Top Lang Disorders
Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 210–227
c 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Copyright Assessing Affix Knowledge
Using Both Pseudoword and
Real-Word Measures
Alison M. Mitchell and Susan A. Brady
Purpose: Growth in morphological skills has been documented during mid-elementary grades, but
little research has examined knowledge of affix morphemes separate from whole words. This study
evaluated affix knowledge using a combination of real-word and pseudoword tasks. Methods:
Forty-five third-grade and 32 fifth-grade students participated. Students were assessed on word
identification, vocabulary knowledge, and affix proficiency. Sixteen prefixes and 16 suffixes were
studied using real-word and pseudoword stimuli. Results: Analyses indicated variability in which
affixes were known. Vocabulary and word-reading abilities accounted for substantial variance
in affix knowledge. On almost half of the pairs of real-word and pseudoword items, students’
performed significantly differently, accurately responding on only one. Conclusions: Performance
on the 2 types of morphology tasks (real-word and pseudoword) varied for a noteworthy portion
of the affixes studied. These results indicate that using both types of measures may be important
for investigations of morpheme knowledge. Key words: affixes, morphological knowledge,
prefixes, suffixes, vocabulary development
D
Author Affiliations: University of Rhode Island
(Drs Mitchell and Brady); and Haskins Laboratories,
New Haven, Connecticut (Dr Brady). Dr Mitchell is
now at the Florida Center for Reading Research at
Florida State University, Tallahassee.
This study was conducted as part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation research project. The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Drs Charles
Collyer, JoAnn Hammadou, Susan Loftus, Lakeisha
Johnson, John Stevenson, and Amy Weiss for their helpful input regarding the study and the manuscript. In
addition, the authors thank the principal, teachers,
and students for their cooperative participation, and
Brittany Durant, Maya Gibbes, and Benjamin Negrete
for their valuable assistance with data collection.
The authors have indicated that they have no financial
and no nonfinancial relationships to disclose.
Supplemental digital content is available for this
article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed
text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (www
.topicsinlanguagedisorders.com).
Corresponding Author: Alison M. Mitchell, PhD,
Florida Center for Reading Research at Florida State
University, 2010 Levy Ave, Ste 100, Tallahassee, FL
32310 ([email protected]).
DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000020
ISCUSSIONS of the English language
often emphasize its complex nature,
particularly as related to the development
of reading skills. English is a polyglot in
which many words and morphemes (i.e.,
units of meaning including prefixes, suffixes,
and roots) have been borrowed or derived
from other languages, with the majority originating from Anglo-Saxon, Latin, and Greek
sources (Henry, 1993). When focused only
on mapping between individual phonemes
and graphemes, the English writing system
may appear to be highly irregular (Goswami,
2005). However, far from being a letter-sound
system “riddled with imperfections,” English
demonstrates a more complex and regular
organization when both units of sound and
units of meaning are taken into consideration
(Venezky, 1967, p. 77). Thus, English is best
characterized as a morphophonemic writing
system, with emphasis placed on both phonemic and morphemic elements (Carlisle, 2003;
Gleitman & Rozin, 1977).
Although the significance of phonological information for acquisition of the orthography has been well established (e.g.,
210
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Assessing Affix Knowledge
Brady, Braze, & Fowler, 2011; Torgesen &
Bryant, 1994), the contribution of morphological skills to language and literacy development is an area of emerging focus and understanding (e.g., Bowers, Kirby, & Deacon,
2010; Gabig & Zaretsky, 2013; Goodwin &
Ahn, 2010; Jarmulowicz & Taran; 2013). Students’ awareness of the morphological components of words has been documented to
develop through the elementary- and middleschool years (Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, &
Carlisle, 2010; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott,
2006). Furthermore, the extent of morphological knowledge has been associated with
performance on word-reading (Henry, 1989),
spelling (Carlisle, 2003; Devonshire & Fluck,
2010; Nunes, Bryant, & Bindman, 1997), vocabulary (Wysocki & Jenkins, 1987), writing
(McCutchen, Stull, Herrara, Lotas & Evans,
2014), and comprehension tasks (Foorman,
Petscher, & Bishop, 2012; Nagy et al., 2006).
The Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts (CCSS/ELA) reference acquisition of awareness and knowledge of morphological elements throughout education,
beginning in early elementary school (Gabig
& Zaretsky, 2013; National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010). Several of the reading and vocabulary
strands of the CCSS/ELA standards for midelementary students directly address the need
for students both to engage in the process of
word analysis and to acquire knowledge of
common prefixes, suffixes, and roots. However, fairly little guidance is given regarding
which specific morphemes should be known
or taught at different stages, what level of
knowledge is acceptable across development,
or how best to evaluate levels of knowledge.
Observational data suggest that morphological concepts, including affixes, are not a topic
routinely taught within the classroom (Nunes
& Bryant, 2006; Wolter & Green, 2013), and
knowledge of this layer of language remains
largely unfamiliar to many teachers and practitioners (Gabig & Zaretsky, 2013).
In the research field, morphological skills
have been assessed using a wide number of
measures that may or may not tap into the
211
same constructs (see Apel, Diehm, & Apel,
2013). Although growth in derived word
knowledge has been documented (Anglin,
1993; Carlisle, 2000), relatively few studies
have evaluated affix knowledge directly, or
the growth and variation of this knowledge,
independent of students’ whole-word knowledge. When relying only on whole-word stimuli, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions
about knowledge of specific morphemes. This
is because a student may know a full word as
a whole without a clear awareness of its individual components (e.g., a student may know
the meaning of the word interrupt without
having awareness or understanding of the affix inter- or the root -rupt-).
Discussions of morphological skill have employed a number of terms, including morphological awareness, morphological knowledge,
and morphological processing (Bowers et al.,
2010; Nagy, Carlisle & Goodwin, 2014). Although some distinctions have been made,
there has been variability in the way these
terms have been defined and distinguished
(Bowers et al., 2010; Nagy et al., 2014). The
term morphological awareness has been defined as “awareness of the morphemic structure of words and the ability to reflect on
and manipulate that structure” (Carlisle, 1995,
p. 194). In contrast, the terms morphological knowledge and morphological processing
have been more used more loosely to refer
to the implicit processing of morphological
information. The term morphological knowledge may or may not also be used to reference
knowledge of individual morphemes.
Some of the difficulty in making clear terminological distinctions may be due to the reciprocal influences between the two types of
information. In the case of vocabulary knowledge, research evidence suggests that it is
linked with morphological awareness (Kuo &
Anderson, 2006). In a 4-month study of kindergarten students in schools serving socioeconomically disadvantaged families, gains in vocabulary knowledge made a unique contribution to growth in morphological awareness,
and vice versa (Ramirez, Walton, & Roberts,
2014). Similarly, awareness of morphological
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
212
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
features in words and specific knowledge
of morpheme meanings may be a reciprocal process. Possessing knowledge of the specific meanings of morphemes may be likely
to bolster awareness that many words can
be broken down into smaller units of meaning. Accordingly, individuals with higher levels of morphological awareness may be more
likely to learn the meanings of individual morphemes through exposure to them in words
(Kruk & Bergman, 2013; Kuo & Anderson,
2006).
