early names test

114 © 2006 International Reading Association (pp. 114–122) doi:10.1598/RT.60.2.2

NANCY MATHERJANICE SAMMONS

JONATHAN SCHWARTZ

Adaptations of the Names Test: Easy-to-use phonics assessments

An enhanced version of a phonics

screening tool called the Names Test lets

teachers quickly assess students’ decoding

skills.

Early assessments of decoding developmentcan help identify students who are at risk forreading failure so that teachers can implement

appropriate interventions. One important aspect ofbeginning reading is mastery of letter–sound corre-spondences, referred to as grapheme–phoneme re-lationships or phonics knowledge. The ability todecode unfamiliar words using phonics knowledgeis important to early reading acquisition as well asskillful reading (Adams, 1990; Cunningham, 1990).In addition, a solid foundation in phonics through di-rect instruction in the alphabetic code can enhancethe reading performance of many students at riskfor reading failure (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher,Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998).

The most common procedure for assessing thedevelopment of phonics ability involves the presen-tation of pronounceable nonwords, nonsense words,or pseudowords. All of these terms refer to letterstrings that are pronounceable and conform toEnglish spelling rules but have no meaning.Nonword reading avoids the problem of a priori wordknowledge and requires the reader to directly applyphonics principles to the decoding process (Rack,Snowling, & Olson, 1992). Because the student can-not use context cues or prior word knowledge, thereader must rely on grapheme–phoneme knowledge.

Nonword or pseudoword reading has a strongrelationship with many aspects of reading perform-ance. For example, Tunmer and Nesdale (1985)

found that real-word and pseudoword decodingwere highly correlated with each other and thatpseudoword decoding accounted for a significantamount of variance in reading comprehension in-dependent of the other factors. In addition, goodreaders perform pseudoword reading tasks withease. When comparing skilled and unskilled read-ers, Perfetti and Hogaboam (1975) found that thegreatest difference between the groups was theirability to pronounce pseudowords. Good readersrecognize and use letter sequences and letter andsound redundancies quickly and automatically.

Typically, for this type of assessment, a list ofnonwords is presented for the student to pronounce.One problem with this format, however, is that non-word reading itself may appear to students as an un-familiar, seemingly nonsensical task because theyare deprived of the reinforcement of arriving at aword that they already know (Duffelmeyer, Kruse,Merkley, & Fyfe, 1994). Furthermore, some stu-dents may even refuse to attempt to pronounce non-sense words, whereas others will attempt to changethem into real, familiar words (Cunningham, 1990).Ideally, a student’s grapheme–phoneme knowledgecould be assessed in a way that more closely re-sembles real-word reading.

One way to assess developing phonics knowl-edge using a more meaningful format is to ask stu-dents to read names that conform to the rules ofEnglish spelling (e.g., Bob Flot). Cunningham(1990) developed a Names Test as a quick and easyscreening tool for teachers to obtain informationabout a student’s developing decoding skills. Thetest is individually administered. The student readsthe names aloud, and the teacher places a checkmark by each first and last name read correctly.

Adaptations of the Names Test: Easy-to-use phonics assessments 115

In selecting the names, Cunningham appliedfour criteria. The names would (a) be uncommon,(b) be fully decodable, (c) represent a sampling ofthe most common English spelling patterns, and (d)contain a balance of long and short names. On this25-name list, there were 50 possible points: onepoint for each first and last name. The averagescore for second graders was 22.6, whereas the av-erage score for fifth graders was 47.3. The lowestscore for any fifth grader in the sample was 40.

After analyzing the original Names Test,Duffelmeyer et al. (1994) developed a revision thatwas designed to improve the reliability, usability,and validity while retaining the quick scoring of thetest. In examining the phonics categories, theyfound that out of the 50 items, 5 phonics categories(consonant digraphs, long vowels, vowel–consonant–final e, vowel digraphs, and the schwa) did not haveenough items. To increase the number of examples,they added 10 names to the original Names Test anddeveloped a scoring sheet and comprehensive scor-ing matrix to increase the diagnostic informationbased on error patterns. Table 1 presents the originalnames in Cunningham’s list and the 10 namesadded by Duffelmeyer et al. Table 2 presents theresults by grade level for the 70 first and last names.Duffelmeyer et al. provided additional evidence ofthe test’s validity by reporting scores by grade level,rate data, and stanine comparisons with the IowaTest of Basic Skills.

