1

MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Literature Review: Morphological Assessment

Stacie Brady

College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University

EDSE 846: Assessment, Evaluation, and Instrumentation in Special Education Research

Dr. Fredrick Brigham

April 30, 2020

2
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Abstract

This literature review examined eight morphological awareness (MA) intervention studies that

used a pre/post-test experimental or quasi-experimental design to determine growth in MA,

vocabulary, spelling, and reading comprehension. The pre/post-test measures that were utilized

by the researchers to assess MA were reviewed and discussed. The studies examined were

completed between 2007 and 2020 and included students that are in kindergarten through eighth

grade. Results indicated that six studies used researcher designed MA measures and two studies

assessed other literacy areas other than MA. A table with the results is included.
3
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Literature Review: Morphological Assessment

Morphemes are the smallest semantic unit in language (Apel & Henbest, 2016). There are

two types of morphemes: free and bound (Moats, 2000). Free morphemes include simple base

words such as “hat”. Bound morphemes (e.g. “s” or “un”) must be combined with other

morphemes to be meaningful. For example, combining affixes with base words, such as “s in

cars”, “un in unzip”, and “ing in mixing”. The awareness of both spoken and written morphemes

is morphological awareness (MA). Apel (2014) further describes MA as “an understanding of

what written affixes (i.e. prefixes and suffixes) look like orthographically and the rules that

govern how affixes attach to base words or roots” (p. 196). MA allows an individual to

determine when words are related in meaning, even if the pronunciations are different such as

“magic” and “magician” (Moats, 2000).

An individual with limited MA may experience difficulty with word learning and reading

comprehension, ultimately negatively affecting success in reading and academic achievement

(Moats, 2000). MA intervention may increase an individual’s ability to learn words, leading to an

increase in reading comprehension (Brown et al., 2016). The purpose of this paper is to identify

how researchers assess MA when completing experimental and quasi-experimental research using

MA intervention.

MA and Literacy

The importance of MA as a literacy skill is rooted in its contributions to word level

reading beyond concepts of phonological awareness. MA skills are linked to students’ literacy

abilities, such as vocabulary and reading comprehension (Apel et al., 2013). Foundational

research (Wysocki & Jenkins, 1987) has two explanations for vocabulary growth in students in

grades three through twelve. The first is that a large number of words are learned incidentally
4
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
through use of context clues during reading. A student can derive meaning of a new word

encountered during reading. Nagy et al. (1985) noted that students may need multiple exposures

to a new word in order to gain substantial meaning of the word.

Students that struggle with reading often read less. Readers that are inefficient and less

skilled may read 100,000 words a year during the middle grades. The average student may read

1,000,000 words a year (Stanovich, 1986). These less skilled readers experience the Matthew

Effect which explains the minimal growth of word knowledge (Stanovich, 1986; Cain & Oakhill,

2011).

The Matthew Effect, or the rich-get-richer effect, explains how vocabulary development

is affected by reading ability and reading experiences (Stanovich, 1986). Researchers have found

that students who like to read tend to read more, which increases reading proficiency and

academic success. Readers who struggle with reading often read less and lack growth with

reading proficiency and vocabulary knowledge (Duff et al., 2015).

The second explanation for vocabulary growth is MA (Wysocki & Jenkins, 1987). MA

involves deriving meaning from an unfamiliar word that is related to a known word. Wysocki

and Jenkins (1987) describe MA as “a powerful generative tool for expanding vocabulary

beyond those words directly taught or those learned through contextual analysis” (p. 69).

MA affects reading indirectly by impacting word reading skills and directly through the

linguistic system. For example, Deacon et al. (2014) completed a longitudinal study with

students in grades three and four. They examined the relationship between morphological

awareness and reading comprehension skills. Their conclusion supported previous research by

Perfetti et al. (2005), which linked a student’s MA to an improvement in reading.

5
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Furthermore, Reed (2008) synthesized seven morphological intervention research studies

which were conducted between1986 to 2006. Reed’s research suggested that students may be

able to use MA to increase their word reading level, which may result in an exposure to more

complex vocabulary. Reed further indicated that more research with MA needs to be completed

to determine the impact of morphology on literacy skills.