Students’ awareness that words are made
up of morphological units has been shown to
advance with typical language development
(Kuo & Anderson, 2006), as does the association of morphological awareness with reading skills (Nagy et al., 2006; Singson, Mahony,
& Mann, 2000). Awareness of morphological
structure has been documented for early elementary school students (Treiman & Cassar,
1996; Wolter, Wood, & D’zatko, 2009), with
evidence that it develops gradually through
and beyond the elementary school years
(Berninger et al., 2010; Carlisle, 2010; Tyler
& Nagy, 1989). Corresponding with growth in
morphological awareness, knowledge of morphologically complex words also develops
with age. Anglin (1993) examined the number of words known by first, third, and fifth
graders by asking students to define or select
the meaning of base words and of morphologically complex words. Students demonstrated considerable increases from first to
fifth grades in their ability to define complex
words. Similarly, Carlisle and Fleming (2003)
found that first-grade students were much less
likely to look for familiar units in whole novel
words than were their counterparts in the
third grade, providing some evidence for the
growth in what Anglin (1993) described as
“morphological problem solving.”
Growth in derived word knowledge has
also been documented with older students
(Nippold & Sun, 2008). Fifth- and eighthgrade students were tested on their knowledge of derived nouns and adjectives using
a multiple-choice measure (Nippold & Sun,
2008). Words tested were selected from state-
issued textbooks and consisted of familiar
bases transformed into more complex words
by adding derivational suffixes (e.g., speechless, citizenship, acceptable). Derived nouns
were more challenging for students in both
grades than were derived adjectives, and performance was associated with the frequency
of the derived word in print. Although eighthgrade students outperformed fifth-grade students, it was noted that the older students
did not reach a ceiling level, indicating room
for further gains in morpheme and vocabulary
knowledge beyond this grade.
Given the size of the English lexicon, affix knowledge may provide a potentially fruitful instructional opportunity.
Estimations of the number of words in
English vary greatly; however, it has been
approximated that the English language has
in excess of 1 million words (Henry, 2010).
Henry (1993) also cited research suggesting
that beyond the relatively small base of AngloSaxon words in the English language, Latin
and Greek roots are found in 80% of words
borrowed from other languages and these
words constitute 60% of the words in text
(p. 233). Beginning in the mid-elementary
grades, there is a burgeoning increase in the
number of words that students encounter,
particularly in academic texts, and a significant portion of those words are morphologically complex (Anglin, 1993; Nagy & Anderson, 1984; Nippold & Sun, 2008). Despite the
large number of words in the language, a noteworthy portion incorporates a small set of
prefixes and suffixes, making knowledge of
those affixes potentially highly productive in
terms of providing information that could inform reading, spelling, vocabulary, and writing performance (Nagy et al., 2014).
Yet, despite instructional recommendations that suggest teaching affixes, the relative dearth of studies or assessments directly
measuring prefix knowledge has been noted
(Nagy et al., 2014). Understanding of 16 common prefixes was assessed for fourth-, fifth-,
and sixth-grade students by Nicol (1980), who
documented that students’ knowledge of prefixes ranged from 88% for mis- to 20% for
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Assessing Affix Knowledge
in- (as cited in Graves, 1986). However, information about performance on the other
prefixes tested was not provided. Similarly, a
study by White, Speidel, and Power (1985)
(also cited in Graves (1986)) reported that
fourth-grade students’ proficiency with the
same set of prefixes ranged from 80% for nonand re- to 20% for anti- and en-. As this study
was not published, specific prefix information
again is not available, although it was stated
that less than half of the students were familiar with two thirds of the prefixes tested.
Derivational suffix knowledge by students in
the fourth, seventh, and high school grades
was assessed and found to develop significantly by grade (Nagy, Diakidoy, & Anderson,
1993). However, at all grade levels, there were
individual students who showed little knowledge of the suffixes tested, a finding reported
by others as well (Bryant & Nunes, 2008;
Larson & Nippold, 2007; Nippold & Sun,
2008).
Part of this wide variation in knowledge
may be a byproduct of the association of morphological knowledge with other language
and literacy skills. Several studies have utilized
reading-age- and/or spelling-age-matched designs to examine the impact of reading
and spelling levels on morphological skills
(Casalis, Colé, & Sopo, 2004; Egan & Pring,
2004; Siegel, 2008; Tsesmeli & Seymour,
2006). Individuals with reading weaknesses
demonstrated morphological analysis ability
levels commensurate with younger pupils at
a matched reading level rather than with individuals in their peer group (e.g., Schiff &
Ravid, 2007). More recently, the connection
between morphological awareness and reading comprehension has been shown to be
moderated by multisyllabic word-reading ability (Gilbert, Goodwin, Compton, & Kearns,
2014).
The paucity of direct studies of affix
knowledge may stem in part from methodological concerns about how best to assess morphological knowledge (e.g., Apel
et al., 2013; Carlisle, 2010). Many studies
that have assessed or provided instruction regarding morphemes have not provided doc-
213
umentation of their rationale for selecting
words for study (see Carlisle, 2010). Various
experimenter-developed measures have utilized different formats to assess morphological awareness/knowledge, leaving questions
about the consequences of those variations
on student performance. When kindergarten
through second-grade students were tested on
four different experimenter-created tasks, different tests predicted word reading and reading comprehension at each grade level (Apel
et al., 2013).
Doing research with words that include
multiple morphemes also presents a challenge
in accounting for participants’ familiarity with
the individual morphemes, as well as their
knowledge of the whole words, as noted
earlier. Use of pseudomorphemes combined
with real morphemes is a practical way to
test for knowledge of real morphemes without interfering effects of prior whole-word
knowledge (Bryant & Nunes, 2008). The value
of pseudoword tasks has been demonstrated
for evaluating other orthographic skills. For
example, when young adults were given a
spelling task using a pseudoword task, the
performance of only a minority of the participants was significantly above chance; in
contrast, when an equivalent task was given
using real words, participants had little difficulty (Mitchell, Kemp, & Bryant, 2011). Had
this assessment used only real words, different
conclusions would have been made regarding
the subjects’ proficiency with the spelling patterns. By extension, comparing students’ performance on real-word versus pseudoword
tasks may help differentiate between knowledge of the meaning of real words and actual
knowledge of the affix morphemes per se.
