LSHSS

Clinical Forum

Contextual Variation, Familiarity,

Academic Literacy, and Rural
Adolescents’ Idiom Knowledge
Constance Dean Qualls
Rose M. O’Brien1
Gordon W. Blood
Carol Scheffner Hammer
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park

E ffective and meaningful communication requires

the ability to understand and use both literal
and nonliteral (figurative) language forms.
Idioms, such as go against the grain and beat around the
bush, represent one of several figurative language types
meanings of the individual words that form them
(Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1995).
Familiar idioms presented in multiple and enriched contexts
are comprehended as easily as literal language (Nippold &
Taylor, 1995; Ortony, Schallert, Reynolds, & Antos, 1978;
(i.e., metaphors, similes, irony) that serve the discourse Ortony, Turner, & Larson-Shapiro, 1985).
goals of conventionality, humor, emphasis, and clarification
(Roberts & Kreuz, 1994). Idiomatic expressions are used to
convey meanings that do not necessarily reflect the 1
Currently affiliated with Chatham County Schools, Pittsboro, NC.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: The paucity of data on idiom develop-
ment in adolescents, particularly rural adolescents, limits the
ability of speech-language pathologists and educators to test
and teach idioms appropriately in this population. This
study was designed to delineate the interrelationships
between context, familiarity, and academic literacy relative
to rural adolescents’ idiom knowledge.
Method: Ninety-five rural eighth graders (M age = 13.4
years) were quasi-randomly assigned to complete the Idiom
Comprehension Test (Qualls & Harris, 1999) in one of three
contexts: idioms in a short story (n = 25), idioms in
isolation (n = 32), and idioms in a verification task (n =
38). For all conditions, the identical 24 idioms—8 each of
high, moderate, and low familiarity (Nippold & Rudzinski,
1993)—were presented. For a subset (N = 54) of the
students, reading and language arts scores from the Califor-
nia Achievement Tests (5th ed., 1993), a standardized
achievement test, were correlated with performance on the
idiom test.
Results: Performance in the story condition and on high-
familiarity idioms showed the greatest accuracy. For the
isolation and verification conditions, context interacted with
familiarity. Associations existed between idiom performance
and reading ability and idiom performance and language
literacy, but only for the story and verification conditions.
High-proficiency readers showed the greatest idiom accuracy.
Clinical Implications: The results support the notion that
context facilitates idiom comprehension for rural adolescents,
and that idiom testing should consider not only context, but
idiom familiarity as well. Thus, local norms should be
established. Findings also confirm that good readers are better
at comprehending idioms, likely resulting from enriched
vocabulary obtained through reading. These normative data
indicate what might be expected when testing idiom knowl-
edge in adolescents with language impairments.
KEY WORDS: idiom comprehension, adolescents, rural,
context, literacy

LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 34 • 69–79 • January 2003 © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 69
0161–1461/03/3401–0069
 Although reports vary regarding the actual frequency of
occurrence of particular idioms, the common use of idioms
in everyday spoken and written communication has been
well documented (Lazar, Warr-Leeper, Nicholson, &
Johnson, 1989; Makkai, Boatner, & Gates, 1995; Milosky,
1994; Nippold, 1991; Pollio, Barlow, Fine, & Pollio, 1977;
Popiel & McRae, 1988). For instance, Pollio et al. found
that idiomatic expressions arise every 3–4 min in conversa-
tion. Milosky cited several examples of the frequent use of
nonliteral expressions, including idioms, in social contexts
(e.g., occurring 10 times per min of conversation), in mass
media outlets (e.g., 38 figurative uses on a single page of a
teen magazine), and in the classroom. Given the prevalence
of idioms in everyday language, there is a potential for
communication breakdown during verbal and written
interactions. Fortunately, social interactions provide
contextual cues (i.e., the amount and type of information,
vocal intonation, body language) that facilitate the compre-
hension of idioms. When contextual cues are insufficient or
inappropriate, or when the ability to interpret cues is
impaired, communication breakdown will occur. Similarly,
reading materials situate idioms in contexts that should,
ideally, facilitate reader comprehension. However, the
comprehensibility of the text, the amount and type of
supporting information (context), familiarity with the
idioms presented, and reading ability will determine idiom
understanding.
Comprehension of idioms is important for academic and
social success, particularly because idioms are pervasive in
teacher–student communication, academic reading materials,
and social peer interactions (Bell & Healey, 1992; Kerbel
& Grunwell, 1997; Nippold, 1991; Ortony et al., 1985).
Studies on idiom use in the classroom have found that
more than one third of teachers’ verbal utterances con-
tained figures of speech (Lazar et al., 1989), and the
number of teacher-produced sentences containing an idiom
increased steadily from the third grade (6%) to the eighth
grade (9.7%) (Nippold, 1991). Yet, teachers are unaware
of the frequent use of idioms in classroom directives and
discourse (Kerbel & Grunwell, 1997). The prevalence of
idioms in the classroom is not limited to teacher–student
interactions, however. Idioms are common in textbooks,
poetry, and literature. Kreuz and Roberts (1993) reported
that idioms account for 18%–20% of the figurative
language in contemporary American literature. According
to Nippold, idioms tend to be more prevalent in textbooks
and reading materials for children in third grade and
above as compared to those in kindergarten through
second grade.
For adolescents, knowledge of idioms and other non-
literal forms is commonly associated with peer acceptance
and positive peer relationships (Donahue & Bryan, 1984;
Nippold, 1991). Adolescents generate idioms that are
identifiable and understood by peer group members; the
number of idioms employed by a peer group parallels the
longevity and intimacy of a friendship (Bell & Healey,
1992). Furthermore, adolescents themselves have reported
that nonliteral language comprehension is important when
talking to their peers (Henry, Reed, & McAllister, 1995;
Reed, McLeod, & McAllister, 1999).
70 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 34 • 69–79 • January 2003
WHY RURAL ADOLESCENTS?
Idiom comprehension is largely culture based (Owens,
1995). As such, general idiomatic knowledge, as well as
more or less familiarity with specific idioms, is determined
by one’s culture (Qualls & Harris, 1999). Rural America,
for example, is made up of coal mines, farms, factories,
and fishing communities and is occupied by a variety of
ethnic groups (Flora et al., 1992). By virtue of the unique
life experiences of rural adolescents, it is possible that they
may demonstrate a knowledge base of idioms that differs,
in some respects, from that of each other and/or from that
of their urban counterparts. Support for this notion is
provided by Qualls and Harris’ (1999) research, in which
they found differences in comprehension between their
urban fifth graders and Nippold and Taylor’s (1995) rural
fifth graders on the same set of idioms (see Qualls and
Harris for a complete discussion and examples). These
researchers argue that “differential language exposure”
(DLE) explains, at least in part, differences between
students from different geographic locales in the compre-
hension of particular idioms (Qualls & Harris, 1999). The
DLE hypothesis holds that regional variations in language
(e.g., vocabulary or dialect) and language use (e.g.,
culturally based practices such as “sounding” or “playing
the dozens” [Ortony et al., 1985] or dimensions of literal-
ness and nonliteralness [Wolfram, 1991]) will determine the
adolescents’ knowledge of idiomatic language. These
potential differences in idiom knowledge could provide a
disadvantage for some adolescents on standard tests of
idioms. Thus, it is important to consider regional culture
when teaching idioms and when testing idiom knowledge.
CONTEXT, FAMILIARITY, AND
IDIOM COMPREHENSION
Context and Idiom Comprehension
Both listening and reading comprehension require the
ability to recall previously acquired knowledge for integra-
tion with newly presented information to construct meaning
(Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). Similarly, to read, under-
stand, and interpret idioms, one must be able to use
contextual cues effectively when integrating the old with
the new information, and for deriving the intended mean-
ing. Cues can be linguistic (i.e., more or less surrounding
text), extralinguistic (i.e., intonation or stress), or non-
linguistic (i.e., body language or eye movements).
Children’s understanding of idioms is linked largely to the
amount of contextual support provided (Ackerman, 1982;
Cacciari & Levorato, 1989; Gibbs, 1987; Levorato &
Cacciari, 1992; Nippold & Martin, 1989). Generally,
research findings show that idioms in a story context are
explained more accurately than when they are presented in
