Assessing the basic components of reading: A revision of the Castles and Coltheart test with new norms

Abstract

We present administration details and normative data for a new version of the word and nonword reading test originally developed by Castles and Coltheart. The new test contains an expanded set of items, with 40 each of regular words, irregular words and nonwords, rather than the original 30 items of each type. The new items extend the upper-end of the difficulty range of the test, making it less susceptible to ceiling effects than the original version. The test also incorporates a stopping-rule, which makes administration of the test less time-consuming and removes the stress on children who can only read a few items.

Detecting Different Types of Reading Difficulties: A Comparison of Tests

“…To control for order effects, the tests were administered in five different combinations. Castles et al, 2009). Children were administered the pencil and paper version of the CC2.…”

“…Therefore, general word identification tests may not be appropriate tools for pinpointing the nature of children's reading difficulties (i.e., lexical or nonlexical). Considering that regular word reading is supported by both the lexical and nonlexical reading routes, scores on regular word reading would be expected to be higher than the other two item types (i.e., nonwords and irregular words), a dual route model expectation that has been supported by several studies Castles et al, 2009;Castles & Coltheart, 1993;M. Coltheart & Leahy, 1996).…”

“…In order to achieve these aims, reading subtests from two of the most commonly used achievement measures, the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test -Second Edition (Harcourt Assessment, 2007), were compared with a cognitive measure of reading, the Castles and Coltheart Reading Test 2 (Castles et al, 2009), which was developed based on the main distinction made in the dual route model of reading.…”

Context effects on orthographic learning of regular and irregular words

“…The Castles & Coltheart 2 (CC2) (Castels et al, 2010) demonstrated that the children's accuracy in reading regular words (mean z score = 0.37, SD = 1.13), irregular words (M = 0.48, SD = 0.79), and nonwords (M = 0.08, SD = 0.89) was within the range of normal readers. None of the children had a z score lower than À1.5.…”

Helping children with reading difficulties: some things we have learned so far

“…First, the fact that poor readers vary in the nature of their reading behaviours suggests that the first step in identifying an effective intervention for a poor reader is to assess different aspects of reading (e.g., word reading accuracy, reading fluency, and reading comprehension). There are numerous standardized tests provided commercially (e.g., the York Assessment for Reading Comprehension available from GL Assessment) 48 or for free (e.g., the Castles and Coltheart Word Reading Test-Second Edition (CC2) available at www.motif.org.au) 49 that can be used to determine if a child falls below the average range for their age or grade for reading accuracy, fluency, or comprehension. In our experience, a teacher who has appropriate training in administrating such tests can carry out this first step effectively.…”