4 a

6 7 9 2 7 6 9 d o p
9

s
o

d s a o p
7 s 2 d 4

6 a

Stephanie Smythe and Rhonda Williams

p 7

RAN/RAS Tests

Designed by Maryanne Wolf and Martha Bridges Denckla (2005) Individually administered norm-referenced reading assessment Published by PRO-ED Inc. Costs approximately $145.00 for complete kit (includes Manual, Record Forms, and Test cards)

RAN/RAS Tests

Uses naming speed tasks to measure reading performance Rapid naming tests are one of the best predictors or reading disabilities Used for early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities
Ages 5-0 to 18-11 Schools and clinics

History

The Time it Takes to See and Name Objects (Cattell, 1886) Stroop Color-Word Test in 1935 Geschwind (1965) hypothesized that an early capacity for color naming was the best predictor of later reading Denckla (1972) found children with reading disabilities could name colours but not quickly

History continued

RAN/RAS Tests started as RAN Tests RAS added by Wolf (1986) 4 RAN Tests and 2 RAS Tests

RAN/RAS Tests

6 sub-tests: 1. RAN Objects

2. RAN Colors 3. RAN Numbers 4. RAN Letters 5. RAS 2-set 6. RAS 3-set

RAN Objects

RAN Colors

RAN Numbers

4 6 7 9 2 7 6 9 4 2 7 2 6 4 9 2 7 9 6 4

RAN Letters

a o

d p

o d

p a

s d

d s a o p s a o s p

RAS 2 set

6 a

7 s 2 d

2 d

9 a 6 o

RAS 3 set

p 7

s 6

Administration

Individually administered Examiner has Record Form, stopwatch, pencil Examinee has one Test card at a time Test run Ready, set, go! Examinee names all symbols on card as fast as possible without making mistakes Examiner records seconds

Normative Sample

Spring of 2001 and Fall of 2002 1,461 students ranging in age from 5-18 Characteristics include:
-Hispanic origin -exceptionality status -gender -ethnicity -educational attainment of parents -age

Geographic Norm Sample 26 states

Psychometric Properties

Reliability: - moderately high to high test-retest - high interrater reliability Validity: - strong criterion-related when compared with Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) rapid digit naming and rapid letter naming

Validity continued

- strong construct with 4 concepts: - age correlation - good & average readers vs. poor readers - verbal & visual processing speeds - measures skills important to reading ability

Evaluation

Strengths Strong predictive power with struggling readers -specifically dyslexics Effective early intervention assessment Double Deficit Hypothesis Integral part of a comprehensive assessment battery fMRI activate same portions of the brain as reading words.

Evaluation

Limitations Claims validity for ages 5-18

-loss of predictive power after grade 2

CTOPP incorporates more valid components of RAN/RAS letters and numbers Inaccurate assumptions made regarding early intervention Refers to test as a game in scripted instructions