1

A Test of Phonemic Awareness for Classroom Use

Barbara Taylor

University of Minnesota

November, 1991

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 2

A Test of Phonemic Awareness for Classroom Use

The Classroom Phonemic Segmentation and Blending Test (Taylor & Pearson, 1988) has been

found to be very successful in identifying in October children who are at risk of failing to learn

to read by May.

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 3

A Test of Phonemic Awareness for Classroom Use

Research has demonstrated that phonemic awareness, or the ability to recognize and

manipulate the sequence of individual sounds in words, is strongly related to beginning reading

achievement (Bradley & Bryant, 1978; Juel, 1988; Liberman, 1973; Stanovich, Cunningham, &

Freeman, 1984). Much of this research has been correlational. Undoubtedly, facility in

identifying and manipulating phonemes improves as a child learns to read (Ehri, 1979; Morais,

Cary, Alegria & Bertleson, 1979; Perfetti, Beck, & Hughes, 1987). However, a number of

studies have shown that instruction in phonemic awareness in preschool, kindergarten, or first

grade improves children’s reading ability (Ball and Blackman, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983;

Cunningham, 1990; Lundberg, Frost & Peterson, 1988). These studies suggest that phonemic

awareness is more than just a consequence of learning to read. It appears to be a set of abilities

most useful for children to have as they are learning to read.

The ability to segment a word into phonemes and blend these sounds together is an

important decoding skill. However, a child who is low in phonemic awareness at the beginning

of first grade is at considerable risk of becoming a disabled reader by the end of first grade

because progress in decoding ability and, consequently, reading development will be so slow

(Juel, 1988; Stanovich, 1986).

Reading researchers who have worked in the area of reading disability have

recommended that children at risk of making slow progress in reading in first grade be identified

as early as possible and that intervention for these children be implemented as early as possible

(Clay, 1985; Juel, 1988; Stanovich, 1986). Stanovich (1986) and Juel (1988) have specifically

recommended that this early intervention focus on development of phonemic awareness.

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 4

Reading programs which stress the development of phonemic awareness have been found to be

effective in helping at-risk first graders make good progress in reading development during first

grade (Clay, 1979, 1985; Pinnell, DeFord, & Lyons, 1988; Taylor, Short, Frye, & Shearer, in

press).

To be able to provide early intervention for children who are at risk of becoming disabled

readers in first grade, teachers need screening tools to help them identify these children early in

the first grade year. Because low phonemic awareness upon entering first grade has been found

to be highly related to poor first grade reading achievement, and because phonemic awareness

training does appear to be beneficial in improving these children’s reading ability, an instrument

to assess entering first grade students’ level of phonemic awareness should be one such screening

tool. However, it is important that other assessments be used as well to help a teacher identify

children in need of extra help in reading in first grade. Additionally, a teacher would want to

assess emergent reading abilities such as children’s knowledge of letter names and sounds, and

perhaps their ability to read and spell basic sight words.

A phonemic segmentation and blending test (Taylor & Pearson, 1988) which is quick and

easy to administer, was developed for use in the classroom. The test is not based on national

standardized norms. However, as a result of its use with 124 children, the test has been found to

be very effective in identifying children who will or will not have difficulty learning to read in

first grade. Empirical support for the test will be presented after the test is described.

The test is an individually administered 12-item oral test which can be given to a child in

about two to three minutes. This test has two sections with six items in each section. The test

can be seen in Table 1. The first section asks a child to blend together the phonemes of three- or

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 5

four-letter words with short vowel sounds. The second section asks a child to segment three or

four letter words into phonemes.

In a study comparing 10 tests of phonemic awareness, Yopp (1988) found a 30-item

blending test (Roswell-Chall Auditory Blending Test, very similar in format to the blending

section of the present test, and a 22-item segmentation test (Yopp, 1988), also very similar in

format to the segmentation test (Yopp, 1988), also very similar in format to the segmentation

section of the present test, to be highly correlated (r = .79). Based on a factor analysis, she

concluded that these two tests, along with others which were also highly interrelated, were

tapping a similar construct, that of phonemic awareness. Because the two sections of the present

test are so similar to two of the tests which Yopp (1988) concluded were, in fact, tapping

phonemic awareness, it can be concluded that the present test also is a valid measure of

phonemic awareness.

The test assesses a range of phonemes. The five short vowel sounds and nine different

consonant sounds are included on the blending section of the test. Three of the words begin with

continuous sounds and three with stop sounds. Five short vowel sounds and six different

consonant sounds are included on the segmentation section of the test. Two words begin with

continuous sounds and four with stop sounds.