Although both versions of the Names Testwere designed and are useful for grades 2 through5, many of the names on the tests are multisyllabicin nature (e.g., Bernard Pendergraph) and are thustoo difficult for beginning or struggling readers.Furthermore, in both versions, the student is sup-posed to attempt to pronounce all of the names. Inusing the test in second-grade classrooms, wefound some struggling readers who could pro-nounce only a few of the first names on the list. Inthe original study, Cunningham (1990) reportedthat students in second grade obtained an averagescore of 22.6 out of 50 items (or about 45% cor-rect), whereas Duffelmeyer et al. (1994) found thatthe mean score in second grade for the 70 first andlast names was 63% correct.

The purposes of the present study weretwofold. The first was to administer the augmented

TABLE 1 Versions of the Names Test

Original (Cunningham, 1990)

Jay Conway Cindy Sampson Flo ThorntonTim Cornell Chester Wright Dee SkidmoreChuck Hoke Ginger Yale Grace BrewsterYolanda Clark Patrick Tweed Ned WestmorelandKimberly Blake Stanley Shaw Ron SmithermanRoberta Slade Wendy Swain Troy WhitlockHomer Preston Glen Spencer Vance MiddletonGus Quincy Fred Sherwood Zane Anderson

Bernard Pendergraph

Augmented (Duffelmeyer et al., 1994)

Shane Fletcher Neal WadeFloyd Sheldon Jake MurphyDean Bateman Joan BrooksAustin Shepherd Gene LoomisBertha Dale Thelma Rinehart

TABLE 2Average scores on the augmented Names Test

by grade (Duffelmeyer et al., 1994)

Percent correct Number correctGrade 2 63% 44/70

Grade 3 73% 51/70

Grade 4 89% 62/70

Grade 5 91% 64/70

The Reading Teacher Vol. 60, No. 2 October 2006116

Names Test (Duffelmeyer et al., 1994) to a sampleof students and then reorder the first and last namesby difficulty level. This would allow students toattempt to read easier names before attemptingmore difficult names and allow the teacher to dis-continue the assessment if the names became toodifficult for a student to pronounce. The secondwas to create a downward extension of the NamesTest that would be more appropriate for use withfirst-grade and struggling readers.

Reordering of the augmentedNames Test

The augmented Names Test was administeredto a sample of 156 third graders during the firstmonth of school. The students were asked to at-tempt to read all 35 pairs of first and last names. Ifthe student could not or would not attempt all ofthe names, the data were discarded. Because stu-dents who could not read all of the words were re-moved from the sample, the sample has arestricted range and the average score of 59 outof 70 names (SD = 8.57) correct is an overesti-mate of the students’ actual word-attack skills.Points were then assigned for both first and lastnames. Data were then entered for all students,and the full set of first and last names were re-ordered so that they would progress according tothe difficulty level. The results of the reorderingare presented in Table 3.

Early Names TestBecause the earlier versions were too difficult,

we designed an informal, easy-to-use assessment tomeasure the ability of first- and second-grade stu-dents to pronounce pseudowords. The test can alsobe used with students in upper grades who are hav-ing trouble developing phonics knowledge.

