult to select thewords. For students who have small listeningvocabularies, these low-frequency words willnot be meaningful; thus, trying to read a wordthat is not in one's listening vocabulary createsthe same problem created by nonsense words.

An alternate test of decoding abilityThere is one type of word, however, that

is not often seen in print but can be found inmost children's listening vocabularies: per

sons' names. As children watch television andmovies and interact with peers and adults intheir neighborhoods and schools, they areconstantly hearing first and last names thatthey don't see in print. As a result, most children have many more names in their listeningvocabularies than in their reading vocabularies. This provides an ideal source of wordsfor use in assessing decoding skills. The purpose of this article is to describe the development of and uses for the Names Test, a test ofdecoding ability.

A more valid way to decide if a child candecode unfamiliar words is to have thechild attempt to read unfamiliar words.This procedure takes only a few minutes

for each child and %mllyield usefulinformation about the child's decodingability if an appropriate word list is used.

Test developmentMy goal was to create a list of 25 first and

last names which, when paired, would looklike a classroom list and would validly measure children's ability to decode unfamiliarwords. Telephone books, baby books, andother sources containing names were consulted and 62 names were selected that metfour criteria:

1. The names are not some of the mostcommon names. For first names, all nameswere checked against the "top names for boysand girls" listed in The New American Dictionary of First Names (Dunkling & Gosling,

1985). Any names found there were excluded.For last names, any names that had more thana column of listings in three local telephonebooks were excluded.

2. The names are fully decodable givencommonly taught vowel rules and/or analogyapproaches to decoding. For example, Blakecould be decoded using the "vowel/consonant/e" rule or by analogy by comparing it to aknown word such as make or snake. The syllables inPendergraph could be decoded usingvowel/consonant rules or by recognizing the

The Names Tfest:A quick assessment 125

8/4/2019 Names Test

4/7

3

It takes little time to administer The Names Test to a student.Photo by Robert Finken

common syllables pen and graph and then byusing the der/her analogy. Because the placement of accent varies with dialect and geographic region, no attempt was made todetermine which syllable should be accentedwhen constructing the test, and students wereconsidered to have correctly decoded polysyllabic words regardless of which syllable theyaccented. Syllables which would have had theschwa sound (/?/) if not accented were considered correct if pronounced as schwa or if pronounced with the sound that syllable wouldhave if the syllable were accented.3. The names represent a good samplingof the most common English spelling patterns.While the test could not contain enough itemsto make reliable assessments for all lettersound correspondences, it was designed sothat teachers could identify particular areas ofstrengths or weaknesses. Thus, names wereincluded with single initial consonants (e.g.,

Jay, Tim, Gus), with initial blends (e.g., Stanley, Glen, Grace), and with common consonant digraphs (e.g., Chester, Shaw, Whitlock,

Thornton). The variant sounds of c and g wererepresented by the names Conway, Cornell,Cindy, Spencer, Gus, Glen, and Ginger.Names were included for all short vowels andall long vowels except /?7 (the least commonlong vowel). In addition, names were includedto represent common phonograms (e.g., Jay,

Tim, Chuck, Hoke). The intent was to includeenough examples of initial consonants, blendsand digraphs, long and short vowels, and phonograms so that conclusions might be drawnabout students' decoding ability of these typesof letter-sound relationships.4. The names represent a balance of shortand long words. While it was easy to findnames of one and two syllables, three syllablenames that met the "fully decodable" criterionwere scarce and no names of four or more syllables could be found. After field testing (seefollowing section), the Names Test consistedof 23 one-syllable names, 19 two-syllable

126 The Reading Tfeacher Vol. 44, No. 2 October 1990

8/4/2019 Names Test

5/7

Procedures for administeringand scoring the Names TestPreparing the instrument1. Type or print legibly the 25 names on a sheet of paper or card stock. Make sure the print size is

appropriate for the age or grade level of the students being tested.2. For students who might perceive reading an entire list of names as being too formidable, type orprint the names on index cards, so they can be read individually.