CURRENT STUDY
Despite the high frequency of many affixes, it is possible that students may not
be explicitly aware of the meanings of common prefixes and suffixes, prohibiting access to valuable semantic information for unfamiliar words containing those word parts
when encountered in print. The current study
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
214
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
focused on the affix knowledge of middlegrade elementary school students. Pupils
were tested on their abilities to ascertain the
meaning of a set of low frequency, morphologically complex real words, as has been
done in prior studies (e.g., Larsen & Nippold,
2007; Nippold & Sun, 2008). In addition, they
were assessed on a measure with pseudoword
stimuli (i.e., pseudo-roots with real English affixes) that contained the same affixes included
in the real-word task. Although we predicted
that performance on both types of items
would be highly correlated, we also expected
that it would not always match. That is, we anticipated that in some cases, students would
know the meaning of complex real words but
would not have apprehended the meaning
of component affixes. Receptive vocabulary
and word-reading performance were measured to provide indices of the correspondence of these skills to students’ acquisition
of affixes.
Three primary research questions were addressed:
1. For a set of 32 common affixes, what are
the levels of prefix and suffix knowledge
of mid-elementary school pupils?
2. To what extent do age, vocabulary
knowledge, and word-reading skills correspond with and account for variance
in affix knowledge?
3. Do students demonstrate comparable
knowledge of affixes when they are presented in the context of real words as
when they are assessed in pseudowords?
Or, does the use of a pseudoword measure provide discerning information regarding students’ knowledge of morphemes?
METHODS
months (109.80 months, SD = 4.43). Thirtytwo students (14 boys, 18 girls) were
from two fifth-grade classrooms, with a
mean age of 11 years 3 months (134.56
months, SD = 4.46). Although some analyses compared the two grade cohorts, the
focus more generally was on the combined group of students in this age/grade
range.
In the sample, 39% of students qualified
for free or reduced lunch, with a slightly
larger proportion of qualifying students in the
fifth grade (44%) than in the third (36%). In
the participating school during the year of
the study, 84% of students were White, 6%
were Hispanic, 5% were African American, 3%
were multiracial, 1% were Asian, and 1% were
Native American. No individual information
about race/ethnicity for the students in the
study was available to the researchers. No students in the study were enrolled in English as
a Second Language services at the time of the
study. A total of 19% of students in the school
received special education services during the
year of the project. (Once again, individual
student information pertaining to the nature
of a student’s disability status was not made
available to the researchers.) Because inclusionary criteria specified that students with
a range of abilities, including those with Individualized Education Plans for such conditions as a language impairment or specific
learning disability, qualified for inclusion in
the sample, information about the percentage
of participants who may have been receiving
any kind of special education services is not
known. However, the group of students who
chose to participate did not include any students with a diagnosis of a hearing or visual
impairment.
Measures
Participants
Vocabulary knowledge
A total of 77 students from a suburban elementary school in New England participated
in the study. Forty-five students (16 boys,
29 girls) were from three third-grade classrooms, with a mean age of 9 years 2
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–
Fourth Edition (PPVT-IV; Dunn & Dunn,
2007) was used to assess each student’s current receptive, single-word vocabulary knowledge in English. To compare students at
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Assessing Affix Knowledge
different grade levels and to assess the influence of age, raw scores were used in correlational and regression analyses.
Word identification
The Word Identification subtest of
the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–
Revised/Normative Update (Woodcock,
1998) was used to measure students’ ability
to read real words in isolation. Raw scores
were used in correlational and regression
analyses.
Affix Knowledge Task
Knowledge of affixes was tested using two
experimenter-designed subtests, one with
real-word stimuli and one with pseudoword
stimuli. The same affixes were tested in the
two subtests. Furthermore, for each type of
task (real-word or pseudoword), half consisted of items with prefixes and half of items
with suffixes.
To create the measure, a set of 16 prefixes
and 16 suffixes was selected from a pool of
high-frequency affixes (Ebbers, 2004; Henry,
2010). We selected age-appropriate vocabulary including affixes to which third graders
would likely have had exposure. The RealWord subtest was presented first, followed
by the pseudoword items to avoid participants potentially gaining insights about affix meanings from the pseudoword task that
could then influence performance on the realword measure. Within each task (real-word
and pseudoword), half of the students were
given the prefix subset first whereas the other
half received the suffix items first, to balance possible fatigue effects. All of the students completed every item on all tasks. This
allowed us to use raw scores for all analyses. Cronbach’s α for the study sample on
the Affix Knowledge Task was .87 for all
64 items.
Real-Word subtest
A set of complex, multimorphemic words
was selected for the Real-Word subtest that
each included one of the target prefixes or
suffixes. Words chosen were low-frequency
215
complex words that included a common
word base that occurs in print at a relatively
high frequency. For example, the multimorphemic word “blockage” has a relatively low
frequency in written text; however, the base
word “block” is present in the text at a much
higher rate. Written frequencies of the whole
complex word and of the word base were determined on the basis of Standard Frequency
Index (SFI) of the word in The Educator’s
Word Frequency Guide (Zeno, Ivens, Millard,
& Duvvuri, 1995). The SFI is a logarithmic
transformation of the frequency per million
words that a word is observed. Because it
is a logarithmic scale, “a word with an SFI
value of 55.0 has a frequency per million
that is 10 times higher than the frequency
per million of a word with an SFI of 45.0”
(Zeno et al., 1995, p. 12). Written frequencies were used because of the absence of
concrete measures of oral language word frequency (c.f., Mitchell & Brady, 2013). To be
considered “lower frequency” in this study,
complex words had to have an SFI value below 48. To be classified as “higher frequency,”
base words needed to have an SFI value above
52. The average SFI value for the prefix base
words was 58.7; for the combined words, it
was 34.9. The average SFI value for the suffix base words was 59.6; for the combined
words, it was 35.1. Efforts were made to
keep the number of syllables, part of speech,
and average SFI values for complex and base
words in the prefix and suffix word lists as
similar as possible. For the full list of affixes
and real-word stimuli and their SFI values, see
Table 1.
Multiple-choice questions were developed
to assess students’ knowledge of the words.
Students were asked to select what they
thought a word meant from three multiplechoice responses. Answer choices were written with the goal of making performance as
contingent on affix knowledge as possible.