Item developmentSimilar to the procedures used by Cunningham

(1990), the names were selected to be fully decod-able and represent a good sampling of the mostcommon English spelling patterns. Because the testwas designed to be used with young readers and tomeasure knowledge of the most commongrapheme–phoneme relationships, no attempt wasmade to eliminate common names, such as Bob.Instead, the list was designed to include all of theletters of the alphabet, as well as a representativesample of words with different initial and final con-sonants, initial and final blends, common conso-nant digraphs, and short and long vowels. An effortwas made also to include names with the mostcommon phonograms or rimes. As examples ofcommon phonograms, nearly 500 primary-gradewords can be derived from the following set of 37rimes (Wylie & Durrell, 1970): -ack, -all, -ain, -ake,-ale, -ame, -an, -ank, -ap, -ash, -at, -ate, -aw, -ay,-eat, -est, -ice, -ick, -ide, -ight, -ill, -in, -ine, -ing, -ink, -ip, -it, -ock, -oke, -op, -ore, -ot, -uck, -ug, -ump, -unk. Although we did not rely on this list fortest development, our final list included over 55

TABLE 3 Reordering of the augmented Names Test

1. Dee Conway 13. Ned Yale 25. Ginger Quincy2. Gus Clark 14. Patrick Murphy 26. Dean Shepherd3. Tim Brooks 15. Chester Skidmore 27. Troy Hoke4. Fred Wright 16. Homer Sheldon 28. Zane Swain5. Chuck Dale 17. Stanley Smitherman 29. Bertha Whitlock6. Grace Wade 18. Flo Sherwood 30. Roberta Brewster7. Jay Anderson 19. Jake Pendergraph 31 . Thelma Middleton8. Kimberly Tweed 20. Shane Slade 32. Yolanda Rinehart9. Wendy Spencer 21 . Glen Sampson 33. Bernard Cornell

10. Ron Blake 22. Floyd Shaw 34. Joan Thornton1 1 . Austin Westmoreland 23. Vance Fletcher 35. Gene Bateman12. Neal Loomis 24. Cindy Preston

common rimes. All names were restricted to onesyllable.

Using the above criteria, 30 first names and 30last names were developed for a class list for fieldtesting. Eleven teachers participating in a profes-sional development course in early reading admin-istered the Early Names Test to their students.Initially, we attempted to administer the test to stu-dents who were just entering the first grade, butthe majority of these students were unable to readthrough the list of names. Because we wanted to re-order the names by difficulty level, the studentsneeded to attempt to read all of the names. Thus,we decided that students beginning second gradewould be similar in performance to students endingfirst grade. The final sample then consisted of 443children at the beginning of second grade. The per-centage of special education students was 4.5%, thepercentage of English-language learners was 3.8%,and there were equal numbers of boys and girls.

In addition, the test was administered to 30fourth- and fifth-grade students who were receivingspecial education services in a resource room. Thepurpose was to determine if the test would still beappropriate for use with older students who werestruggling with reading.

Administration proceduresThe test was administered individually using the

following procedures, adapted from Cunningham(1990).

Preparing the test. Thirty names (first and last)were typed on a sheet of paper using a font size of20 points and leaving adequate space between thenames. A scoring sheet was made with a list of thenames and a blank after each first and last name torecord if the responses were correct or incorrect. Afinal test, a scoring sheet, and administration in-structions are presented in Figures 1 and 2.

Administering and scoring the test. The test wasadministered individually in a quiet environment(see Figure 2 for test directions). The student wasencouraged to attempt all names. A 1 was placed inthe blank for a correct response and a 0 for an in-correct response. All errors on first and last nameswere written above the words for later error analy-

sis. The total number of first and last names readcorrectly was recorded.

Item analysisFor the 60 first and last names, the average

score for the second graders was 43 with a standarddeviation of 12.2. To replicate the procedures ofCunningham (1990), a statistic of internal-consis-tency reliability (Kuder-Richardson 20) was cal-culated. The resultant KR-20 reliability was .93, ahigh reliability estimate. In addition, the wordswere also rearranged so that the name combina-tions would progress from easiest to most difficult.

For the 30 fourth- and fifth-grade special edu-cation students, the average score was 34 out ofthe 60 names with a standard deviation of 15. Theresultant KR-20 reliability was .98, similar to thereliability estimate obtained by Cunningham.Unfortunately, the decoding skills of these olderspecial education students were not as well devel-oped as those of many of the students who werejust entering second grade.