Directions for Adminstering the Classroom Phonemic Segmentation and Blending Test

The directions for the test are presented precisely in the way in which the test was

administered to collect the data used to validate the test. The child does not have to read or write

anything to take the test. The test is presented orally, and the child responds orally. Before

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 6

beginning with a section, the teacher provides the child with one example of the task to be

accomplished.

Section 1. The teacher begins this section by saying to the child, “I am going to give you

some sounds, and I would like you to blend the sounds together into a word. For example, when

I say /c/ - /a/ - /b/, can you tell me the word?” If the child is unable to respond correctly, the

teacher responds for the child. “Well, the sounds /c/ - /a/ - /b/ would blend together to make

‘cab’. Now you try the next one (item 1 – tap).” The teacher proceeds to give each sound in tap,

/t/ - /a/ - /p/. The teacher simply writes down the child’s response and moves to the next item. If

the child is incorrect or unable to do the task, the teacher does not correct the child or do the task

correctly for him. On an item the teacher can remind the child that the task is to blend the

sounds he hears together. If the teacher says “/t/ - /a/ - /p/” and there is no response from the

child, the teacher may say, “Can you blend these sounds together for me to make a word?”

Section 2. The teacher begins this section by saying to the child, “I am going to say some

words, and I would like you to give me the sound that you hear first in each word, the sound that

you hear next, and the sound that you hear at the end of the word. (Item 12 has found sounds).

For example, when I say ‘sad’, can you give each sound that you hear in the word? What sound

do you hear first in ‘sad?’ What sound do you hear next in ‘sad?’ What sound do you hear at the

end of ‘sad’? With the example, if the child is unable to respond or responds incorrectly, the

teacher may do the task for the child. “The sound at the beginning of ‘sad’ is /s/, the next sound

is /a/, and the sound at the end of ‘sad’ is /d/.” The teacher proceeds to read each of the words

listed for items 7 through 12 and records the child’s responses. If the child is incorrect or unable

to do the task, the teacher does not correct the child or do the task for him. On an item, the

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 7

teacher can remind the child that he is to first give the sound that he hears first in the word, then

the sound he hears next in the word (two sounds in the middle of item 12), and finally the sound

that he hears at the end of the word.

Scoring. An item must be totally correct to be scored as correct. For example, if a child

says “sat” for “set” (item 2), it is not counted as correct. If for item 8, bet, the child says /b/ - / e/

- /d/, the response is not scored as correct.

Empirical Support for the Instrument

In one suburban school district of a large metropolitan area, this test was administered

during the first week of October to 29 first-grade children during the 1988-89 school year and to

46 first-grade children during the 1989-90 school year. All 75 children selected for testing were

from the two primary grade buildings in the district. None of the 75 children were reading in

October. That is, none of them could read with 92% word recognition accuracy a preprimer

level passage of a basal reader series not used in the district. The children knew 11.9 consonant

sounds, on the average, in October and had a mean NCE score of 44 on the Gates-MacGinitie

Reading Test, Level R (1978).

In 1990-91 an additional 49 first-grade children (39 from two elementary schools in a

second suburban school district of the same metropolitan area, and 10 from one elementary

school in a rural school district not far from this metropolitan area) took the phonemic

segmentation and blending test in October. None of these children were able to read on a

preprimer level at this time. The children knew 14.4 consonant sounds on the average.

Standardized test scores were not available.

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 8

Based on the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula, the internal consistency reliability of the test,

calculated from the 124 children, was .87. Because the two sections of the test are not to be

considered separately, the internal consistency reliability of each section was not calculated.

Items appeared to be of a reasonable level of difficulty. On two items, 66% and 61% of

the children passed, on four items 51-56% of the children passed, on four items 40-45% of the

children passed, and on two items 33% and 21% of the children passed.

The test did not appear to be too difficult or too easy for most students. Only 10% had a

score of zero on the test and 2 got all items correct for a score of 12.

The test does require metalinguistic knowledge of terms like “word,” “sound,” and

“blend.” Individual children may have performed poorly on the test because they did not

understand these terms, or, they may have had difficulty understanding or following the test

directions. An analysis was made of children’s tests on which no credit was given for either the

blending or segmentation sections of the test. In most instances, children gave responses to one

or more items which were partially correct, indicating that the children understood the tasks they

were asked to perform. Only 11% of the children got a score of zero on the blending section of

the test with no items even partially correct (i.e., saying “tab” for “tap” would be partially

correct). Only 6% of the children got a score of zero on the segmentation section of the test with

no items even partially correct (i.e., giving the sounds /p/ and /t/ for “pat” would be partially

correct).