For example, “Which of these things could be
described as a ‘monotone’? (a) When a person’s voice is always at one level; (b) When a
song is sung by two singers; (c) When a person’s voice goes up and down.” For the full list
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
216
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
Table 1. Prefixes and suffixes used in the experimental Affix Knowledge Task, with base words
and combined words used in the Real-Word subtask
Prefix
Base Word
A1. Prefix items
anti
hero
be
friend
co
exist
dis
value
en
trust
in
secure
inter
office
mal
practice
mis
match
mono
tone
multi
family
post
war
trans
plant
re
discover
sub
standard
un
clean
A2. Suffix items
able
note
age
block
en
thick
ful
force
hood
likely
ian
history
ish
warm
ist
active
ity
central
ize
crystal
less
cause
ment
better
ology
climate
ous
thunder
ship
author
ure
close
Part of
Speecha
Combined
Word
Part of
Speecha
n
53.4
n
62.4
v
57.1
v, n
59.6
n
54.3
adj
52.9
n
62.2
n, v
60.2
v, n
56.2
n
54.1
n
66.0
n
64.8
v, n
62.5
v
56.6
adj, n
57.8
adj
60.6
Avg. SFI = 58.7
antihero
befriend
coexist
disvalue
entrust
insecure
interoffice
malpractice
mismatch
monotone
multifamily
postwar
transplant
rediscover
substandard
unclean
n
22.1
v
30.4
v
35.7
v, n
42.6
v
32.9
adj
41.2
adj
27.7
n
37.5
n, v
26.8
adj
31.8
adj, n
28.8
adj
43.6
n, v
43.3
v
35.1
adj
37.4
adj
41.7
Avg. SFI = 34.9
4
2
3
3
2
3
4
3
2
3
5
2
2
4
3
2
n
59.3
n, v
57.6
adj
59.9
n, v
62.7
adj
60.3
n
62.4
adj
62.7
adj
57.5
adj
60.3
n, adj
52.1
n
62.3
adj
66.1
n
57.9
n
53
n
55.7
v
63.8
Avg. SFI = 59.6
notable
blockage
thicken
forceful
likelihood
historian
warmish
activist
centrality
crystallize
causeless
betterment
climatology
thunderous
authorship
closure
adj
44.8
n
36.9
v
40.1
adj
44.4
n
45.4
n
47.2
adj, n
22.1
n
37.4
n
20.8
v
31.8
adj
20.8
n
36.7
n
22.1
adj
40
n
35
n
36
Avg. SFI = 35.1
3
2
2
2
3
4
2
3
4
3
2
3
5
3
3
2
SFI
SFI
No. of
Syllables
Note. SFI = Standard Frequency Index.
a Parts of speech: v = verb; n = noun; adj = adjective.
of items, see Supplemental Digital Content 1,
http://links.lww.com/TLD/A26.
Pseudoword subtest
To control for the potential confounds
of knowledge of the meaning of particular
complex words chosen, a set of pseudomorpheme bases was created and combined with
the target affixes. Students were told the
meaning of the made-up bases and then given
a description of the meaning of a new word
that could be created using the pseudo-base
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Assessing Affix Knowledge
and a real prefix or suffix. The student was
given three answer choices of words that consisted of a real target affix and a pseudobase.
For example, “If ‘lanost’ means ‘forest’, which
word could mean ‘between forests’? (a) mislanosts; (b) interlanosts; (c) antilanosts.” Each
pseudobase was used for three to four questions to avoid the cognitive load of using
a new semantic concept for each question.
Only target affixes were used as distractors,
and each target affix was used as a distractor in three questions for which it was not
the correct choice. These items also appear
as Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.
lww.com/TLD/A26.
Before beginning testing with the study
sample, pilot administration of the measure
was done with students in the fourth grade
of the same school. No floor or ceiling effects
were observed with the measures, and the
testing procedures worked smoothly.
Test of Morphological Structure:
Derivational section (Carlisle, 2000)
The Derivation portion of the Test of Morphological Structure (TMS-D) assesses students’ awareness of the relationships between
base and derived forms of real words. This
subtask was chosen as a referential measure
of morpheme awareness/knowledge to provide construct validation for the experimental instrument and because it was developed
for, and has been tested with, third- and fifthgrade students. In this section of the TMS, the
student is given a base word and is asked to
finish a sentence using the derived form of the
word (e.g., “Teach. She was a good teacher.”).
Raw scores of the total number of items correct were used for all analyses. Cronbach’s α
for the measure with the current sample of
students was .81.
Procedure
To expedite data collection, three undergraduate research assistants were recruited to
aid in the assessment process. Administration
of the measures was broken into two sets.
All three assistants were trained on administration and scoring procedures for the first set
217
of measures, which included the PPVT-IV, the
Word Identification subtest, and the TMS. This
first set was administered to each child individually and took approximately 25–35 min.
Most of the students completed these three assessments during a single session; a few completed two of the tasks in one session and
the other in a separate session. The second
set, conducted by the first author, consisted
of both the real-word and pseudoword sections of the Affix Knowledge Task. Students
within the same grade were seated at a table in
groups of two to six students. Using cardboard
folders, the table was divided into individual
carrels to provide students with privacy for
marking their responses. In addition to having their individual paper copies to look at,
each measure was read aloud to the group of
students to avoid potential reading-level confounds. After the question and answer choices
were read aloud, students were asked to mark
their answers on their individual protocols
forms. Students were able to request that the
question and answer choices be repeated. All
assessments were completed within a 6-week
period in May and June.
RESULTS
All students completed all of the items on
each of the measures, resulting in no missing data. Descriptive statistics were computed
for each grade level (Table 2). Students in
both grades performed within 1 SD of the
population mean on age-based standardized
measures (i.e., vocabulary knowledge, word
reading). The average standardized vocabulary score for third-grade (M = 107.78, SD =
12.39) and fifth-grade (M = 107.88, SD =
14.38) students was very similar. However,
the average standardized Word Identification
subtest score was higher for the third-grade
students (M = 111.96, SD = 10.41) than for
the fifth grade students (M = 106.44, SD =
9.28). An independent-samples t test demonstrated that this was a statistically significant
difference in scores, t(75) = 2.40, p = .02,
η2 = .03, indicating that, on average, the
third-grade students exhibited higher average
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
218
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
Table 2. Mean performance for third- and fifth-grade students
M
SD
Range
A. Descriptive results on vocabulary, reading, and morphologicala measures for the third-grade
students (n = 45)
PPVT-IV (raw scores)
153.24
13.80
117–186
PPVT-IV (standardized scores)
107.78
12.39
84–141
Woodcock Word Identification subtest (raw scores)
70.76
10.30
36–87
Woodcock Word Identification subtest (standardized scores)
111.96
10.41
86–130
TMS-D (max = 28)
13.64
4.28
3–22
Affix Knowledge Task (max = 64)
36.76
8.31
21–53
Real-Word subtest (max = 32)
18.09
4.28
10–27
Pseudoword subtest (max = 32)
18.67
4.76
9–27
B. Descriptive results on vocabulary, reading, and morphologicala measures for the fifth-grade
students (n = 32)
PPVT-IV (raw score)
171.31
16.63
137–204
PPVT-IV (standardized scores)
107.88
14.38
83–142
Woodcock Word Identification subtest (raw scores)
81.19
8.66
61–97
Woodcock Word Identification subtest (standardized scores)
106.44
9.28
89–124
TMS-D (max = 28)
18.63
3.36
10–26
Affix Knowledge Task (max = 64)
45.41
8.11
31–60
Real-Word subtest (max = 32)
23.56
3.95
16–31
Pseudoword subtest (max = 32)
21.84
4.82
13–29
Note. PPVT-IV, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Fourth Edition; TMS-D, Test of Morphological Structure: Derivational
section.
a For all of the morphology measures, only raw scores were used.
word-reading abilities for their age than their
fifth-grade counterparts.
