Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 1

Test Review: Oral and Written Language Scales: Listening Comprehension and Oral Expression (OWLS)
N.B. I have chosen to review only the Listening Comprehension and Oral Expression subtests. In considering the Written Expression
subtest I !ound that the items were speci!ic to the student"s ability to engage in writing activities such as printing his or her name
copying a word and writing letters and later composing sentences !rom the examiner"s spo#en words $e.g. Item %& 'Write one
sentence using these !our words() or responding in writing to the examiner"s instruction $Item *+ ', girl is loo#ing !or her lost ring.
Write here what she as#ed her mother.(). -owever at the start age o! &./ years the student begins by copying words and sentences
writing a letter $e.g. Item & Write the letter '!( here) or writing spo#en sentences $item *% 'Write the sentence I say here.(). 0or our
purpose I !ocused on abilities that I thought were related to reading and were comparable with other tests reviewed so !ar.
ame o! Test: Oral and Written Language Scales: Listening Coprehension and Oral !"pression #OWLS$%
"uthor(s): !li&a'eth Carrow Wool(ol)
#u$lisher%&ear: 1**+ ,erican -uidance Service, .nc%
'orms: only one
"ge Range: / years through 01 years%
orming Sample
1est construction 'egan in 1**1 with a tryout phase (ollowed 'y a national standardi&ation study% 2ro the standardi&ation study
#1**031**/$, test adinistration was detailed and norative scores were developed% .n developing the norative scores, the author
notes that soothing procedures were used to deal with 4irregularities caused 'y sapling (luctuations5 #Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+, p%
11*$%
.te analyses were carried out (or 'oth scales% 6oth classical #ite di((iculty and ite discriination$ and 7asch scaling ethods
were used to deterine the suita'ility, presentation order, and consistency o( test ites% 1he author provides a good e"planation o(
these procedures (or the potential e"ainer #Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+, p%11+$%
Total um$er: 1 *8+
um$er and "ge: 1he students ages ranged (ro / to 01 years% 1here were 1/ age groups as (ollows: 93onth age intervals (or ages
/ years, : onths to ; years, 11 onths< 13year intervals (or ages + years, : onths to 11 years, : onths< and then 'y age groups 103
1/, 1;31+, 19318, and 1*301% ,ll ages have N=1:: or ore persons% >ounger children, ages / and ;, were given only the Listening
Coprehension and Oral !"pression Scales%
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 0
Location: ?; sites #N!, North Central, South, and West$
(emographics: @eographics are reported 'y gender, geographical region, raceAethnicity and socioeconoic status #aternal
educational$%
Rural%)r$an: not speci(ied%
SES: S!S was reported 'y aternal eployent, which sees unusual to do so 'ut the author states that the otherBs educational
level has a 4plausi'le lin) to the e"aineeBs developed language a'ilities5 #Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+, p% 11:$%
Other: none
Saple characteristics copared (avoura'ly to 1**1 C%S% Census in(oration #6ureau o( the Census, 1**1$% ,ll data are presented in
ta'le (or 'y various saple characteristics to illustrate representativeness%
Summar* #repared +*: !leanor Stewart Nove'er 0::?