Inspired by Duffelmeyer et al. (1994), we de-veloped a reproducible scoring matrix, presented inTable 4, which can be used to analyze a student’sperformance. The phonics categories appear acrossthe top, and the first and last names are listed al-phabetically along the side. The columns in thetable contain the phonics elements that are rele-vant for each name. Figure 2 provides the scoringsheet for the Early Names Test.


FIGURE 1Early Names Test

Rob Hap Jen DutJud Lem Jake BinRay San Sid GoldPat Ling Frank LugTim Bop Grace NupBrad Tash Beck DawPam Rack Dell SmushTrish Mot Gus LangFred Tig Lex YubBab Fum Ross QuestKate Tide Dane WongBrent Lake Tom ZallFlip Mar Gail VogJet Mit Rod BladeRand Lun Tag Shick

Instructional implicationsMany of the students entering first grade found

the test to be too difficult, as they were just learninghow to read. One cannot conclude from these re-sults that the students require phonics instruction,but rather that they need increased early literacy ex-periences and opportunities to engage with soundsand print in meaningful ways. If throughout theyear a student continues to struggle with acquiringsound-to-print connections, a teacher may increasethe focus on language structure.

A few of the second graders also had difficul-ty reading many of the names. For these students,tasks that involve active word study can increaselinguistic awareness. In general, teaching studentsabout the regularities that exist in the English lan-guage is more important than asking them to mem-orize phonics or spelling rules (Ehri, 2000). Forexample, students may benefit from activities thatdraw attention to specific vowel sounds, such as en-gaging in word sorts that highlight or contrast dif-ferent vowel spelling patterns. Once students can

sequence sounds, in-depth instruction in wordstructure may be appropriate. The goal of this in-struction is to help students understand whyEnglish words are spelled the way they are.

Some of the second graders read all of thenames correctly with ease. This suggests that thesestudents have mastered early phonics skills and thatinstructional time should not be wasted on teachingthem the grapheme–phoneme relationships thatthey already know and apply. Instead, instruction-al time would be better spent on reading authentictexts and engaging in conversations that will en-hance language development. The augmentedNames Test may provide additional informationabout these students’ developing ability to pro-nounce multisyllabic words.

Unfortunately, some of the older readers in spe-cial education classes were still not automatic withbeginning phonics skills and struggled to pronouncemany of the names correctly. This suggests thatthese students’ reading performances and develop-ment are being affected by poor word-attack skills.


FIGURE 2Administration instructions and scoring sheet

Say: “I want you to pretend that you are a teacher and you are calling out your students’ names to take attendance.You are trying to figure out who is at school and who is not. Some of these names may be hard, but just do the bestyou can.” Record a 1 for a correct response and a 0 for an incorrect response. Score both the first and last names.Write incorrect responses directly above the name.

Name: _________________________________________ Grade: __________________ Date: ____________________

Rob _____ Hap _____ Jen _____ Dut _____Jud _____ Lem _____ Jake _____ Bin _____Ray _____ San _____ Sid _____ Gold _____Pat _____ Ling _____ Frank _____ Lug _____Tim _____ Bop _____ Grace _____ Nup _____Brad _____ Tash _____ Beck _____ Daw _____Pam _____ Rack _____ Dell _____ Smush _____Trish _____ Mot _____ Gus _____ Lang _____Fred _____ Tig _____ Lex _____ Yub _____Bab _____ Fum _____ Ross _____ Quest _____Kate _____ Tide _____ Dane _____ Wong _____Brent _____ Lake _____ Tom _____ Zall _____Flip _____ Mar _____ Gail _____ Vog _____Jet _____ Mit _____ Rod _____ Blade _____Rand _____ Lun _____ Tag _____ Shick _____

Total first and last names read correctly __________

Conceivably, these students would benefit from sys-tematic, direct instruction in grapheme–phonemecorrespondences, supplemented with practice read-ing decodable text. One should investigate the typeof instruction that the student has already received,however, to determine why certain instructionaltechniques have been effective or ineffective. Theresults may indicate that the student would benefitfrom other types of systematic instructional inter-ventions, such as a fluency-based program, ratherthan phonics. Or the results may suggest that thestudent would benefit from a specific type of phon-ics instruction such as an analytic phonics approachthat focuses on whole words and onset–rime pat-terns, rather than a synthetic approach that startswith single letters and sounds. Although a few stu-dents do need and would benefit from explicit in-struction in grapheme–phoneme relationships,competent reading clearly requires more than justdecoding skills (National Institute of Child Healthand Human Development, 2000). Students must beable to read and understand text in a variety of con-texts. In addition, students who are receiving directinstruction with a phonics approach need to listen toand interact with authentic texts to enhance theirlanguage development and learning.