Descriptive results of the Affix Knowledge
Task indicate that both the third-grade and
the fifth-grade students in the sample demonstrated knowledge of many affixes and complex words. On average, fifth-grade students
exhibited higher affix knowledge abilities
than third-grade students. An independentsamples t test demonstrated that this was a
statistically significant difference in scores,
t(75) = −4.546, p < .01. This difference in
means is considered a large effect (η2 = .22).
For the combined set of participants from
the two grades, knowledge of the individual
affixes varied broadly when occurring both
in pseudowords and in affixed real words
(Table 3). There also was a fairly wide variation in performance within each of the
grade cohorts. Third-grade students ranged
in individual performance from 31% to 84%
correct on the real-word items and from 28%
to 84% correct on the pseudoword items.
Fifth-grade student performance ranged from
50% to 97% correct on the real-word items and
from 41% to 91% correct on the pseudoword
items.
Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients were computed to determine the
relationships between age, performance on
vocabulary knowledge, word reading, and
the morphological measures (Table 4). Raw
scores were used in the correlational analyses conducted with the whole sample to
look at the relationships between raw performance on each measure and chronological age. Results indicate that age was significantly correlated with performance on each
measure and that intercorrelations between
the measures all were significant (p < .01).
The Affix Knowledge Task was strongly correlated with receptive vocabulary knowledge
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Assessing Affix Knowledge
219
Table 3. Affix Knowledge Task: Percent correct by grade for real-word and pseudoword items
Real-Word Performance:
% Correct
Prefixed Words
Third Grade
(n = 45)
Fifth Grade
(n = 32)
Pseudoword Performance:
% Correct
Pseudowords
Third Grade
(n = 45)
Fifth Grade
(n = 32)
mismatch
rediscover
unclean
multifamily
disvalue
insecure
transplant
substandard
coexist
befriend
antihero
interoffice
malpractice
monotone
postwar
entrust
Mean
96
96
91
82
73
64
51
51
40
40
33
33
33
20
20
9
52
100
97
100
94
84
75
75
53
41
66
78
53
41
34
25
38
66
misreunmultidisintranssubcobeantiintermalmonoposten-
51
89
82
89
82
47
76
56
62
29
49
78
36
24
27
36
57
78
97
91
100
78
50
44
66
63
47
84
84
38
59
50
28
66
Suffixed Words
forceful
warmish
likelihood
thicken
blockage
closure
crystallize
betterment
historian
thunderous
climatology
causeless
authorship
centrality
notable
activist
Mean
96
93
71
71
71
67
64
64
58
56
53
51
51
42
33
33
61
100
97
88
84
78
91
81
91
88
94
84
72
75
66
41
75
82
-ful
-ish
-hood
-en
-age
-ure
-ize
-ment
-ian
-ous
-ology
-less
-ship
-ity
-able
-list
62
84
62
56
36
53
62
42
62
60
87
80
51
49
78
31
60
78
91
63
66
72
59
78
56
84
47
100
97
50
56
84
47
71
(r = .75), Woodcock Word Identification
subtest (r = .67), and the TMS-D (r = .70).
The association with performance on the
TMS-D provides some support for the construct validity of the experimental measure.
The two subtests within the Affix Knowledge
Task were highly correlated (r = .73), but
not to such an extent as to indicate multicollinearity.
Hierarchical multiple regression was used
to investigate the contribution of vocabulary
and word reading to performance on both
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
220
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients using raw scores for the combined sample (N = 77)
Measure
1. Chronological age
2. PPVT-IV
3. Woodcock Word Identification subtest
4. TMS-D
5. Affix Knowledge Task
6. Real-Word subtest
7. Pseudoword subtest
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
.48**
.45**
.50**
.41**
.50**
.27*
1
.66**
.84**
.75**
.80**
.59**
1
.68**
.67**
.67**
.58**
1
.70**
.75**
.56**
1
.93**
.93**
1
.73**
1
Note. PPVT-IV, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Fourth Edition; TMS-D, Test of Morphological Structure: Derivational
section.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
sections of the Affix Knowledge Task
(Table 5). To assess the impact of chronological age, regression analyses were performed
with both grades together using raw scores.
On the Real-Word subtest, chronological
age, vocabulary, and word identification all
accounted for significant variance in predicting performance when they were entered in
that order (see Table 5). The overall model explained 69% of the variance in performance,
F(3, 73) = 53.9, p < .01. Raw receptive
vocabulary knowledge provided the largest
portion of unique variance to predicting performance on the Affix Knowledge Task for the
full cohort of students but shared considerable variance with the reading measure, Word
Identification subtest. Age contributed only
significant variance when it was entered into
the equation first, but when entered after the
other variables, it was no longer significant.
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analyses predicting performance on the Real-Word and
Pseudoword subtests of the Affix Knowledge Task using raw scores with the whole sample
(N = 77)
Step
Real-Word subtests
1
2
3
1
2
3
Pseudoword subtests
1
2
3
1
2
3
Variable Added
Adj R2
p
Final β
Chronological age
Vocabulary
Word Identification
Vocabulary
Word Identification
Chronological age
.25
.41
.03
.65
.04
.01
<.01**
<.01**
.01*
<.01**
<.01**
.16
.11
.60
.22
.60
.22
.11
Chronological age
Vocabulary
Word Identification
Vocabulary
Word Identification
Chronological age
.07
.28
.07
.35
.06
.01
.02*
<.01**
<.01**
<.01**
<.01**
.41
− .09
.40
.35
.40
.35
− .09
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
221
Assessing Affix Knowledge
This indicates that the variance that age
adds to performance is largely shared with
age-associated increases in vocabulary and
word identification.
For the Pseudoword subtest, the pattern
was similar in that vocabulary knowledge
was the largest predictor of performance.
Word recognition also contributed unique
variance to performance. Age was not a significant predictor of performance when vocabulary knowledge and word reading were
entered into the equation first. Overall, in
comparison with the real-word items, less of
the variance was explained, with the overall
model accounting for 42%, F(3, 73) = 17.6,
p < .01.
Performance on real-word and pseudoword
items was investigated further for the whole
sample by comparing accuracy on the two
types of items for each affix. A paired-samples
t test was performed that showed that overall
mean performance was not significantly different for real-word and pseudoword items,
t(76) = .90, p = .37. Thus, as a whole,
both tasks presented similar indications of students’ affix knowledge levels. However, more
in-depth exploration looking at the pair of
items for each affix presents a more complicated picture.