A more recent literature review completed by Brady and Mason (2020) identified eight

morphological intervention research studies. All eight of the studies included populations of

readers who are at-risk for future reading difficulties or identified with a disability such as a

language or reading impairment. The researchers determined that these studies supported

previous research in the areas of reading and vocabulary. They indicated that MA intervention

can have a positive effect on improving MA skills of young students when provided in small

groups.

Morphological Awareness

Linguistic awareness is comprised of phonological, grammatical, and morphological

awareness (Carlisle, 2003). Phonological awareness is a well-researched topic and a familiar

concept to teachers of early reading acquisition. Grammatical awareness is related to the

connection of ideas. Morphological awareness (MA), a less familiar concept to educators, is

important to readers as they learn to decode words (Carlisle, 2003; Washburn & Mulcahy, 2019).

For example, Washburn and Mulcahy (2019) completed an exploratory study examining

the morphological knowledge of 350 teacher candidates (TC). The study revealed that TC often

have limited knowledge regarding morphology. The TC struggled with answering application

and technical questions in relation to morphology. For instance, TC struggled with identifying

the number of morphemes in words such as “disassemble” and “bookkeeper”. Washburn and
6
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Mulcahy suggested that teachers need to have knowledge of morphology in order to explicitly

teach students to analyze morphological units of words.

Teachers and researchers are unable to agree upon a unified and complete operational

definition of MA (Apel, 2014). Apel (2014) argued that without an established definition of MA,

researchers are unable to comprehensively assess MA. Contemporary researchers utilize a

variety of tasks to assess MA (Apel et al., 2014).

MA Assessment

Apel (2014) reviewed norm-referenced assessment measures. He reported that there are

several published measures (Test for Examining Expressive Morphology, Test of Language

Development-Primary: 4, Test of Language Development-Intermediate: 4, Illinois Test of

Psycholinguistic Abilities: 3) that contain MA subtests, but none that is specifically designed for

MA (Apel, 2014). He noted that one limitation of these measures is that they only accounted for

spoken morphology. None of the assessments measured student’s awareness of both oral and

written morphemes.

A dynamic assessment was used by Wolter and Pike (2015) to measure MA. The

researchers stated that dynamic assessments can reduce cultural test bias and allow students to

demonstrate knowledge of content. Additionally, dynamic assessments reduce ceiling and floor

effects which may allow for the measurement of emerging and advanced MA skills (Wolter &

Pike, 2015). The researchers used the Dynamic Assessment of Primary Morphological

Awareness (DAPMA), which was modified from the original test designed by Larson and

Nippold (2007). Students were asked to define morphologically complex words with the

assistance of assessment scaffolds. Results indicated that a dynamic assessment can reveal

whether or not a student’s MA skills are stimulable and identify strategies that can be used to
7
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
assist the student during intervention. The researchers also noted that the DAPMA may be useful

when educators are providing strategies to support response to intervention (RtI).

This literature review examined the types of morphological assessments that have been

used to measure MA in recent intervention research. The purpose of this review is to answer the

following research questions: What methods are being developed and used by contemporary

researchers to measure MA? Of the morphological assessments used, which have proven

reliability and validity?

Method

The articles selected for this literature review were examined in a prior study of MA

interventions (Brady and Mason, 2020). However, instead of MA interventions, the current

literature review examined MA measures. These researchers included articles published between

2009 and 2018 in the following journals: Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Communication Disorders Quarterly, Education and

Treatment of Children, and Australian Journal of Language and Literacy.

Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion

Four criteria for inclusion were used by Brady and Mason (2020) for the literature search

for MA and literacy skills. First, all studies utilized peer-reviewed, experimental research to

evaluate the effectiveness of MA and literacy outcomes. Additionally, only articles published

after 2006 were selected to expand upon research from 1986 to 2006 by Reed (2008). Third,

Brady and Mason expanded upon Reed’s research by including participants that have been

identified as reading below grade level. Lastly, these studies focused only on participants in

grades kindergarten through twelfth grade. Studies were excluded if the participants were in

post-secondary school.
8
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Data Analysis

Studies were coded based upon design, assessment, literary focus, reliability and validity.

