A B S T R A C TThe purpose of this study was to examine the construct of morphological awareness and its relations to vocabulary knowledge in Adult Basic Education ( ABE ) students. Morphological awareness has emerged as an important predictor of children ' s and ABE students' reading comprehension abilities; however, there has been a dearth of research investigating the construct and potential multidimensionality of morphological awareness. First, we examined three sets of distinctions among morphological awareness measures: inflected versus derived, real words versus pseudowords, and contextual cues versus no contextual cues. A series of confirmatory factor analyses ( CFA s) revealed that the construct of morphological awareness could be multidimensional, as evidenced by a breakdown of tasks including only real words versus tasks with only pseudowords. Second, we investigated whether morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge were best represented as distinct constructs or the same underlying ability. CFA s indicated that real-word and pseudoword morphological awareness were separate factors from vocabulary knowledge. These results have important implications for morphological and vocabulary instruction in ABE programs. Moreover, the results have practical implications for researchers assessing morphological awareness because the findings indicate that different morphological awareness measures may be tapping disparate facets of the construct. M orphological awareness, the conscious ability to understand and manipulate small units of meaning (i.e., prefixes, suffixes, base words) to produce complex words (Carlisle, 1995(Carlisle, , 2000, has emerged as an important predictor of the reading comprehension skills of children (Deacon & Kirby, 2004 ;Kirby et al., 2012 ;Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006 ;Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan, & Vermeulen, 2003 ;Singson, Mahony, & Mann, 2000 ;Tong, Deacon, Kirby, Cain, & Parrila, 2011 ) and Adult Basic Education (ABE) students (Fracasso, Bangs, & Binder, 2014 ;Herman, Gilbert Cote, Reilly, & Binder, 2013 ;Tighe & Binder, 2013 ;To, Tighe, & Binder, 2014 ). However, there is considerable diversity in the types of morphological awareness measures used across studies (Apel, Diehm, & Apel, 2013 ;McCutchen, Green, & Abbott, 2008 ). Despite the breadth of morphology research, there have been few systematic attempts to define the underlying nature of morphological awareness and to empirically test whether different morphological awareness measures represent separable aspects of the construct. To date, only one study has investigated possible distinctions among morphological awareness measures in children (Muse, 2005 ), and no studies have investigated the underlying nature of this construct in ABE students. To address this limitation,