Test (escription%Overview
1he coplete test )it consists o( the e"ainerBs anual, Listening Coprehension !asel, Oral !"pression !asel, and record (ors%
#1he Written !"pression Scale is pac)aged separately$%
1he OWLS consists o( three su'tests: Listening Coprehension, Oral !"pression and Written !"pression% 1he (irst two are pu'lished
together in one test )it while the third is pac)aged and presented separately. ,s stated 'y the 6uros reviewers, 41he decision to
pac)age the Written !"pression su'test separately was un(ortunate, as it coplicates coparing studentsD per(orance in these three
areas5 #Carpenter and Ealco, 0::1, p% 89:$%
Theor*: 1he OWLS is 'ased on !li&a'eth CarrowBs previous wor) in the area o( language test developent% She (ollows (ro
previous tests in that she presents a odel that is 'ased on her theoretical wor) in language developent #she cites Carrow3Wool(ol),
1*8*< Carrow3Wool(ol) and Lynch, 1*81$% .n this anual, the author presents a 'rie( overview o( )ey eleents that include the 'asic
diensions o( language, language )nowledge, and language per(orance% Language )nowledge re(ers to the structure o( language
that includes content and (or while language per(orance re(ers to 4internal systes the language user eploys to process
language5 #Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+, p%?$% 1he author proposes that these two diensions together account (or ver'al counication%
1he author (urther ela'orates on her theory and spends the rest o( the section on theory descri'ing the eleents o( content, (or, and
use% Euch o( this in(oration is (ailiar to e (ro either reviewing her other tests or using the in clinical practice% Hers is a servo
syste view o( language with interconnecting and overlapping circuits% Language processing theory, according to Carrow, 4separates
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell /
the (our aFor processes 'y the reGuireents o( their perspective processing systes5 #p% 10$%
. thin) that the author is con(ident o( her theoretical (oundation in that she only re(erences Chos)y and 2oster as theoretical
sources% Otherwise, the te"t is sparse in ters o( citations to the wor) o( others in language theory% .t is on the 'asis o( her theory that
the OWLS is organi&ed around the (our structural categories she proposes #le"ical, syntactic, pragatic, and supralinguistic$ and the
processing that includes listening coprehension, oral e"pression, written e"pression, and reading% Her odel rese'les Lois
6looBs contentA(orAuse odel (ailiar to speech pathologists and developental linguists%
Comment !rom the Buros reviewers1 '2he only apparent wea#ness o! this test is its art wor#. 3timulus materials consist o! blac#.and.
white line drawings. 4any o! these drawings seem vague to the concepts to be tapped by the items. ,s the items increase in
developmental di!!iculty they become much more detailed and subtle in their di!!erences. 3tudents who do not attend well to visual
detail or who have short attention spans may miss the cues and details presented in the materials that are used to prompt them !or
the appropriate language responses( #Carpenter & Ealcol, 0::1, pp% 89/389;$%
#urpose o! Test: 1he purpose o( this test is to assess language )nowledge and processing s)ills% 1he author identi(ies three purposes
which are to identi(y, intervene, and onitor progress, and also to use in research% 1he author states that identi(ying language
pro'les will assist in 4addressing potential acadeic di((iculties5 #Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+, p% /$% ,ccording to the author, growth
across tie (ro preschool through high school and into post3secondary education can 'e trac)ed% ,lso, due to the age range
covered, the author clais that it is use(ul in research studies%
Comment1 2he Buros reviewer states that 'support that the author provided !or each o! these claims was uneven( #Carpenter &
Ealcol, 0::1, p% 891$%
"reas Tested:
1% Listening Coprehension: 111 ites #(our 'lac) and white line drawings per test plate$ in progression o( increasing di((iculty
are used (or this su'test% 1he student ust select #'y pointing or ver'al response$ the picture that 'est atches the e"ainerBs
stateent% 1he test ites re(lect increasing di((iculty in ters o( length and cople"ity, syntactic structures, seantic (actors,
and 4aount and type o( 'ac)ground in(oration needed to coprehend, and degree to which the cognitive syste is
involvedH5 #p% 0:$% 2or e"aple, (ro the anual #p% 01$, the ites 'egin siply with 4Show e the car5 #noun$ and
progress to 4@ad said, I. thin) .Bll hit the sac)B% What did he doJ #idio$%
0% Oral e"pression: *9 ites are presented, as a'ove #i%e%, 'lac) and white line drawings, etc$% Ker'al responses are reGuired to
Guestions a'out the pictures or to reGuests to coplete descriptions% 1he author de(ends her choice to use pictures throughout
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell ;
the test 'y stating that the decision 4is 'ased on the desire to provide consistency in testing, elicit responses ore readily, and
hold the e"aineeBs attention% Higher level ites are (ar less dependent on picture cues than lower level ites, where the need
(or odeling is greater5 #Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+, p% 0/$% Comment1 I thin# the pictures are boring.