Coding results are displayed in Table 1.

Results

Eight articles met the criteria to be included in this literature review. Across the studies,

there were 409 students ranging from kindergarten to sixth grade that were identified by their

schools as at-risk, poor spellers, struggling readers, reading below grade level, or having a

learning disability or literacy learning difficulties, or had an IEP addressing reading. All of the

participants received an MA intervention to assist with reading outcomes, such as reading,

spelling, and vocabulary. Each of the studies used a group design with a pretesting assessment

prior to intervention and then post-testing following intervention. A variety of measures were

utilized including researcher created MA measures, phonological awareness, word level reading

and spelling tasks. The types of assessments that were used are discussed.

Researcher Created MA Measures

All of the studies used a form of pre- and post-test assessment. The researchers utilized a

variety of tasks to assess MA. Six of the studies administered researcher created MA measures.

The remaining two studies measured literary outcomes using published standardized assessments

that were not designed to measure MA.

Multiple Measures of MA

Three of the studies (Apel et al., 2012; Apel & Diehm, 2013; Brimo, 2015) administered

Apel et al. (2013) Multiple Measures of MA for pre/post-test measures. The Multiple Measure of

MA is comprised of four tasks: the Relatives task, Rehit task, Affix Identification task, and
9
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Spelling Multimorphemic Words (SMW) task. The tasks included both oral and written

assessment activities designed for students in kindergarten through second grade.

Two of the tasks were oral: The Relatives task and the Rehit task. The Relatives task

involved the student completing a sentence using an inflected or derived version of the base

word given (e.g. “Run. Every morning the man _______.”) (Apel et al., 2013, p. 46). This was an

oral expression task with 26 test items. The Rehit oral task was used to determine the student’s

ability to combine a free and bound morpheme into a unique word. For example, “Say re”.

“Now, say hit”. “Combine the words to create a silly word” “rehit” (Apel et al., 2013, p.47).

After stating the newly combined word, the student was asked to define the word. The Rehit task

contained 18 test items.

The remaining two tasks were written: The Affix Identification task and the SMW task.

The Affix Identification task assesses the student’s awareness of affixes and roots of

psuedowords. Students were given a list of pseudowords such as “rinning”. They were then

asked to circle the affix or “add-on” to the word. The final researcher created MA task is the

SMW task. The SMW task assessed student’s ability to spell multimorphemic words. Students

were orally presented with a multimorphemic word (e.g. sweeter, reopen) and required to write

and spell the word.

Apel et al. (2012) completed a MA feasibility study with kindergarten through second

grade students from low socioeconomic status homes. They completed a nine-week MA

intervention with small group instruction four times a week for 25 minutes a day. Students were

given measures to assess MA, phonological/phonemic awareness, word-level reading, reading

comprehension, and receptive language. The Multiple Measures of MA (Apel et al., 2013) were

used to assess the students MA abilities before and after intervention. Internal reliability was
10
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
judged to be adequate as measured by Cronbach’s alpha (.89 to .97). Published standardized tests

were used to assess phonemic awareness, word level reading, reading comprehension, and

receptive language. Alternative form and interrater reliability were reported to be adequate.

Findings revealed that students made gains on MA tasks (ds=.51 to .65). The researchers

determined that MA instruction on inflectional and derivational morphemes for students of

younger ages is appropriate.

Apel and Diehm (2013) completed an MA intervention efficacy study with kindergarten,

first, and second grade students from low socioeconomic homes. The researchers completed an

eight-week intervention study designed to increase MA. They used the Multiple Measures of MA

to assess the student’s MA abilities before and after intervention. Reliability for each task of the

Multiple Measures of MA are as follows: Relatives task (.87), Rehit task (.90), Affix

Identification task (.92), and SMW task (.90). Two tests were administered to assess reading

ability: Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) and Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and

Comprehension (TOSREC). The reliability for the TOWRE is .96 and .91 for the TOSREC.

Results indicated that students made statistically significant and practical gains on seven out of

ten MA measures. Small gains were noted in reading ability for first and second grade students.

The authors noted that significant gains were made following a relatively short (eight week) MA

intervention.

