Automatic word recognition: The validity of a universally accessible assessment task

Abstract

In the current study, the validity of a task designed to assess the automatic word recognition skills of persons with complex communication needs was investigated. A total of 78 students without communication impairments in kindergarten through second grade completed a standard automatic word recognition task requiring oral reading of words presented for less than 0.25 s. The same students completed an experimental word recognition task that did not require a spoken response. Results support the validity of the experimental task. For example, the mean performance scores on both tasks decreased in the expected direction, and there was a significant correlation between the standard and experimental tasks. Other results suggest that the same trait was being measured by both tasks. The data highlight directions for future research and development of the experimental task, while leaving us enthusiastic about the future of the experimental task as a valid means of assessing automatic word recognition for persons with complex communication needs.

The Influence of Teacher Epistemology and Practice on Student Engagement in Literacy Learning

“…Emergent readers and writers develop skills and understandings regarding the functions of print, print conventions, phonological and alphabet awareness, and a broad range of language skills. Emergent literacy development is largely driven by experience and opportunity to learn; as such, older students with severe disabilities are often emerging in their understandings of literacy because of limited comprehensive opportunities to learn (Erickson, Koppenhaver, & Yoder, 2002).…”

Emergent Literacy Assessment in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder Who Have Limited Verbal Communication Skills: A Tutorial

“…However, it also needed to be efficient and flexible to ensure a positive experience for the child with ASD. The project involved revising and adapting assessment materials used in previous research by members of this research team (Westerveld et al, 2018Westerveld, Paynter, & Wicks, 2020), as well as including additional tools developed at the Centre for Literacy and Disability Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Erickson et al, 2005;Erickson et al, 2008).…”

“…A commonly employed strategy is to ask children to select their response from a field of possible answers. For example, we used an adapted word identification assessment in the pilot research project, which was based on modifications employed by Erickson et al (2008) and discussed in Clendon and Gillon (2018). In this task, a word list from the Basic Reading Inventory (Johns et al, 2016) was used as the basis of the assessment, but instead of the children being asked to read the words aloud, they were asked to select a target word from a field of four, which included three distracter words that began with the same letter and were of similar length.…”

“…For example, the child was presented with the words did, dig, dog, and do and asked to "show me the word that says dog." Adaptations such as these need to be carefully considered, both in terms of choosing appropriate distracter items (Erickson et al, 2008) and in terms of interpreting the child's performance on an adapted task. This adapted task, for instance, requires a child to match speech to print but does not require the child to access his or her own phonological representation for the target word.…”

A Review of Research on the Literacy of Students with Visual Impairments and Additional Disabilities

“…Concurrently, in the broader field of AAC, the envelope continues to be pushed for effective interventions for students with multiple disabilities to develop literacy (Koppenhaver, 2000). Formal assessments that test automatic word recognition for populations of children who demonstrate atypical communication development are well under way on the basis of standardized norms that are used with typically developing children (Erickson et al, 2008). Speech communication is no longer a prerequisite to achieving traditional literacy goals, even for students with multiple disabilities (Kaderavak & Rabidoux, 2004;Sandberg, 2006;Weikle & Hadadian, 2004).…”