3. Prepare a protocol (scoring) sheet. Do this by typing the list of names ina column and followingeach name with a blank line to be used for recording a student's responses.Administering the Names Test1. Administer the Names Test individually. Select a quiet, distraction-free location.

2. Explain to the student that she or he is to pretend to be a teacher who must read a list of names ofstudents in the class. Direct the student to read the names as iftaking attendance.3. Have the student read the entire list. Inform the student that you will not be able to help with difficult names, and encourage him or her to "make a guess ifyou are not sure." This way you willhave sufficient responses for analysis.4. Write a check on the protocol sheet for each name read correctly. Write phonetic spellings for

names that are mispronounced.Scoring and interpreting the Names Test1. Count a word correct ifall syllables are pronounced correctly regardless of where the studentplaces the accent. For example, either Yo*7lan/da or Yo/lan7da would be acceptable.

2. For words where the vowel pronunciation depends on which syllable the consonant is placed with, Icount them correct for either pronunciation. For example, either Ho/mer or Hom/er would be acceptable.

3. Count the number of names read correctly, and analyze those mispronounced, looking for patterns indicative of decoding strengths and weaknesses.

names, and 8 three-syllable names.Using these four criteria, 31 first and 31last names were selected and paired to form aclass list of 31 names for field testing.

Field testingA test is useful only if it is valid and reliable. Validity refers to a test's ability to measure what it purports to measure. Reliabilityrefers to the ability of a test to consistentlymeasure this trait. To gain some informationabout the reliability and validity of the Names

Test, itwas administered to 120 randomly selected second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-gradestudents in two schools. The sample consistedof 30 children at each grade level, was madeup of equal numbers of boys and girls, andcontained 35 minority students. The NamesTest was prepared and individually administered to these students according to the procedures presented in the Table.The responses of the 120 students to the62 items (there were 31 first and 31 last namesin the field-tested version of the instrument)

The Names TestJay ConwayTim CornellChuck HokeYolanda ClarkKimberly BlakeRoberta SladeHomer PrestonGus QuincyCindy SampsonChester WrightGinger YalePatrick TweedStanley Shaw

Wendy SwainGlen SpencerFred SherwoodFlo ThorntonDee SkidmoreGrace BrewsterNed WestmorelandRon SmithermanTroyWhjtlockVance MiddletonZane AndersonBernard Pendergraph

were analyzed to yield 62 item-test correlations. To increase reliability and reduce thenumber of items on the test, the 6 first namesand the last 6 names with the lowest item-testcorrelations were eliminated. On the final setof 50 items (25 first and 25 last names shownin the List), a statistic of internal-consistencyreliability (Kuder-Richardson 20) was computed. The resultant KR-20 reliability of the

The Names Tfest: A quick assessment 127

8/4/2019 Names Test

6/7

Names Test was .98, a high reliability estimate.

Validity of a test can be established in avariety of ways. The criteria described previously under test development represent one

way of establishing construct validity, whichis the degree to which a test measures the psychological or behavioral ability being evaluated, in this case children's ability to decodewords containing common spelling patterns.Another type of validity can be demonstrated based on the different performance ofthe second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-gradestudents. Since decoding ability increasesgreatly in the early elementary grades andthen tops out in later grades, a valid testshould result inmuch lower scores at the second-grade level and almost perfect scores atthe fifth-grade level. The results of the fieldtest indicated that this was indeed the case.

For the 50 first and last names, the averagescore for the second grade was 22.6, whereasthe average fifth-grade score was 47.3. Morerevealing is the fact that the lowest scoreachieved by any fifth grader was 40.

The Names Test is a tool that teacherscan use to obtain information abouthow well students decode words whichare apt to be in their listeningvocabularies but not in their sightvocabularies. It was developed toprovide teachers with another tool touse in diagnosing this importantcomponent of reading ability.