To investigate this issue more closely, the
Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to examine performance on real-word and pseudoword items for each affix (Tables 6 and
7). Performance levels on 17 of the 32 pairs
did not significantly differ (i.e., on 53% of the
Real-Word/Pseudoword comparisons). However, on two of the prefix items (mismatch
and insecure) and seven of the suffix stimuli (forceful, betterment, blockage, closure,
thicken, likelihood, and thunderous) accuracy was significantly superior on the realword item. Hence, on 9 of the 32 matched
pairs, students were stronger on the real-word
stimulus than on the pseudoword construction with the same affix (i.e., on almost a third
of the items overall). Examining the opposite
pattern, for three of the prefix pairs (inter-,
co-, and post-) and for three of the suffix pairs
Table 6. Wilcoxon signed rank test results for pairs of real-word and pseudoword items with
the same prefix
Real Word
M
SD
Pseudo
M
SD
|z|
Sig. (2-Tailed)
ra
mismatch
interoffice
coexist
insecure
postwar
antihero
monotone
unclean
befriend
multifamily
entrust
rediscover
substandard
disvalue
transplant
malpractice
0.95
0.42
0.40
0.69
0.22
0.52
0.26
0.95
0.51
0.87
0.21
0.96
0.52
0.78
0.61
0.36
0.22
0.50
0.49
0.47
0.42
0.50
0.44
0.22
0.50
0.34
0.41
0.20
0.50
0.42
0.49
0.48
misintercoinpostantimonounbemultienresubdistransmal-
0.86
0.81
0.62
0.48
0.36
0.64
0.39
0.86
0.36
0.94
0.32
0.92
0.60
0.81
0.62
0.36
0.35
0.40
0.49
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.49
0.35
0.48
0.25
0.47
0.27
0.49
0.40
0.49
0.48
5.01
4.52
2.80
2.60
2.12
1.96
1.96
1.94
1.92
1.67
1.62
1.00
1.00
0.41
0.16
0.00
<.01**
<.01**
<.01**
<.01*
.03*
.05
.05
.05
.06
.10
.11
.32
.32
.69
.87
1.00
r = .40
r = .36
r = .23
r = .21
r = .17
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Note: Statistically better performance on an affix in the real-word or pseudoword condition is highlighted in bold.
a r values for pairs with p < .05 significance value on the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
222
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
Table 7. Wilcoxon signed rank test results for pairs of real-word and pseudoword items with
the same suffix
Real
notable
forceful
climatology
causeless
betterment
blockage
closure
thicken
likelihood
thunderous
warmish
activist
authorship
crystallize
historian
centrality
M
SD
Pseudo
M
SD
|z|
Sig. (2-Tailed)
ra
0.36
0.97
0.66
0.60
0.75
0.74
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.71
0.95
0.51
0.61
0.71
0.70
0.52
0.48
0.16
0.48
0.49
0.43
0.44
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.46
0.22
0.50
0.49
0.46
0.46
0.50
-able
-ful
-ology
-less
-ment
-age
-ure
-en
-hood
-ous
-ish
-ist
-ship
-ize
-ian
-ity
0.81
0.69
0.92
0.87
0.48
0.51
0.56
0.60
0.62
0.55
0.87
0.38
0.51
0.69
0.71
0.52
0.40
0.47
0.27
0.34
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.34
0.49
0.50
0.47
0.46
0.50
5.25
4.69
4.26
3.77
3.45
3.40
3.02
2.26
2.12
2.03
1.90
1.62
1.46
0.37
0.23
0.00
<.01**
<.01**
<.01**
<.01**
<.01**
<.01**
<.01**
.02*
.03*
.04*
.06
.11
.14
.72
.82
1.00
r = .42
r = .38
r = .34
r = .30
r = .28
r = .27
r = .24
r = .18
r = .17
r = .16
–
–
–
–
–
–
Note. Statistically better performance on an item type is highlighted in bold.
a r values for pairs with p < .05 significance value on the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
(-able, -ology, and -less), students performed
significantly better on the pseudoword
item.
DISCUSSION
Recent reviews provide convincing evidence that morphological knowledge contributes to a number of essential language and
literacy skills (Bowers et al., 2010; Carlisle,
2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010). The current
study investigated affix knowledge of students
in elementary school (i.e., in the third and
fifth grades), documenting a wide variation
of familiarity with individual morphemes. Although many of the affixes assessed were
known by a large proportion of students in
this sample in both grades (e.g., multi-, re-,
un-, dis-, -ology, -ish, -less, -able), others were
far less familiar to the students tested (e.g.,
mal-, post-, be-, en-, -ship, -age, -ment, -ist).
These variations in knowledge of individual
affixes are consistent with prior research on
this topic (Graves, 1986; Larsen & Nippold,
2007; Nippold & Sun, 2008) and point to gaps
in knowledge of common affixes by a significant portion of elementary school students.
The results also extend the findings of previous studies that have documented a wide
range of individual differences in morphological knowledge both for children and for adults
(Bryant & Nunes, 2008). In the current study,
the variation in knowledge was fairly evenly
distributed across the sample, with performance for all of the students on the Affix
Knowledge Task ranging relatively smoothly
from students who demonstrated a high level
of affix knowledge to those with a limited
amount. This is in contrast with the findings
of Bryant and Nunes, who reported “sharp
differences among adults in their knowledge
of the morphemic rule for spelling” (2008,
p. 365). In the present case, knowledge of
morphemes in words instead presented as a
skill that lies on a continuum for the students
studied.
One possible explanation for the pattern observed here is that multiple-choice
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Assessing Affix Knowledge
questions may have facilitated some students’
abilities to identify morpheme meanings.
Because multiple-choice questions require
recognition of the correct answer, rather than
recall of information from memory, accuracy
of responses may be boosted by guessing
and by use of strategies to eliminate alternative answers, as well as by partial knowledge of particular morphemes. If a fill-in-theblank expressive task (e.g., “If ‘turb’ means
to sit, what does ‘returb’ mean?”) were utilized, it would constitute a more stringent
measure. On the contrary, such tasks may
underestimate overall levels of morpheme
knowledge. As is recognized for vocabulary
knowledge (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002;
Stahl, 2003), knowledge of affixes is not necessarily an all-or-nothing skill, with the consequence that absence of conscious or explicit
knowledge of the meaning of an affix would
not necessarily indicate the lack of any knowledge regarding the connotation of that affix
(Jarmulowicz & Taran, 2013). Similarly, when
fourth-, sixth-, and eighth-grade students were
tested on their abilities to make generalizations about the meanings of unfamiliar words
based on prior experience with related words,
their scores on this task varied significantly
based on whether a loose or stringent scoring protocol was used (Wysocki & Jenkins,
1987). Thus, conclusions regarding individuals’ affix knowledge are likely to have to be
qualified depending on the tasks and scoring
procedures used.
