The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing-Second Edition, or CTOPP-2, was administered in order to assess phonological processing abilities related to reading. The CTOPP-2 is an individually administered, norm-referenced assessment tool that consists of seven subtests measuring the three areas of phonological processing that are highly associated with success in reading and writing: Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory and Rapid Symbolic Naming ability. This assessment indicates a child’s strengths and weaknesses within these areas. Phonological Awareness is the ability to access to the phonological structure of oral language. Phonological Memory is the ability to code information phonologically for temporary storage in working or short-term memory. Rapid Naming ability is the retrieval of phonological information from memory and the ability to complete a sequence of operations quickly and repeatedly. In addition to their role in learning to read, phonological processing abilities also support effective mathematical calculation, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension. Subtest Scaled Score %ile Rank Elision 5 5 Blending Words 9 37 Phoneme Isolation 9 37 Memory for Digits Non-word Repetition Rapid Digit Naming Rapid Letter Naming Blending Nonwords Segmenting Nonwords 5 5 13 84 8 25 8 25 3 1 8 25 Composite Area Composite Score %ile Rank Descriptive Term Phonological Awareness 86 18 Below Average Phonological Memory 95 37 Average Rapid Symbolic Naming 88 21 Below Average Alternative Phonological Awareness 73 3 Poor Phonological awareness is an awareness of and access to the sound structure of oral language. Children with well-developed phonological awareness learn to read more easily than do children with poorly developed phonological awareness. $Name’s composite score in phonological awareness places $Name in the Below Average category for a student $Name age. The Elision subtest required $Name to delete, or take out, certain sounds in words or certain parts of words, such as one half of a compound word, or the beginning, middle, or ending sound of a word. The Blending Words subtest required $Name to put together parts of a compound word, or single sounds to make up a complex word. The Phoneme Isolation subtest required $Name to identify target sounds in words such as the first and last sounds of presented words. $Name scored in the Poor range for the Elision subtest, and in the average range for Blending and Phoneme Isolation. This suggests $Name struggles with manipulating sounds out from words, but is more adept at identifying them and putting them together within words. Additional measures utilizing nonwords create an alternative phonological score. Here, she struggled considerably with blending nonwords, with her score falling in the Very Poor range. When segmenting them, she was able to do so at the lower side of Average compared to her peers. This suggests that if presented with new words, she may have issues taking the individual sounds and putting them together, where as with familiar words she can utilize context to assist her. Her ability to segment out sounds remained at an Average level. Phonological memory represents the examinee’s ability to code information phonologically for temporary storage in working or short-term memory. A deficit does not inevitably lead to poor reading of familiar material but is more likely to impair decoding of new words, particularly words that are long enough to decode bit by bit, as a means of storing intermediate sounds. A deficit in phonological memory may not impair listening or reading comprehension for simple sentences but is likely to impair both listening and reading comprehension for more complex sentences. $Name’s score on the memory for digits subtest fell in the poor range, and was marked by a number of answers having numbers flipped in order within them. Her score on the non-word repetition subtest was within the Above Average range. $Name’s overall phonological memory score places $Name within the average range for a student her age. This suggests that $Name should be able to decode and comprehend text at an age appropriate level. The Rapid Symbolic Naming Composite Score measures the efficient retrieval of phonological information from long-term or permanent memory and executing a sequence of operations quickly and repeatedly. Efficient retrieval of phonological information and execution of sequences of operations are required when readers attempt to decode unfamiliar words. Because of the timed nature of the subtests that make up the composite score, individuals who score poorly commonly have problems with reading fluency. Individuals who have deficits in both rapid naming and phonological awareness appear to be at greater risk of reading problems compared to individuals with difficulties in only one of the two areas. $Name’s composite score of 88 places $Name in the below average range for rapid naming. This suggests that $Name may have some slight difficulty reading fluently. Low scores in this area may also impact reading stamina, or the child’s ability to focus and reading independently for longer periods of time without being distracted or distracting others. Overall, $Name performed in the Poor to Below Average range for phonological awareness, Average in phonological memory, and slightly Below Average in rapid naming. These scores suggest that $Name may have some gaps in her ability to decode, comprehend, and efficiently read at a level that is similar to her same age peers. $Name appears to have the necessary phonological foundation for reading decoding and comprehension at an age appropriate level.