Making instructional decisionsThere are a variety of ways that teachersmight use the information obtained from ad

ministering the Names Test. Teachers at second-, third- or fourth-grade levels mightchoose to give the test to all their students atthe beginning of the year to get some initialimpressions of the decoding ability of individual children and the class as a whole. Perhapsa more economical use of time would be to ad

minister the test only to children who demonstrate some decoding difficulties in their

reading. Remedial and special teachers couldalso use the Names Test to gain some information about the decoding abilities of studentsexperiencing difficulty with reading.While no norms have been established forthe test, the field testing did confirm that theaverage second grader read a little less thanhalf the names correctly (x=22.6) and the average fifth grader pronounced almost all thenames correctly (x=47.3). Second-gradeteachers should probably not be too concernedabout children who can pronounce most of theone-syllable names but who experience difficulty with the longer names. Fourth graders,however, should be able to pronounce most ofthe short names and a good number of thelong names.In addition to getting a general impression of how successful students are at decoding words, teachers can obtain somediagnostic information based on patterns oferrors. While there are not enough items onthe test to make judgments about individualletter-sound correspondences, judgments canbe made if children make similar errors on

many words. Here are some of the error patterns observed in the field testing:Some students, particularly the secondgraders, wouldn't even try the longwords. Other students pronouncedonly the first syllable of the big words(e.g., Con for Conway, Corn for Cornell). A few students guessed a bigword that started like the big word(e.g., Connors for Conway, Kevin for

Kimberly). These students might benefit from instruction in decoding longerwords.A few older students were quite successful with one- and two-syllablewords but couldn't do the three-syllablewords. Pendergraph became Pender orPengraph; Westmorelandbecame Westmore or Westland. These studentsmight also benefit from instruction indecoding longer words.Some students were successful at mostinitial consonants and digraphs, buthad difficulty with words that beganwith blends. Tweed became Teed;

Spencer became Pencer; Skidmore became Sidmore or Kidmore. Thesestudents might benefit from some instruction with blends.

128 The Reading Teacher Vol. 44, No. 2 October 1990

8/4/2019 Names Test

7/7

A few children pronounced most longvowel names ending with e (Hoke,Blake, Yale, Slade) using a short vowelsound. These students might benefitfrom learning words with the "vowel/consonant/e" spelling pattern.Other children seemed to have little orno understanding of vowel patterns.They got the first consonant right andguessed the rest (e.g., Chuck, becameChad; Ned became Nick; Ron becameRoy). These students might benefitfrom instruction with common spellingpatterns/phonograms.Not all children exhibited these clear pat

terns, but the ones that did gave indications ofwhat decoding knowledge they lacked andwhatstrategies teachers could help them develop.Limitations and conclusions

There are some limitations of the NamesTest. First, the lack of additional words ofthree or more syllables and the fact that namescould not be found for several common syllables (e.g., tion, ture) limits the usefulness ofthe Names Test with older and more skilledreaders. Another limitation is the lack of ethnic names. Unfortunately, ethnic names couldnot be found which met the "decodable" criterion; thus, this test may be inappropriate forchildren for whom English is not their firstlanguage.

The Names Test is a tool that teachers canuse to obtain information about how well students decode words that are apt to be in theirlistening vocabularies but not in their sight vocabularies. It was developed to provide teachers with another tool to use in diagnosing thisimportant component of reading ability.Teachers are invited to use or modify the listand directions provided here to suit theirneeds.

ReferencesAdams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and

learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cunningham, P.M. (1975-76). Investigating a synthesized

theory of mediated word identification. Reading Research Quarterly, 11, 127-143.Cunningham, P.M. (1976). Can decoding skills be validlyassessed using

a nonsense-word pronunciation task?Reading Improvement, 13, 247-248.Dunkling, L, & Gosling, W. (1985). The new American dic

tionary of first names. New York: New American Library.

Perfetti, CA., & Lesgold, A.M. (1979). Coding and comprehension in skilled reading and implications for reading instruction. In L.B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.),

Theory and practice of early reading (pp. 57-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Samuels, S.J., & LaBerge, D. (1983). A critique of a theory of automaticity in reading: Looking back: A retrospective analysis of the LaBerge-Samuels readingmodel. In L. Gentile, M. Kamil, & J. Blanchard (Eds.),Reading research revisited (pp. 39-55). Columbus, OH:Merrill.

Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatorymodel of individualdifferences in the development ofreading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 3771.

The Names Test: A quick assessment 129