"reas Tested:
Oral Language Koca'ulary -raar Narratives Other
#rint ,nowledge !nvironental Print ,lpha'et Other
#honological "wareness Segenting 6lending !lision 7hying Other
Reading Single Word 7eadingA@ecoding Coprehension
Spelling Other
Writing Letter 2oration Capitali&ation Punctuation Conventional Structures Word Choice @etails
Other
Listening Le"ical Syntactic Supralinguistic
Who can "dminister: School psychologists, speech pathologists, educational diagnosticians, early childhood specialists and other
pro(essionals with graduate level training in testing and interpretation ay adinister this test%
"dministration Time: 1a'le 1%1 provides average adinistration tie in inutes (or the norative saple% 1he 6uros reviewers
estiated 1+ to ;: inutes overall with + to 1+ inutes (or the Listening Coprehension and 1: to 0+ (or Oral !"pression-
Test "dministration (.eneral and Su$tests):
Chapter ; provides a general overview o( testing that contains (ailiar in(oration a'out the setting, arrangeent o( aterials and
positioning o( the e"ainer and student, esta'lishing rapport, etc%
Chapters + and 9 detail the speci(ic su'testsB adinistration and scoring% Start points 'y age are given (or the Oral !"pression Scale%
1he e"ainer 'egins each su'test with an e"aple (or the student that i( answered correctly, triggers adinistration o( the rest o( the
su'test% .( the student incorrectly responds to the e"aple, the e"ainer is instructed to teach the response% 1hree e"aples are
provided, i( all three attepts (ail with instruction, the e"ainer is instructed to note this in the record 'oo)let% 7epetitions o( the
e"aples are allowed to assist low (unctioning students% 1he e"ainer can start with test ite lower than the suggested age start
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell +
point% 1arget responses are ar)ed on the e"ainerBs side o( the test 'oo)let% No repetitions are allowed on the Listening
Coprehension Scale whereas one repetition is allowed on the Oral !"pression Scale% Propting is allowed on the Oral !"pression
scale and is outlined in the anual in the detailed section on .te3'y3ite Scoring 7ules% 1his section addresses the speci(ics o( each
test ite in ters o( scoring rule, pre(erred and accepta'le responses, errors #graatical, seantic, pragatic$% 6asal and ceiling
rules apply and di((er 'etween the two su'tests% Overall, adinistration is straight(orward and easy to (ollow%
Comment !rom the Buros reviewer1 '2he establishment o! the basal and ceiling !or the Oral Expression subtest involves some
uncertainty as the scoring in!ormation provided on the record !orm may not be ade5uate !or correctly scoring all items. 4ore
complete scoring in!ormation is provided in the test manual. , solution to this problem is to provide the needed in!ormation in the
same place that instructions !or administering each item are provided( #Carpenter & Ealcol, 0::1, p% 891$%
Listening Coprehension is easured 'y as)ing the e"ainee to select one o( (our pictures that 'est depicts a stateent #e%g%, D.n
which picture is she not wal)ing to schoolD$ ade 'y the e"ainer% Oral e"pression is assessed 'y as)ing the e"ainee to loo) at one
or ore line drawings and respond ver'ally to a stateent ade 'y the e"ainer #e%g%, D1ell e what is happening here and how the
other (eelsD$% Contrary to the authorDs clai, these tas)s are not typical o( those (ound in the classroo, and li)e other language tests
o( this nature, concerns a'out the ecological validity o( the instruent need to 'e addressed in the test anual%
Test /nterpretation:
Chapter ?, 4@eterination and .nterpretation o( Norative Scores5, provides instruction (or converting raw scores to standard scores,
calculating con(idence intervals and other standardi&ed scores, dealing with : scores, and the interpretation o( each type o(
standardi&ed score% .nterpretation o( the OWLS is liited to the use o( standardi&ed scores% ,ppendi" C, 4-raar and Csage
-uidelines5, provides a use(ul glossary and introduction to coon graatical ista)es that the e"ainer ay encounter #e%g%,
(aulty agreeent 'etween su'Fect and ver'$%
Comment1 No !urther in!ormation particularly in relation to Carrow.Wool!ol#"s theoretical model is given. No curriculum lin#s are
discussed or identi!ied which is surprising as the author ma#es a claim about classroom language in the introduction.