The test did discriminate among students. Their mean score on the test was 5.81 with a

standard deviation of 3.77. Across the 124 children, the mean scores on the blending and

segmentation tests were 3.13 and 2.68, respectively. However, 47% of the children scored better

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 9

on the blending section than on the segmentation section, 34% scored better on the segmentation

than on the blending section, and 19% scored equally on both sections.

The standard error of measurement of the test was calculated as 1.33. Consequently, one

should be able to predict with 95% accuracy that an individual’s true score on the test was his or

her obtained scores plus or minus 2.6 points. This standard error of measurement should be kept

in mind when considering individuals’ scores on the test.

Predictive Validity of the Instrument

Year 1. The 29 children from the 1988-89 school year were the non-readers in October

from among 47 randomly selected first-grade students. Eighteen of the 29 children were from

four classes piloting a literature-based approach to reading instruction which did include phonics

instruction. In general these children were not ability-grouped for reading instruction, although a

special reading teacher came in to the classroom each day to work with heterogeneous or

homogeneous groups of students. The teachers did spend more time listening to the lowest

achieving children read individually. Eleven of the 29 children were from two classes using a

traditional basal reader program and were ability-grouped for reading instruction. The lowest

achieving readers were instructed in reading by a special reading teacher out of the regular

classroom. The 29 children were not receiving additional help in reading from the special

education program or from Chapter 1.

Out of this sample of 29 children, 14 of them were not reading at all or were not reading

beyond a preprimer level in May (as determined by their ability to read graded passages on

which a score of 92% word recognition accuracy was needed to move on to a more difficult level

passage). Thirteen of these 14 children had a score of 7 or lower in October on the phonemic

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 10

segmentation and blending test. Fifteen of the 29 children were reading at a primer level or

better in May. Thirteen of these 15 had a score of 8 or better on the phonemic segmentation and

blending test in October.

Year 2. The 46 children from the 1989-90 school year were children in 6 classes (from

two buildings) identified by their teachers as from the lowest third in emerging reading ability in

October. All six classes were using a literature-based approach to reading, and children were not

ability-grouped for their basic reading instruction. A special reading teacher came into the six

classes each day to work with heterogeneous and homogeneous groups of students. Teachers

indicated that they spent more time listening to the low-achieving children read individually and

reteaching them word recognition skills taught to the entire class. In four of the six classes, a

special reading teacher worked with these lowest-achieving students for 30 minutes a day for a

total of five or six weeks spread out over the first six months of the school year. The children

were not receiving special education or Chapter 1 services.

Of the 46 children tested in October, 31 of them were not reading at all or were not

reading beyond a preprimer level in May. Twenty-eight of the 31 had a score of 7 or lower in

October on the phonemic segmentation and blending test. Of the 15 children who were reading

on at least a primer level or better in May, 13 had a score of 8 or better in October on the

phonemic segmentation and blending test.

Year 3. The 49 children from the 1990-91 school year were identified by their teachers

in October as below average or average in beginning reading ability. First grade classes in two

schools from one district used an intensive phonics program for their reading program until

March. Children were non-ability-grouped. Then children moved into a basal program in which

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 11

they were ability-grouped. There were 39 children from this district on whom data was

collected. The other 10 children were in a rural district which used a basal program for reading

instruction. However, children were not ability-grouped for reading.

Of the 49 children, 22 of them were not reading or only reading at a preprimer level by

May. Eighteen of the 22 had a score of 7 or lower in October on the phonemic segmentation and

blending test. Of the 27 children who were reading on a primer level or better in May, 20 had a

score of 8 or better in October on the phonemic segmentation and blending test.

When pooling results across the three years and three districts and using a score of 7 or

lower as a cut-off on the phonemic segmentation and blending test, we were able to identify in

October, 59 of 67 or 88% of the children who were not reading well by the end of the first grade

year. By using a score of 8 or better, we were able to identify in October, 46 of 57 or 81% of the

children who were reading well by May of the first grade year.

It is very important to keep in mind that a score of 7 should not be regarded as an

absolute cut-off score to determine who might need extra help in reading. The standard error of

measurement of the test should be kept in mind. Furthermore, teacher judgment and other

assessments should be used as well to make decisions about which children might benefit from

extra help in reading.

