1 Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading development 1 John R. Kirby 2 , Rauno K. Parrila 3 , and Shannon L. Pfeiffer 2 This paper investigates how well individual differences in kindergarten in phonological awareness and naming speed account for subsequent reading development. We report two series of analyses from the one data set. In the first, we use regression analyses to predict subsequent reading development, with various other factors controlled. In the second series, we follow the reading development of four groups of children selected to have the various combinations of adequate or inadequate phonological awareness and naming speed in kindergarten. Considerable evidence has accumulated that phonological awareness is a key component in the development of reading ability, and that poor phonological awareness is a, or perhaps the, core deficit in reading disability (Adams, 1990; Goswami & Bryant, 1990; Share & Stanovich, 1995; Wagner, Torgesen, Laughon, Simmons & Rashotte, 1993). A separate body of evidence is accumulating in favor of the importance of naming speed in reading development, and for its causal role in reading disability (e.g., Wimmer, Mayringer & Landerl, 2000; Wolf & Bowers, 1999). Studies of phonological awareness and naming speed as predictors of reading development have value in helping to understand the nature of the cognitive processes underlying reading, but also have more applied value. Early identification of children who are at risk to develop reading difficulties requires reliable and valid assessments that can be administered without the requirement of unaffordable resources, and early intervention programs need to target the key processes, perhaps with some tailoring of programs to the individual child’s pattern of potential difficulties. A number of studies have investigated the roles of phonological awareness and naming speed in reading development, but the evidence is somewhat inconsistent, there are gaps in the evidence, and several issues remain. Many studies have found phonological awareness and naming speed to have significant unique effects upon current or later reading (e.g., Badian, 1994, 1997, 1998; Kirby & Parrila, 1999; Manis, Doi & Bhadha, 2000; Scarborough, 1998; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Burgess & Hecht, 1997), but in some cases one or the other effect disappears when prior achievement (an autoregressor) is included as a predictor (e.g., Torgesen et al., 1997). The studies vary greatly in terms of when the predictors and outcomes are measured, what and how many predictors are used, what other predictors are in the equation, and whether autoregressors are included. Some of the unresolved issues include the independence of phonological awareness and naming speed, whether naming speed should be measured with tasks involving school-learned content (letters and digits), whether phonological awareness and naming speed predict different outcome measures, and whether phonological awareness and naming speed have different predictive roles at different points in reading development. 1 Brief version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boulder CO, June 2001. This research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Correspondence to the first author, Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6, or kirbyj@educ.queensu.ca. 2 Queen’s University 3 University of Alberta