Comments !rom Buros reviewers1 'Listening Comprehension Oral Expression Oral Composite. 2he authors are to be commended
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 9
!or providing clear and easy.to.!ollow directions !or scoring as well as determining normative scores. 4ore attention however
should have been directed to establishing the cautions that examiners need to exercise in interpreting these scores. 2his is especially
the case !or test.age e5uivalents that can be derived !or each subtest and a composite score !or the whole test( #Carpenter &
Ealcol, 0::1, p% 891$%
Comment1 ',n interesting !eature o! the Oral Expression subtest is that the examiner can conduct a descriptive analysis o! correct
and incorrect responses. 0or all but 67 o! the +8 items on this subtest correct responses can be categori9ed as pre!erred or
acceptable responses providing additional in!ormation on how well the examinee understood the oral expression tas#. In contrast
incorrect responses can !urther be classi!ied as a miscue involving grammar or a miscue involving semantic and:or pragmatic
aspects o! language. ,lthough the manual provides item.by.item scoring rules !or ma#ing these decisions no data are provided on
the reliability o! these scores( #Carpenter & Ealcol, 0::1, p% 891$%
Comment1 'Both subtests are easy to administer re5uiring only about *& to ;7 minutes depending upon the age o! the child. 2he
establishment o! the basal and ceiling !or the Oral Expression subtest involves some uncertainty as the scoring in!ormation provided
on the record !orm may not be ade5uate !or correctly scoring all items. 4ore complete scoring in!ormation is provided in the test
manual. , solution to this problem is to provide the needed in!ormation in the same place that instructions !or administering each
item are provided( #Carpenter & Ealcol, 0::1, p% 891$%
Standardi0ation: "ge e1uivalent scores called test3age eGuivalents .rade e1uivalent scores #ercentiles Standard
scores Stanines Other Listening Coprehension, Oral !"pression, Oral Coposite% Noral Curve !Guivalents #NC!$ are
provided as soe agencies and legislative reGuireents e"ist which andate their use%
Eean scaled scores (or 'oth the Listening Coprehension and Oral !"pression Scales were 1:: with a standard deviation o( 1+%
S!Es #98, *:, and *+L levels$ and Con(idence intervals availa'le are presented 'y age on page 10/ #Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+$% Oral
Coposite had S!E o( ;, Listening had 9%1 and Oral !"pression had +%; standard score points across age ranges%
No ention or caution regarding the use o( age eGuivalent scores was (ound in the anual%
Relia$ilit*:
/nternal consistenc* o! items: Csing -uil(ordBs (orula, internal relia'ilities were calculated (or the three standard scores availa'le%
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell ?
1hese are reported in 1a'le *%1 'y age and su'test and coposite% Eean relia'ility coe((icients #using 2isherBs & trans(oration$
across su'tests and coposites were high: %8;, %8?, and %*1 respectively%
Test2retest:
1hree age ranges #; years, : onths through + years, 11 onths, n=+:, 8 years, : onths through 1: years, 11onths, n=+;, and 19
years, : onths through 18 years, 11 onths, n=//$ were randoly selected and saple characteristics were provided% 1he interval
edian (or the retesting was 8 wee)s% 1a'le *%; presents relia'ility coe((icients (or su'tests and coposite ean standard scores and
deviations (or the three age ranges% Corrected coe((icients range (ro %?/ to %8*% #-ain is indicated 'y su'tracting second inus (irst
testing$%
Comment !rom the Buros reviewer1 'Correlations !or test.retest reliability and internal consistency !or the Oral Expression scale and
the composite score !or both scales were almost always above .<7. 0or the Listening Comprehension subtest however measures o!