The most obvious instructional conclusion isthat effective early reading intervention requiresdifferentiated instruction. Juel and Minden-Cupp(2000) found that differential instruction was suc-cessful in maximizing the effectiveness of begin-ning literacy instruction. Students who entered firstgrade with some reading ability performed excep-tionally well in a curriculum focusing on tradebooks and writing of text, whereas the studentswith the lowest reading scores benefited most fromphonics and word-recognition instruction. In addi-tion, they found that training in phonological pro-cessing was critical for some students but not forothers.

Similarly, in a recent study of 108 children whofailed a fourth-grade state reading assessment,Valencia and Buly (2004) observed that studentsfailed for different reasons. They found that nearly58% of the students had adequate or strong word-identification skills, making placement in a phon-ics or word-identification program inappropriate,whereas nearly 70% of the students demonstrateddifficulty with fluency, suggesting the need for in-structional programs that were devoted to helping

students read and comprehend more complex text.This type of study reinforces the importance of mul-tifaceted, in-depth assessments and matching the re-sults to an individual student’s instructional needs.

LimitationsThe Early Names Test has several limitations.

One is that it measures only the ability to applygrapheme–phoneme knowledge to simple wordpatterns. Similar to Cunningham’s (1990) originalNames Test and the revision by Duffelmeyer et al.(1994), this version was developed to assess a nar-row but critical aspect of reading development. Amore comprehensive reading assessment would ad-dress many additional factors, such as sight-wordknowledge, vocabulary knowledge, reading fluen-cy or rate, comprehension of text, and the use ofstrategies for monitoring comprehension.

Another limitation is that we did not attempt toestablish concurrent or predictive validity for the test.Ideally, this version of the Names Test could havebeen compared to widely used standardized meas-ures of pseudoword reading like the Word Attacktests on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R) and Woodcock–Johnson III(WJ-III), or the Nonsense Word Decoding subteston the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement II(KTEA-II).

A further limitation of the Early Names Test isthat the results are provided only for the beginningsecond-grade students. Because significant growthoccurs in decoding ability in the early elementarygrades, ideally norms would be provided for at leastthree points: the beginning, middle, and end of theschool year. In addition, the norms were gathered inseveral schools in one school district and may notbe representative of early reading performance inother school systems. Because reading performancevaries substantially among schools, teachers couldeasily develop local norms for their individualschools or classes. Further, we found that the testwas too difficult for many students who were justentering the first grade. Thus, it is inappropriate foruse with students who are just beginning to learn toread. Before using the Early Names Test, oneshould consider the amount of print exposure astudent has had, as well as the type of reading in-struction that he or she has been provided.



TABLE 4 Scoring matrix for the Early Names Test

Name:__________________________________________________ Grade:__________________ Date:__________________

Name Initial Ending Consonant Consonant Short Long Vowel Rimeconsonant consonant blend digraph vowel vowel/Vowel- digraph

consonant-final e

Bab B -b a -abBeck B -ck e -eckBin B -n i -inBlade -d Bl- a-e -adeBop B -p o -opBrad -d Br- a -adBrent Br- e -ent

-ntDane D -n a-e -aneDaw D -aw -awDell D -ll e -ellDut D -t u -utFlip -p Fl- i -ipFrank Fr- a -ank