Brimo (2015) conducted a MA intervention study with third grade students with reading

disabilities. To assess MA, Brimo used the Multiple Measures of MA. The reliability is as

follows: Relatives task (.89), Rehit task (.94), Affix identification task (.97), and SMW task

(.92). The intervention included 11 MA lessons to teach inflectional and derivational affixes. The

study had low statistical power and included ten participants. The researchers determined that
11
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
students with severe reading deficits experienced the greatest amount of growth. Researchers

recommended that future research consider whether individual student characteristics mediate

response to MA interventions.

MA Understanding

Denston et al. (2018) assessed students in fourth through sixth grade on multiple aspects

of literacy development. To assess the students’ MA, Denston and colleagues used three

researcher created tasks. The first MA task was a morphological judgement task. Students were

required to make a judgement and use a yes/no response to identify if a morphological

relationship existed between two words (e.g. shade/shadow). The second MA task required the

student to transform the base word within a sentence level context. For example, the student was

presented with “danger: Wild animals that live in the forest can be very… (correct response:

dangerous)” (p. 97). The final task, the MA analogy task, was used to measure the students’

ability to transform a base word to an inflectional or derivational form of a word presented orally

and visually (e.g. work/worker, swim/_____).

Good et al. (2015) completed a study on the effects of MA training on reading, spelling,

and vocabulary skills of third grade students with language impairments. The researchers used a

variety of pre- and post-experimental measures to assess these literacy skills. The vocabulary

task was designed to measure the students’ ability to define morphologically complex words.

The words were presented orally. Thirty words were presented for pre and post-test. Fifteen of

the words were presented during the intervention. The additional words were used to determine

if students could transfer the rules to words not taught during treatment.
12
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Word Combining

Ramirez et al. (2013) completed a research study with 108 kindergarten students from

socially disadvantaged backgrounds. The focus of the research was to determine the growth of

vocabulary and MA with the use of compound words. To assess the students MA, the researchers

used an experimental measure called Making Words (Ramirez, et al., 2010, adaptation of

McBride-Chang et al., 2005). Students were presented with ten scenarios with pictures and then

created a new word in relation to the given scenario. For example, “We call a house that is built

in a tree a tree house. How should we call a house that is built on a mountain?” (Ramirez et al.,

2013, p.58).

Non-MA Measures

Of the eight studies examined for this review, two (Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Wolter &

Dilworth, 2013) utilized assessments to examine literacy tasks (e.g. reading and spelling) other

than MA. Kirk and Gillon (2009) used a combination of standardized and experimental reading

and spelling tasks. The researchers used the phonological awareness subtest of the Clinical

Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4 (CELF-4) as well as a researcher created experimental

reading and spelling probe. Wolter and Dilworth (2013) examined twenty-two students with

spelling deficits. They completed a multilinguistic intervention to improve reading and spelling

using two groups: MA intervention and phonological/orthographic intervention. The MA group

performed better on standardized measures of reading comprehension and spelling, and non-

standardized spelling test measures. Standardized measures included the Woodcock Reading

Mastery Test-Revised and Test of Written Spelling-Fourth Edition was used. No test of MA was

utilized.
13
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Discussion

The purpose of this literature review was to examine the types of assessments researchers

used for pre/post-testing during MA intervention research that was conducted between 2007 and

2020. Eight studies were reviewed that used a pre/post-test design. Six studies directly addressed

MA using a variety of measures. Two of the eight studies measured literacy outcomes, other than

MA, such as word level reading, expressive vocabulary, and spelling.

The first research question addressed the methods that are being developed and used by

contemporary researchers to measure MA. The studies examined for this review focused on MA

intervention. The measures used for pre/post-testing assessed a variety of skills (e.g. reading,

vocabulary, MA, receptive language) to determine the efficacy of the MA intervention. The

measures also used oral and/or written responses. The lack of a standardized assessment relates

directly to Apel’s statement about the lack of consensus on an operational definition of MA

amongst researchers and educators.