reliability were below .<7 !or children aged 8 to + suggesting that this particular scales appears to be best suited as a screening
device at these ages( #Carpenter & Ealcol, 0::1, p% 890$%
/nter2rater: *9 students in ages / to +, 9 to 8, * to 10 and 1/ to 01 years were used, and characteristics are reported 'y gender and
raceAethnicity% Copleted test 'oo)lets were scored independently 'y (our raters who did not have previous e"perience with the Oral
!"pression Scale 'ut had attended a 'rie( training session outlining the scoring procedures and rules% Coe((icients ranged (ro %*/
to %** with ean o( %*+% 1he author states, 4agreeent was greatest (or the youngest ages ta)ing the early, less cople" ites%
However, agreeent at the upper ages is also Guite accepta'le in light o( the cople"ity o( the scoring o( the later ites5 #Carrow3
Wool(ol), 1**+, p% 109$% ,lso, a second analysis was conducted with a Eulti32aceted 7asch Eodel #2,C!1S$ to e"aine
4signi(icant rater3'y3e"ainee interactions5#p% 109$% 7esults deonstrated that (ive ites were (ound to 'e pro'leatic, with three
caused 'y rater errors #recording ista)es$% 1he reaining two ites received lower scores and on this 'asis the anual was clari(ied
and e"aples were added%
Other:
3alidit*:

Comment1 '3everal studies were highlighted that compare results o! the Listening Comprehension and Oral Expression 3cales by
age levels with commonly used measures o! ability $=au!man ,ssessment Battery !or Children Wechsler Intelligence 3cales !or
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 8
Children..2hird Edition and the =au!man Brie! Intelligence 3cale) other measures o! language $2est !or ,uditory Comprehension o!
Language..>evised ?eabody ?icture @ocabulary 2est..>evised and Clinical Evaluation o! Language 0undamentals..>evised) and
tests o! academic achievement $=au!man 2est o! Educational ,chievement Comprehensive 0orm ?eabody Individual ,chievement
2est..>evised and Woodcoc# >eading 4astery 2est..>evised). Correlations with other language tests were moderate to high
re!lecting similarities between the tests. 2he use o! the OWL3 can be Austi!ied by the more extensive nature o! the test and its age
ranges. Correlations with IB measures indicate strong positive relationships between the Listening Comprehension and Oral
Expression 3cales and various tests o! verbal ability. 4oderate correlations were obtained between these scales and the nonverbal
sections o! the IB batteries. 4oderate correlations were also obtained between the OWL3 3cales and various measures o! verbal
achievement. Low correlations were obtained between these scales and measures o! math achievement. 2he author o!!ered these
correlations as evidence o! divergent validity especially in areas where low correlations were obtained between the OWL3 and
various subtests o! math achievement. @alidity studies conducted with clinical populations $students with speech impairments
language delays and language impairments) indicated the more involved the speech or language di!!iculty the lower the scores on
the OWL3. 2his would indicate that the test is able to identi!y students with di!!iculties in the language !unctions( #Carpenter &
Ealcol, 0::1, p% 89;$%
Content: 1he author re(ers readers to the aterial presented in the introduction regarding the odel and descriptions o( constructs
#Chapters 0 and /$%
Comment1 No other in!ormation about content is provided whereas other newer tests include research to support their claims.