Given that affix knowledge in only two
grade levels at a single time point was documented, it is not possible to make generalizations regarding grade-level growth in prefix and suffix knowledge. However, a general
trend was observed that may point to a potential area for future inquiry. Many of the affixes that were well known by the fifth-grade
students also were well known by the third
graders (e.g., re-, multi-, -ology, -ish), perhaps indicating that they often are acquired
by the end of third grade. In contrast, several affixes generally were unfamiliar to the
majority of the third graders but were better
known by the fifth-grade students (e.g., post-,
223
mono-, -age, -ist), compatible with the possibility that these morphemes may be learned
at a later point in education. With further research, it may be found that this pattern parallels evidence that roots are acquired in a fairly
constant developmental sequence (Biemiller,
2010; Biemiller & Slonim, 2001). Yet, beyond
studies carried out with very young students
(e.g., Nunes et al., 1997), relatively few crosssectional or longitudinal studies have been
conducted on the development of morphological knowledge (Graves, 1986; Nagy et al.,
2014; Nippold & Sun, 2008).
The works of Henry (1989, 1993, 2010)
include excellent syntheses of the etymological origins of English and the expected
progression of the types of words and morphemes encountered in spoken and written forms (i.e., Anglo-Saxon before Latin and
Greek), but within those broad language
guidelines, experimental studies are needed
to refine understanding of morphology acquisition and also how that may vary for students
with differing socioeconomic, linguistic, and
educational opportunities. Such work potentially could inform teachers and practitioners about which affixes are most appropriate and valuable to teach at different points
in time, apropos to the emphasis on morphological knowledge in the Common Core
State Standards (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010).
Although age was a significant predictor of
both sections of the experimental measure
of affix knowledge, the stronger performance
by older pupils largely was accounted for by
gains correlated with age, namely, in vocabulary knowledge and word identification. Vocabulary knowledge was the strongest predictor of performance for both real-word and
pseudoword items on the Affix Knowledge
Task, although it shared considerable variance
with word reading (i.e., word identification).
Because the measure was administered orally,
the current task was not directly contingent
on reading level, as might be argued for a
number of other morphological instruments.
Nonetheless, it is likely that vocabulary gains
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
224
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
are fostered by exposure to words in text,
contributing to the shared variance between
students’ performance on the vocabulary
knowledge and word identification measures
(Nagy & Anderson, 1984).
As anticipated, overall performance on the
real-word and pseudoword tasks was highly
correlated, indicating that students’ knowledge of the meanings of complex real words
corresponded with their knowledge of the
composite affixes, at least to a moderate extent. However, on a number of individual affix
item pairs, students performed significantly
better on one item than the other. There are
a number of possible reasons for this pattern
of performance. It is plausible that these differences merely represent measurement error
based on factors related to the individual items
(e.g., distractor choices; limited assessment of
each affix). As an alternative, this differential
pattern of performance also could indicate
that students may have utilized whole-word
knowledge to answer some of the questions
regarding the real words, rather than relying
on a process of morphological problem solving to determine word meanings. For example, although some students may have known
the meaning of the word, mismatch, they
may not yet have abstracted knowledge of
the individual prefix, mis-, within the word.
In turn, the pattern of results may also suggest that students sometimes were able to
correctly identify the meaning of an affix in
the context of a pseudoword item but did
not appear to apply this knowledge in the
real-word condition (e.g., they were accurate
on the pseudoword item for -less but not on
the real word causeless). In short, knowledge
of a multimorpheme word may not guarantee explicit awareness of the components of
that word, nor does knowledge of an affix in
isolation necessarily ensure that students will
apply that knowledge when encountering the
affix in a real word.
Limitations and future directions
Although the current study identifies concerns about the assessment of affix knowledge using only real-word stimuli, a number of
limitations must be acknowledged in the current approach as well. First, the fact that only
two grades within one relatively small school
were assessed limits the generalizability of the
results. In addition, the word study/spelling
curriculum that was used within the school,
Words Their Way (Bear, Invernizzi, & Templeton, 1996), includes focus on both roots
and affixes for students at advanced levels of
spelling, with the potential that some students
may have been directly introduced to some of
these affix concepts through instruction. To
assess student knowledge levels more objectively in these and other grades, larger, more
representative samples would be required.
And, more extensive cross-sectional and longitudinal studies are needed to document typical growth of morphology knowledge (Nagy
et al., 2014).
As noted previously, although breadth of affixes measured was incorporated in the Affix
Knowledge Task, issues related to reliability
would have been addressed by using multiple items per affix. Plus, as commented earlier, although the use of multiple-choice measures makes it possible to detect lower levels
of morpheme knowledge (i.e., recognition),
it does not allow one to discern which students have robust mastery of the affixes assessed. Utilization of additional measure formats, such as expressive questions, would
broaden understanding of the variation in levels of affix knowledge possessed by students.
In selecting affix stimuli for the experimental measure, the goal was to choose words
that have low frequency in text but that include common affixes that occur frequently.
Although the real words that were utilized
in the affix measure met these criteria, some
of the words are likely to have been within
the vocabulary of many students. For example, the words mismatch and forceful are
technically of low written frequency, yet they
may be common enough in oral language that
students could have known the word meaning without awareness of the affixes mis- and
-ful. Accordingly, one strength of the current
study lies in the use of pseudoword stimuli
with the attendant indication for educators
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Assessing Affix Knowledge
or researchers that doing so, rather than relying solely on evaluation of derived realword knowledge, provides the potential to
differentiate between a student’s whole-word
knowledge and morpheme knowledge. Correspondingly, an implication of the asymmetry
between word and affix knowledge on many
of the items used in the present study is that
future research that tests root knowledge cannot make the assumption that the students
have mastered the component affixes without validating that this is so.
CONCLUSIONS
There is wide variation in knowledge of prefixes and suffixes among elementary-school
225
students, both in terms of individual students’
knowledge levels and in terms of students’
overall familiarity with specific affixes. Affix knowledge was higher for the older students in the study; the strong correlations
with students’ levels of vocabulary and reading abilities are compatible with the view
that there is likely to be reciprocity between
these domains (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Furthermore, this study demonstrated that pseudoword tasks measuring affix knowledge supplement information provided by real-word
tasks, suggesting that multiple forms of assessment may be necessary to gain a more accurate and complete picture of students’ extent
of affix knowledge.
REFERENCES
Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A
morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10),
165.
Apel, K., Diehm, E., & Apel, L. (2013). Using multiple measures of morphological awareness to assess its relation
to reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 33(1), 42–
56.
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., & Templeton, S. (1996). Words
their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and
spelling. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing
words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New
York: Guilford.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J.
(2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and
morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141–163.
Biemiller (2009). Words worth teaching. Columbus, OH:
McGraw-Hill SRA.
Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word
vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93(3), 498-520.
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The
effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills:
A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 144–179.
Brady, S. A., Braze, D., & Fowler, C. A. (2011). Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and
evidence. New directions in communication disorders research. Florence, KY. Psychology Press, Taylor
& Francis Group.
Bryant, P., & Nunes, T. (2008). Morphemes, spelling and
development: Comments on “the timing and mecha-
nisms of children’s use of morphological information
in spelling” by S. Pacton and H. Deacon. Cognitive
Development, 23(3), 360–369.
Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early
reading achievement. In: L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189–209).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and
meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact
on reading. Reading and Writing, 12(3–4), 169–190.
Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to
read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24(3–4),
291–322.
Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4),
464–487.
Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing
of morphologically complex words in the elementary
years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239–253.
Casalis, S., Colé, P., & Sopo, D. (2004). Morphological awareness in developmental dyslexia. Annals of
Dyslexia, 54(1), 114–138.
Devonshire, V., & Fluck, M. (2010). Spelling development: Fine-tuning strategy-use and capitalising on the
connections between words. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 361–371.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (2007). Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Ebbers, S. M. (2004). Vocabulary through morphemes:
Suffixes, prefixes and roots for intermediate grades.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Egan, J., & Pring, L. (2004). The processing of inflectional
morphology: A comparison of children with and without dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 17(6), 567–591.
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
226
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
Foorman, B. R., Petscher, Y., & Bishop, M. D. (2012).
The incremental variance of morphological knowledge to reading comprehension in grades 3–10 beyond prior reading comprehension, spelling, and text
reading efficiency. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 792–798.
Gabig, C. S., & Zaretsky, E. (2013). Promoting morphological awareness in children with language needs:
Do the common core state standards pave the way?
Topics in Language Disorders, 33(1), 7–26.
Gilbert, J. K., Goodwin, A. P., Compton, D. L., & Kearns,
D. M. (2014). Multisyllabic word reading as a moderator of morphological awareness and reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1),
34–43.
Gleitman, L. R., & Rozin, P. (1977). The structure and
acquisition of reading I: Relations between orthographies and the structure of language. In: A. S. Reber,
& D. L. Scarborough (Eds.), Toward a psychology
of reading: The proceedings of the CUNY conference (pp. 1–53). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of
Dyslexia, 60(2), 183–208.
Goswami, U. (2005). Synthetic phonics and learning to
read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychology in Practice, 21(4), 273–282.
Graves, M. F. (1986). Vocabulary learning and instruction.
Review of Research in Education, 13, 49–89.
Henry, M. K. (1989). Children’s word structure knowledge: Implications for decoding and spelling instruction. Reading and Writing, 1(2), 135–152.
Henry, M. K. (1993). Morphological structure; Latin and
Greek roots and affixes as upper grade code strategies.
Reading and Writing, 5, 227–241.
Henry, M. K. (2010). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Jarmulowicz, L., & Taran, V. L. (2013). Lexical morphology: Structure, process, and development. Topics in
Language Disorders, 33(1), 57–72.
Kuo, L., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 161–180.
Kruk, R. S., & Bergman, K. (2013). The reciprocal relations between morphological processes and reading.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(1),
10–34.
Larsen, J. A., & Nippold, M. A. (2007). Morphological
analysis in school-age children: Dynamic assessment
of a word learning strategy. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 201–212.
McCutchen, D., Stull, S., Herrera, B. L., Lotas, S., & Evans,
S. (2014). Putting words to work: Effects of morphological instruction on children’s writing. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 86–97.
Mitchell, A. M., & Brady, S. (2013). The impact of vocabulary knowledge on novel word identification. Annals
of Dyslexia, 63(3), 201–216.
Mitchell, P., Kemp, N., & Bryant, P. (2011). Variations
among adults in their use of morphemic spelling rules
and word-specific knowledge when spelling. Reading
Research Quarterly, 46(2), 119–133.
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words
are there in printed school English? Reading Research
Quarterly, 19, 304–330.
Nagy, W. E., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006).
Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to
literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middleschool students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(1), 134–147.
Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. P. (2014). Morphological knowledge and literacy acquisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 3–12.
Nagy, W. E., Diakidoy, I. N., & Anderson, R. C. (1993).
The acquisition of morphology: Learning the contribution of suffixes to the meanings of derivatives. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(2), 155–
170.
National Governors Association & Council of Chief
State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State
Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy
in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical
subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20
Standards.pdf
Nicol, J. E. (1980). Effect of prefix instruction on students’ vocabulary size. Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Minnesota.
Nippold, M. A., & Sun, L. (2008). Knowledge of morphologically complex words: A developmental study
of older children and young adolescents. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(3), 365–
373.
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by
teaching morphemes. New York: Routledge.
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (1997). Morphological spelling strategies: Developmental stages and
processes. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 637–
649.
Ramirez, G., Walton, P., & Roberts, W. (2014). Morphological awareness and vocabulary development
among kindergarteners with different ability levels. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 54–
64.
Schiff, R., & Ravid, D. (2007). Morphological analogies
in Hebrew-speaking university students with dyslexia
compared with typically developing gradeschoolers.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36(3), 237–
253.
Siegel, L. S. (2008). Morphological awareness skills
of English language learners and children with
dyslexia. Topics in Language Disorders, 28(1), 15–
27.
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Assessing Affix Knowledge
Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills:
Evidence from derivation suffixes. Reading and Writing, 12(3-4), 219–252.
Stahl, S. A. (2003). Words are learned incrementally over
multiple exposures. American Educator, 27(10),
18–19.
Torgesen, J. K., & Bryant, B. R. (1994). Test of Phonological Awareness. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1996). Effects of morphology
on children’s spelling of final consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63(1), 141–
170.
Tsesmeli, S. N., & Seymour, P. H. K. (2006). Derivational
morphology and spelling in dyslexia. Reading and
Writing, 19, 587–625.
Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. (1989). The acquisition of English
derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and
Language, 28(6), 649–667.
Venezky, R. L. (1967). English orthography: Its graphical
structure and its relation to sound. Reading Research
Quarterly, 2(3), 75–105.
227
White, T. G., Speidel, G. E., & Power, M. A. (1985). Morphological analysis: A useful strategy for elementary
students? Unpublished manuscript.
Wolter, J. A., & Green, L. (2013). Morphological awareness intervention in school-age children with language
and literacy deficits: A case study. Topics in Language
Disorders, 33(1), 27–41.
Wolter, J. A., Wood, A., & D’zatko, K. W. (2009). The
influence of morphological awareness on the literacy development of first-grade children. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(3), 286–
298.
Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised normative update: Examiners
manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
Wysocki, K., & Jenkins, J. R. (1987). Deriving word meanings through morphological generalization. Reading
Research Quarterly, 22(1), 66–81.
Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R.
(1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science.
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.