Ramirez et al. (2013) and Denston et al. (2018) used researcher created measures that

required only oral responses. Good et al. (2015), Apel et al. (2012), Apel and Diehm (2013), and

Brimo (2013) utilized both oral and written measures to asses MA. These measures were created

by Apel et al. (2013) with the purpose of combining past measures and utilizing both oral and

written MA.

Kirk and Gillon (2009) and Dilworth (2013) used non-MA measures to examine literary

tasks associated with MA. The researchers examined spelling, phonological awareness, and

reading growth. Standardized (CELF-4, WRMT-R) and researcher created probes were used.
14
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
The second research question that guided this literature review refers to the reliability and

validity of the morphological assessments used. The researchers that utilized the Multiple

Measures of MA created by Apel et al. (2013) reported the reliability of each MA task created.

The other studies (Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Wolter & Dilworth, 2013; Ramirez et al., 2013, Good,

2015; Denston, 2018) included in this review did not report reliability. None of the studies

reported validity.

Among the studies reviewed, there was a variety of methods and measures used for pre-

and post-assessment with MA intervention. With a comprehensive operational definition,

researchers and educators will be able to more consistently assess MA student progress.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Focused on MA assessment, this review examined the MA intervention studies identified

by Brady and Mason (2020). This review determined that researchers are using a variety of

measures to assess MA as well as other literacy outcomes that MA may affect. There are several

limitations noted, including a limited number of studies reviewed, variety of MA measures, and a

variety of literacy outcomes that are measured.

Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria from the Brady and Mason (2020) review,

eight studies using a group experimental or quasi-experimental design were examined to evaluate

the type of assessment used during pre/post testing during these intervention research studies.

The limited number of studies identified demonstrates the need for more research. Although

these studies employed a MA intervention, the instrument used to measure the results varied. The

variety of outcomes being measured affect the type of measure chosen by the researchers to use

as a pre/post-test. A future research review may benefit from excluding studies that do not

directly assess MA. In the absence of an operational definition of MA, future literature reviews
15
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
will need to more closely scrutinize the intent and methods of selected studies to ensure that MA

is the focus of the instrument used to assess the outcomes. The establishment of an operational

definition of MA reached by a consensus of practitioners and researchers would allow more

standardized and targeted evaluation of MA outcomes.

16
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Table 1

Assessments of Intervention Studies

Study Grad Measures Literacy Focus Reliability Validity

e included included

or

Age
1. Apel, K, 1, MA-Relatives MA, Relatives= . no

Brimo, 2 task, Phonological/phonemic 89, Rehit= .

Diehm, Rehit task, awareness, word-level 94, Affix

& Apel Affix reading, reading Identification=

(2013) Identification comprehension, and .97, SMW

task, receptive language =.92;

Spelling TOWRE= .96;

multimorphemi TOSREC= .

c word task; 91;

Phonemic CELF-4= .89

Awareness-

Ellison subtest

from CTOPP;

Reading-

TOWRE and

TOSREC;

Receptive

Language-
17
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
CELF-4
2. Apel & K, 1, MA-Relatives MA, Relatives no

Diehm 2 task, Word level reading task= .87,

(2013) Rehit task, Rehit= .90,

Affix Affix

Identification Identification

task, task= .92, and

Spelling SMW= .90

multimorphemi TOWRE= .96;

c word task; TOSREC= .91

Reading-

TOWRE and

TOSREC
3. Brimo 3 MA-Relatives MA Relatives=.89, no

(2016) task, Rehit= .94,

Rehit task, Affix

Affix identification

Identification task=.97, and

task, SMW=.92

Spelling

multimorphemi

c word task;

4. Denston, 4,5,6 MA- judgement MA, morphological no no

Everatt, task, word production,

18
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Parkhill, analogy task; word level reading,

& Morphological rate, and

Marriot production comprehension

(2018) morpho-

syntactic task;

Reading- The

Burt Reading

Test- New

Zealand

Edition,

NARA
5. Good, 3 Vocabulary- Word level reading, Inter-judge no

Lance, & defining spelling, vocabulary reliability-

Rainey morphologically 95% to 100%

(2015) complex words;

Spelling-

researcher

created spelling

measure;

Reading-

researcher

created word

level reading

task
19
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
6. Kirk & 8-11 Phonological Phonological no no