Criterion #rediction 3alidit*: .n the introduction to this section, the author provides this overview: 4Convergent validity is shown
'y relatively high correlations with other easures o( the sae a'ility, and discriinant validity is deonstrated 'y lower
correlations with easures o( di((erent constructs5 #Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+, p% 10?$% 1he section then proceeds with a suary o(
evidence in each o( the (ollowing correlations which were analy&ed using -uil(ordBs #1*+;$ (orula which corrects (or restricted
range o( scores:
Language: 1he 1est (or ,uditory Coprehension o( Language3revised, Pea'ody Picture Koca'ulary 1est3revised, and Clinical
!valuation o( Language 2undaentals3revised were adinistered% Saple si&es ranged (ro /1 children #1,CL37 and C!L237$ to
*8 children #PPK137$% 1he age ranges were: ; years, 1 onth to + years, 11 onths #1,CL37$, ? years, : onths to 11 years, :
onths #PPK137$, and 1; years, 1onth to 19 years, ? onths #C!L237$% Counter'alanced order o( presentation was used (or all
studies% ,verage intervals 'etween testing ranged (ro 0? days to 1:* days, with soe adinistrations occurring the sae day and
others up to 0*0 days 'etween testing adinistration% 7esults were: PPK137 #%?+$, 1,CL37 1otal Score #%?8$, and C!L237 1otal
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell *
Language #%*1$% 1he author discusses the results in ters o( the targeted s)ills (or each test with a suary stateent: 4While there
is an apparent relationship 'etween per(orance on all (our instruents, OWLS addresses language at a level that is conceptually
di((erent (ro Fust )nowledge o( voca'ulary or syntactic structures% ,s discussed in Chapter /, progressive di((iculty o( ites on the
Listening Coprehension and Oral !"pression scales is achieved not only 'y increasing the di((iculty o( the voca'ulary 'ut also 'y
including progressively ore cople" language structures and conte"ts5 #Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+, p% 1/:$%
Cognitive a'ility: 1he author notes that though easures o( language would 'e e"pected to produce higher correlations, cognitive
easures should show soe degree o( correlation given the cople" relationship 'etween the doains o( language and cognition%
1he Mau(an ,ssessent 6attery (or Children #M,6C$, Weschler .ntelligence Scale (or Children3... #W.SC3...$, and Mau(an 6rie(
.ntelligence 1est #M36.1$ were adinistered% 1he procedures (ollowed the sae outline as discussed a'ove in the section on language
easures% Saple si&es ranged (ro /1 children #M3,6C$ to 99 children #M36.1$% ,ge ranges were: ; years, ? onths to 9 years, 11
onths #M3,6C$, 8 years, : onths, to 11 years, 11 onths #W.SC3...$, and 1; years, ? onths to 01 years, 11 onths #M36.1$%
Counter'alanced order o( presentation was used (or all studies% ,verage intervals 'etween testing ranged (ro the sae day to /?
days% 7esults were: M3,6C ,chieveent Score #%80$, W.SC3... Ker'al .N #%?;$, and M36.1 Koca'ulary su'test #%?9$% Nonver'al
a'ility correlations ranged: %?:, %9*, and %9+ respectively (or the appropriate su'tests on each test% -lo'al score correlations were as
(ollows: %?9, %?/, and %?+%
,cadeic achieveent: 2ollowing the sae research (rae as (irst descri'ed a'ove relative to language easures, the author also
reports on correlations with acadeic achieveent% 1he Mau(an 1est o( !ducational ,chieveent #M31!,$, Pea'ody .ndividual
,chieveent 1est3revised #P.,137$, and Woodcoc) 7eading Eastery 1est3revised #W7E137$ were studied% Saple si&es ranged
(ro /: children #M31!, and W7E137$ to /1 children #P.,137$% ,ge ranges were: 8 years, 0 onths to * years, : onths #M31!,$,
* years, / onths to 11 years, 1 onth #P.,137$, and 1: years, 0 onths to 10 years, 1: onths #W7E137$% Counter'alanced order
o( presentation was used (or all studies% ,verage intervals 'etween testing ranged (ro 0; to 9+ days% 7esults indicated 4positive
correlations 'etween the Oral Coposite and the M31!,, P.,137 and W7E137, suggesting dependence on language in acadeic
tas)s5 #Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+, p% 1/;$% 1his stateent is con(ired 'y the data which show the highest correlation to 'e with
W7E137 Word Coprehension #%88$ and lowest correlation with M31!, Eatheatics Coposite #%;/$%
Clinical validity is evidenced 'y coparisons with clinical populations where the saples were atched (or age, gender,
raceAethnicity, and S!S #using the standardi&ation saple$ and t3tests (or paired saples were conducted% Classi(ication criteria were
speci(ied (or each diagnostic category% ,ll saple characteristics collected were descri'ed% 1he (ollowing diagnostic categories were
studied:
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 1:
Speech ipaired: // students were tested and the criteria were speci(ied in anual% Students received no language services, ranged in
age (ro / years, 1 onth to 1/ years, 0 onths% -ender, raceAethnicity, and S!S were provided% No signi(icant di((erences were