Early Intervention for Children Who Score Poorly on the

Phonemic Segmentation and Blending Test

In a related study (Taylor, Short, Frye, & Shearer, in press), the Classroom Phonemic

Segmentation and Blending Test was used along with teacher judgement, knowledge of

consonant sounds, knowledge of basic sight words, and performance on the Gates-MacGinitie

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 12

Reading Test—Readiness Level (1970) to identify children at risk of becoming disabled readers

during first grade. Thirty children from six classes were identified. These children all had a

score of five or lower on the phonemic segmentation and blending test in October. The children

participated in a supplemental reading program, Early Intervention in Reading, provided by the

classroom teacher for 15 to 20 minutes a day from October through April. This program (Taylor,

Short, Frye & Shearer, in press) used picture books with high appeal for first graders and placed

a heavy emphasis on developing students’ phonemic segmentation and blending ability. Fifty-

two percent of the children were reading on at least a primer level in May and 40% on an end-of-

first-grade level or better. In contrast, only 19% of 30 control children (also with a score in

October of 5 or lower on the phonemic segmentation and blending test) were reading on at least

a primer level in May and only 11% on an end-of-first-grade level or better. Based on the results

of the study, it appears that if at-risk readers are identified early in the first-grade year and if

appropriate intervention is offered, many of the children who might become disabled readers can

in fact learn to read well by the end of their first-grade year.

Conclusions

During the first two years, the phonemic segmentation and blending test was given in

May as well as October. Of the 29 children across the first two years who were not reading in

May (on at least a preprimer level), 24 did score better on the phonemic awareness test in May

than in October. The 29 students’ mean score was 3.14 in October and 8.17 in May. This

suggests that, although these children were not yet reading by the end of first grade, the vast

majority of them did grow in phonemic awareness during the school year. This lends support to

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 13

the position that phonemic awareness is not just a result of learning to read, but in fact emerges

and develops for most children before they are able to read on a preprimer level.

Validation of the Classroom Phonemic Segmentation and Blending Test has been based

on only 124 children in one rural and two suburban districts to date. Obviously, more research

on the test is needed, and therefore the test must be used with caution. One limitation of the test

is that, although it does include a range of phonemes, a wider range of phonemes could have

been included on the test. Perhaps modifications of the test to include a wider range of

phonemes would change the predictive validity and internal consistency reliability of the test.

Nevertheless, the test, as is, has been found to have both a high predictive validity and internal

consistency reliability.

An additional caution pertains to the length of the test and its task demands. Since the

test is a short 12-item test administered once, it should not be considered a final measure of a

child’s phonemic awareness. A particular child who performs poorly on the test may not have

understood the directions or may have been distracted at the time of testing. Also, the test does

require metalinguistic knowledge of terms like “sound” and “blend,” knowledge which some

children may not have.

In spite of its limitations, the Classroom Phonemic Segmentation and Blending Test is

quick and easy to administer as well as highly predictive of end-of-first-grade reading

achievement. Teachers who have used the test are very excited about it. They report that it

really does help them identify in the fall children who will have trouble learning to read in first

grade. The test might be used as one piece of information to help first-grade teachers decide

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 14

which children in their classrooms would benefit from early intervention in reading. Such

intervention may very well prevent these children from becoming disabled readers.

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 15

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read : Thinking and learning about print. Boston: MIT

Press.

Ball, E., & Blackman, B. (1991). Does phonemic segmentation training in kindergarten make a

difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research

Quarterly, 26, 49-66.

Bradley, C., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal

connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.

Clay, M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behavior. Auckland, New Zealand:

Heinemann.

Cunningham, A. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429-444.

Ehri, L. (1979). Linguistic insight: Threshold of reading acquisition. In T. Waller & G.

Mackinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 1, p. 63-

114). New York: Academic Press.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to write: A longitudinal study of fifty-four children from first through

fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Liberman, T. (1973). Segmentation of the spoken word and reading acquisition. Bulletin of the

Orton Society, 23, 65-77.

Lundberg, I., Frost, J., Peterson, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating

phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263-

284.

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00
 16

Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertleson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a

sequence of phonics arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323-331.

Perfetti, C., Beck, I., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are

reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first-grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33,

283-319.

Pinnell, G., DeFord, D., & Lyons, C. (1988). Reading recovery: Early intervention for at-risk

first graders. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Roswell-Chall Auditory Blending Test. (1954). New York: Essay Press.

Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual

differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.

Stanovich, K., Cunningham, A., & Feeman, D. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early

reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 120-139.4

Taylor, B. & Pearson, P. D. (1988). Classroom phonemic segmentation and blending test.

Unpublished, University of Minnesota.

Talor, B., Short, R., Frye, B., & Shearer, B. (In press). Classroom teachers prevent reading

failure among low-achieving first grade students. The Reading Teacher.

D.3.b.
Early Intervention in Reading G1PhoemicPaper
2004 by Barbara Taylor 08-21-00