No description available.

The purpose of this study was to determine if three different tests of phonological awareness: the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP) (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999), The Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) (Robertson & Salter, 1997), and the Pre-Literacy Skills Screening (PLSS) (Crumrine & Lonegan, 1999) measure the same phonological awareness skills (content) in the same manner (procedures) and, whether typically-developing kindergarten-age students perform similarly on each of the tests. Twenty-five kindergarten students consisting of 14 males and 11 females (mean CA of 72.24 months) participated in this study. All participants were attending the second half of kindergarten in a public school in Orlando, Florida. Prior to the administration of the three tools, all participants were administered the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test - Second Edition (Fluharty-2) (Fluharty, 2001) to ensure that no formal speech and/or language assessment was needed. A comparison of the CTOPP, PAT, and PLSS revealed that the PAT and CTOPP produced similar outcomes. That is, participants who performed well on one tool also did well on the other. Results of this study have shown that tasks on these two tools are comparable measures of phonological awareness known to strongly predict future reading ability. However, when the PLSS was compared to either the CTOPP or PAT, similar outcomes were not obtained. Three participants were identified "at risk" for reading disability on the PLSS. No participants were identified "at risk" on either the CTOPP or PAT. Using a standardized battery to identify children "at-risk" for reading failure and planning intervention may be more advantageous than using a screening measure like the PLSS. Even though it will take more time to complete, a comprehensive assessment battery may be of more value to the clinician. A summary, possible limitations of study, and suggestions for future research are discussed.