(ound (or Listening Coprehension though at pO%:+, slightly lower per(orance (or clinical group on Oral !"pression Scale%
However, the author states, 4; point di((erence 'etween the ean scores (or the Oral Coposite is not signi(icant5 #Carrow3
Wool(ol), 1**+, p%1/9$%
Language delayed: 9/ students, ages / years, ; onths to ? years, 11 onths, were included% 1he classi(ication was speci(ied in the
anual and genderArace, etc were provided% Signi(icant di((erences were (ound at pO%::1 as e"pected%

Language ipaired: /? students, ages 8 years, : onths to 10 years, 1: onths, were included% 1he classi(ication is speci(ied in the
anual and gender, etc% was provided% 1he children in the clinical group scored signi(icantly lower at pO %::1 on 'oth su'tests and
the coposite% 1he author notes, 41he 1*3 to 0/3point di((erences are even larger that those (or the younger language delayed group5
#Carrow3Wool(ol), 1**+, p% 1/8$%
Eentally handicapped: /0 students, ages + years, ? onths to 1? years, 11 onths were included% ,s e"pected in this clinical group,
all scored signi(icantly lower with a 083 to /:3point di((erence at pO%::1%
Learning disa'led3reading: ;: students, ages 9 years, 9 onths to 1; years, + onths, were tested% 4Previous researchH(ound
language de(icits in *:%+ o( a population o( learning disa'led children, this clinical group was e"pected to score lower that its control
group on the OWLS5 #p% 1/*$% .ndeed, they did< with point di((erence o( 931: at pO%:+ and pO%::1 level o( signi(icance respectively%
1hey per(ored 'etter on Listening Coprehension #not a signi(icant di((erence$%
Learning disa'led3undi((erentiated: /8 students, ages ? years, 1: onths, to 18 years, 1: onths, were tested% Characteristics were
provided and siilar results to those in Learning disa'led3reading clinical group reported a'ove where Listening Coprehension
di((erences were not signi(icant were % However, this clinical group per(ored signi(icantly di((erently on 'oth Oral !"pression and
Oral Coposite #19, and 1/ respectively at pO%::1$%
Hearing ipaired: 0? students with ild to oderate loss #;:3++ d6$, who ainstreaed ost or all o( their school day were tested
using the sae apli(ication as used in their classroos% ,ges ranged (ro / years, / onths to 0: years, : onths and
characteristics were provided% ,s e"pected, all scores (ell signi(icantly lower at pO%:1%
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 11
Chapter One: ;9 students receiving special services (or reading di((iculties, ages ? years, 1 onth to 18 years, 1: onths were tested%
Saple characteristics were provided and ean scores and standard deviations were reported% ,ll show lower scores than the control
group (ro standardi&ation the saple% 2or e"aple, the Oral Coposite score ean was *1%* PA3 11%1%
Comments !rom the Buros reviewer1 ' %%%seven studies demonstrated that students with special needs scored lower on the OWL3 than
children included in the standardi9ation sample that were matched on age gender race:ethnicity and 3E3. 2his included children
with learning disabilities in reading learning disabilities in general academic s#ills speech impairments language delays language
impairments hearing di!!iculties and mental handicaps. 2he !indings !rom these studies provide strong support !or using the OWL3
to help in the identi!ication o! students with learning disabilities as well as other disabilities involving language and cognitive
di!!iculties( #Carpenter & Ealcol, 0::1, p% 891$%
'0inally there was relatively strong support !or the authorCs primary claim that the instrument provides a valid measure o! general
listening and spea#ing s#ills. 0irst scores on the OWL3 were moderately to highly correlated with scores on other measures o!
language development. 3econd measures o! achievement and cognitive development were also moderately to highly correlated with
OWL3 scores. ?revious research has established that school learning is dependent on language ability and that there is a substantial
relationship between the development o! cognitive and language s#ills. 2hird mean scores o! students in the standardi9ation sample
increased !rom one age to the next. ,s expected di!!erentiation was greatest !or young children and least !or older students and
young adults. 0ourth as noted earlier students with language di!!iculties such as a hearing or language impairment obtained lower
scores on the test than matched students in the standardi9ation sample( #Carpenter & Ealcol, 0::1, p% 891$%
Construct /denti!ication 3alidit*: !vidence is provided (or two types o( construct validity, i%e%, developental progression o( scores
and intercorrelations o( the scales% .n ters o( developental progression, age di((erentiation is evidenced 'y increases in the raw
scores with steeper increases in the earlier years% 1a'le *%9 presents the eans and standard deviations (or each age interval (ro the
standardi&ation saple%
Comment1 I"m not sure why the author chose raw scores rather than standard scores !or this purpose.