Gillon y.o. awareness- awareness, word level

(2009) CELF-4 subtest; reading, spelling

Reading-

researcher

created word

level reading

task

Spelling-

researcher

created
7. Ramirez, K MA- MA, expressive no no

Walton, experimental vocabulary

& measure for

Roberts compound

(2013) words

Expressive

Vocabulary-

EVT-2
8. Wolter 2 Word level Reading no no

& reading, Spelling

Dilworth reading

(2013) comprehension-

WRMT-R
20
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Spelling- TWS-

4, researcher

created spelling

task
21
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

References

Apel, K. (2014). A comprehensive definition of morphological awareness: Implications for

assessment. Topics in Language Disorders, 34, 197-209.

*Apel, K., Brimo, D., Diehm, E., and Apel, L. (2013). Morphological awareness intervention

with kindergartners and first- and second- grade students from low socioeconomic status

homes: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 161-

173. https://doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2012/12-0042)

*Apel, K., & Diehn, E. (2014). Morphological awareness intervention with kindergarteners and

first and second grade students from low SES homes: A small efficacy study. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 47, 65-75. https://doi:10.1177/0022219413509964

Apel, K., & Henbest, V. S. (2016). Affix meaning knowledge in first through third grade

students. Language, Speech, and Hearing Sciences in Schools, 47, 148-156.

https://doi:10.1044/2016_LSHSS-15-0050

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,

144-179. https://doi:10.3102/0034654309359353

Brady, S. & Mason, L. H. (2020) [Manuscript in preparation]. College of Education and Human

Development, George Mason University.

*Brimo, D. (2016). Evaluating the effectiveness of a morphological awareness intervention: A

pilot study. Communications Disorders Quarterly, 38, 35-45.

https://doi:10.1177/15257401156045920

Brown, S. H., Lignugaris, K. B., & Forbush, D. E. (2016). The effects of morphemic vocabulary

instruction on prefix vocabulary and sentence comprehension for middle school students
22
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 39, 301-338.

https://doi:10.1353/etc.2016.001

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2011). Matthew Effects in young readers: Reading comprehension and

reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44,

431-443.

Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L. B. Feldman

(Ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing. (pp. 189–209). Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Deacon, S. H., Kieffer, M. J., & Laroche, A. (2014). The relation between morphological

awareness and reading comprehension: Evidence from mediation and longitudinal

models. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 432-451.

*Denston, A., Everatt, J., Parkhill, F., & Marriot, C. (2018). Morphology: Is it a means by which

teachers can foster literacy development in older primary students with literacy learning

difficulties? Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 41, 94-102. Retrieved from

http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http:/search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true=ehh&AN=129632503&site=ehost-live

Duff, D, Tomblin, J. B., & Catts, H. (2015). The influence of reading on vocabulary growth: A

case for a Matthew Effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58, 853-

864.

*Good, J. E., Lance, D. M., & Rainey, J. (2015). The effects of morphological awareness

training on reading, spelling, and vocabulary skills. Communication Disorders Quarterly

36, 142-151. https://doi:10.1177/152574011454817

23
MORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
*Kirk, C. & Gillon, G. T., (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for

improving literacy. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 341-351.

https://doi:10.1044/0161-1461

Moats, L. C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Paul H. Brookes

Publishing Co., Inc.

Nagy, W.E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context

during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237-270.

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

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

*Ramirez, G., Walton, P., & Roberts, W. (2013). Morphological awareness and vocabulary

development among kindergarteners with different ability levels. Journal of Learning

Disabilities 47, 54-64. https://doi:10.1177/0022219413509970

Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology intervention and effects on reading outcomes for

students in grades K-12. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23, 36-49.

https://doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00261

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological

Processing, Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Washburn, E. K., & Mulcahy, C. A. (2019). Morphology matters, but what do teacher candidates

know about it? Teacher Education and Special Education 42, 246-262.

https://doi:10.1177/0888406418806649

*Wolter, J. A., & Dilworth, V. (2013). The effects of a multilinguistic morphological awareness

approach for improving language and literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities 47(1), 76-

85. doi:10.1177/0022219413509972