-nkFred -d Fr- e -edGold G -ld -oldGrace Gr- a-e -aceGus G -s u -usHap H -p a -apJake J -k a-e -akeJen J -n e -enJet J -t e -etJud J -d u -udKate K -t a-e -ateLake L -k a-e -akeLang L -ng a -angLem L -m e -emLex L -x e -exLing L -ng i -ingLug L -g u -ugLun L -n u -unMar M -arMit M -t i -itMot M -t o -otNup N -p u -upPam P -m a -amPat P -t a -atQuest (Qu)* -st e -estRack R -ck a -ackRand R -nd a -andRay R -ay -ayRob R -b o -obRod R -d o -odRoss R -ss o -ossSan S -n a -anShick Sh- i -ick

-ckSid S -d i -idSmush Sm -sh u -ushTag T -g a -ag

(continued)

As noted by Cunningham (1990), the nameshave to be decodable, so the Names Test has fewforeign names. Some of the names sound more likenonsense words than like the names of real children(e.g., Jet Mit). Many of the children, however,thought the names were funny and did not seem tomind attempting to pronounce them. Althoughmany English-language sounds are represented inthis adapted version, the test does not contain awide sampling of long-vowel sounds, vowel di-graphs, or consonant digraphs. Thus, the test ismost appropriate for a quick screening of earlyphonics skills (involving beginning consonants,short-vowel sounds, and ending rimes) rather thanas an in-depth analysis of all major phonics ele-ments and spelling patterns.

Combine tools for easierassessment

This Early Names Test was designed to be aninformal assessment tool so that teachers can quick-ly assess students’ beginning phonics knowledge.It is intended to measure one narrow, but important,aspect of reading performance—knowledge ofgrapheme–phoneme relationships. It can be usedwith more comprehensive assessments found onstandardized tests (such as the WRMT-R,WJ-III,

or the KTEA-II) and curriculum-based measure-ment tools, or it can be coupled with more authenticassessments of reading, such as informal reading in-ventories and running records. When coupled withadditional information, this quick assessment canhelp teachers identify students who would benefitfrom additional assessments and early intervention.

Mather teaches at the University of Arizona inthe Special Education, Rehabilitation, andSchool Psychology department (College ofEducation, PO Box 210069, Tucson, AZ 85721-0069, USA). E-mail [email protected] and Schwartz teach at the Universityof Arizona, South Campus.

ReferencesAdams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning

about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cunningham, P. (1990). The Names Test: A quick assessment

of decoding ability. The Reading Teacher, 44, 124–129.Duffelmeyer, F.A., Kruse, A.E., Merkley, D.J., & Fyfe, S.A.

(1994). Further validation and enhancement of theNames Test. The Reading Teacher, 48, 118–128.

Ehri, L.C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Twosides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 19–36.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., Schatschneider, C., &Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning toread: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.


TABLE 4 Scoring matrix for the Early Names Test (continued)

Name Initial Ending Consonant Consonant Short Long Vowel Rimeconsonant consonant blend digraph vowel vowel/Vowel- digraph

consonant-final e

Tash T -sh a -ashTide T -d i-e -ideTig T -g i -igTim T -m i -imTom T -m o -omTrish Tr- -sh i -ishVog V -g o -ogWong W -ng o -ongYub Y -b u -ubZall Z -ll -all

Note. *Qu is sometimes referred to as a consonant oddity or a consonant blend.

Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words:Linguistic units and instructional strategies. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 35, 458–492.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.(2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teachingchildren to read: An evidence-based assessment of thescientific research literature on reading and its impli-cations for reading instruction (NIH Publication No.00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Perfetti, C.A., & Hogaboam, T. (1975). Relationship betweensingle word decoding and reading comprehension skill.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 461–469.Rack, J.P., Snowling, M.J., & Olson, R.K. (1992). The nonword

reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review.Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 28–53.

Tunmer, W.E., & Nesdale, A.R. (1985). Phonemic segmenta-tion skill and beginning reading. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 77, 417–427.

Valencia, S.W., & Buly, M.R. (2004). Behind test scores:What struggling readers really need. The ReadingTeacher, 57, 520–531.

Wylie, R., & Durrell, D. (1970). Teaching vowels throughphonograms. Elementary English, 47, 787–791.


early names test

Documents