.ntercorrelations 'etween the two scales, 'ased on standard scores, are presented in 1a'le *%?% Eoderate correlations are evidenced
'etween the Listening Coprehension Scale and the Oral !"pression Scale with a range (ro %+; to %?? with ean o( %?:% Su((icient
correlation evidences that each scale is tapping s)ills that are uniGue 'ut nonetheless related so that support is given to the overall
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 10
Oral Coposite Score%
(i!!erential /tem 'unctioning: not reported%
Other: none
Summar*%Conclusions%O$servations:
1he two 6uros reviewers di((er on any aspects o( their reviews: one is a pro(essor and the other a school psychologist% 1he special
education pro(essor was ore critical and it was priarily his coents that . included in this review% He stated the (ollowing in
suary: 4In summary the OWL3 provides reliable and valid scores !or determining the language competence o! individual
children. 2he only exception involves the Listening Comprehension measure which appears to be best suited as a screening device
!or children 8 to + years o! age( #Carpenter & Ealcol, 0::1, p% 890$%
On the other hand, the school psychologist was generally ore positive and stated, 42he OWL3 addresses these areas in a !ashion
that taps into everyday language !unctioning more so than do other language tests( #Carpenter & Ealcol, 0::1, p% 890$%
Clinical%(iagnostic )se!ulness:
2he Buros reviewer states1 '2he OWL3 Listening Comprehension and Oral Expression 3cales may prove to be one o! the more
popular and widely used language tests. Examiners may !ind that the OWL3 provides in!ormation on language !unctions that are not
tapped by other language tests they are currently using( #Carpenter & Ealcol, 0::1, p% 89;$%
Ey response: 6ut as a speech3language pathologist, . disagree with the reviewers on this point% 1he OWLS is an older test now,
superseded 'y such easures as the C!L23;, which is ore coprehensive, current, and suavely lin)ed to current C%S% education
reGuireents and curriculu% . thin) that (ew speech3language pathologists will use OWLS 'ut other pro(essionals, such as special
educators and reading specialists, who ust a)e decisions regarding reading a'ilities ay still (ind this test use(ul with the caveats
descri'ed in this review and that o( the 6uros reviewers%
Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell 1/
Re!erences
Carpenter, C% & Ealcol, M% #0::1$% 1est review o( Woodcoc) 7eading Eastery 1est37evised 1**8 Norative Cpdate% .n 6%S% Pla)e
and Q%C% .para #!ds%$, 2he !ourteenth mental measurements yearboo# #pp% 89:389;$% Lincoln, N!: 6uros .nstitute o( Eental
Eeasureents%
Carrow3Wool(ol), !% #1**+$% 4anual1 Listening Comprehension and Oral Expression% Circle Pines, EN: ,erican -uidance Service,
.nc%
Current ?opulation 3urvey 4arch *++* Rachine3reada'le data (ileS% #1**1$% Washington, @C: 6ureau o( the Census #Producer and
@istri'utor$%
1o cite this docuent:
Hayward, @% K%, Stewart, -% !%, Phillips, L% E%, Norris, S% P%, & Lovell, E% ,% #0::8$% 1est review: Oral and written language scales:
Listening coprehension and oral e"pression #OWLS$% Language ?honological ,wareness and >eading 2est Directory #pp%
131/$% !donton, ,6: Canadian Centre (or 7esearch on Literacy% 7etrieved Rinsert dateS (ro
http:AAwww%uo(awe'%ual'erta%caAeleentaryedAccrl%c(%