The children's test of nonword repetition: A test of phonological working memory

Abstract

This article presents findings from the Children's Test of Nonword Repetition (CNRep). Normative data based on its administration to over 600 children aged between four and nine years are reported. Close developmental links are established between CNRep scores and vocabulary, reading, and comprehensive skills in children during the early school years. The links between nonword repetition and language skills are shown to be consistently higher and more specific than those obtained between language skills and another simple verbal task with a significant phonological memory component, auditory digit span. The psychological mechanisms underpinning these distinctive developmental relationships between nonword repetition and language development are considered.

The Home Literacy Environment Is a Correlate, but Perhaps Not a Cause, of Variations in Children’s Language and Literacy Development

“…Mothers were asked to repeat 28 nonwords of three to five syllables taken from the Nonword Memory Test (NWRep1; α = .70; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1996) and five complex multisyllabic nonwords from the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (NWRep2; α  =  .21; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). Items from the NWRep2 were included to guard against ceiling effects on NWRep1.…”

Speech characteristics of 8-year-old children: Findings from a prospective population study

“…Third, children were asked to explain the steps involved in a sequential task of putting batteries into a flashlight (torch) using pictures to help. (iii) a nonword repetition sample, gathered when the children were assessed, using an adaptation of the Children's Test of Nonword Repetition (CNRep, Gathercole & Baddeley, 1996). This task comprised twelve nonsense words, four each of 3, 4 and 5 syllables, all conforming to English rules for sound combinations (see Appendix B).…”

“…Seen as an indicator for phonological short term memory ability, nonword repetition has been identified as a possible marker for specific language impairment (Archibald, 2008;Bishop, North & Donlon, 1996;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990;Jones, Tamburelli, Watson, Gobet, Pine, 2010), speech processing deficits (Shriberg, Lohmeier, Strand & Jakielski, 2012;Stackhouse & Wells, 1997) and dyslexia (Gathercole, Willis, Baddeley & Emslie, 1994;Melby-Lervag & Lervag, 2012).…”

Phonological Awareness and Speech Comprehensibility: An Exploratory Study

“…Responses were audio-recorded and evaluated for two elements, each of which was scored separately: (a) the correct number of syllables and (b) the correct placement of the main stress relative to how a native speaker of English (the second author) with extensive background in Linguistics and English as Second Language pronounced these words. Some of the non-words used on this task as well as the other two tasks described below were taken from Carter et al (2002) and Gathercole et al (1994).…”