isolation (Cacciari & Levorato, 1989; Gibbs, 1987; Nippold
& Martin, 1989), and children are less able to explain
meanings than to choose the appropriate interpretation
(Gibbs, 1987). Notably, much of the focus has been limited
to how younger children are able to use context to under-
stand idioms (Abkarian, Jones, & West, 1992; Ackerman,
1982; Cacciari & Levorato, 1989; Gibbs, 1987; Levorato &
Cacciari, 1992). Consequently, data on context and idiom
understanding in adolescents is severely limited (Nippold &
Martin, 1989).
Furthermore, studies on contextual factors and idiom
knowledge have employed primarily two presentation
contexts—story context and isolation—and two response
modalities—verbal explanation and forced choice. To date,
no study has employed a verification task to assess idiom
comprehension. Verification (or recognition) tasks probe
understanding by requiring a response that substantiates the
truth of a statement or question (e.g., “Does put their heads
together mean to listen to the other person?”). The assump-
tion is that inherent contextual information in the stimulus
question (e.g., the incongruence between “their heads
together,” connoting the contribution of two persons and
“listen to the other person,” connoting input from only one
person) will provide clues for meaning verification (the
appropriate response is “no”). Therefore, it might be
expected that comprehension accuracy will be better on
tasks verifying idiomatic meaning as compared to those in
which the idiom alone is presented.
Familiarity and Idiom Comprehension
The cognitive prerequisite view hypothesizes that it is
only on reaching the formal stage of operations that
children will have the cognitive ability for abstract thought
(Piaget, 1926). This stage coincides with adolescence.
Idiom research, however, has shown that children begin to
recognize and comprehend idioms prior to the adolescent
years (Ackerman, 1982; Cacciari & Levorato, 1989; Gibbs,
1987; Levorato & Cacciari, 1992; Nippold & Rudzinski,
1993; Nippold, Taylor, & Baker, 1996; Qualls, Bodle,
Blood, & Hammer, 2001; Qualls & Harris, 1999; Qualls,
Treaster, Blood, & Hammer, 2002). The cognitive hypoth-
esis does not account for idiom development before the
formal stage of operation, and is, therefore, an incomplete
explanation for idiom comprehension in children.
Contemporary researchers argue that language experience
(i.e., familiarity), not cognitive stage development, will
determine children’s facility with idioms (Nippold &
Taylor, 1995; Ortony et al., 1985; Qualls et al., 2001;
Qualls & Harris, 1999). The language experience view
posits that children develop idiom knowledge based on
their amount of meaningful exposure to idioms (Ortony et
al., 1985). In their research, Ortony et al. demonstrated that
the more a child is exposed to idioms and the more
opportunities for the child to engage in idiom-rich verbal
exchanges, the more likely the child will demonstrate,
verbally and in writing, his or her understanding of idioms.
Too, the nature (e.g., cross-cultural contact, regional/
dialectal variations in language and language use) and
quality (e.g., how motivated is one to use idioms) of idiom
exposure will determine familiarity with particular idioms
(Qualls & Harris, 1999).
Qualls et al.: Idiom Comprehension in Rural Adolescents
If one considers the cognitive prerequisite and language
experience views separately, they each explain, only
partially, how children and adolescents are able to under-
stand idioms. A more complete picture assumes that
figurative competence develops in conjunction with
language experience. In this view, more or less reliance on
cognitive abilities or experience (familiarity) for comprehen-
sion will depend on the complex interplay between a number
of variables, including the particular idiom (stimuli) being
tested, the level of context provided before the stimulus, the
mode of presentation (task), and the ability to interpret the
idiom appropriately relative to the context (participant).
Evidence has shown that correct idiomatic responses increase
with age (Ackerman, 1982; Cacciari & Levorato, 1989;
Gibbs, 1987; Levorato & Cacciari, 1992; Nippold &
Martin, 1989); however, the role that adolescence (e.g.,
cognitive maturation versus experience or both) plays in the
development of idiom knowledge is not well known.
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT
AND IDIOM KNOWLEDGE
Academic literacy is linked to idiom comprehension
(DeLain, Pearson, & Anderson, 1985; Nippold & Martin,
1989; Nippold, Maron, & Schwartz, 2001; Ortony et al.,
1985; Qualls et al., 2001; Reynolds, Qualls, & Harris,
1998). Research findings show significant correlations
between context-free idiom interpretation and standardized
reading and writing scores (Nippold & Martin, 1989), and
between performance on a forced-choice idiom comprehen-
sion task and reading and listening comprehension
(Nippold, Maron, & Schwartz, 2001) in adolescents. Both
Ortony et al. and DeLain et al. found associations between
general language ability (measured by standardized reading
and vocabulary tests) and nonliteral comprehension in their
preadolescents. Significant correlations between idiom
comprehension and standardized reading and language
performance have also been reported for rural European
American (Qualls et al., 2001) and rural African American
fifth graders (Reynolds et al., 1998). In all cases, the
students who performed better on the standardized ability
tests were also better comprehenders of idioms. These
findings suggest that idiom development is related to
lexical development and that literacy skills support lexical
development. The assumption is that good reading ability
promotes lexical development; this, in turn, increases
idiomatic knowledge.
At present, there are limited data on idiom development
in adolescents, particularly those living in rural communi-
ties. Moreover, despite our current knowledge about context
and idiom comprehension, to date, few studies have
investigated this phenomenon in adolescents, and no studies
have examined idiom comprehension using a verification
task. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis
that, for rural adolescents, idiom comprehension would
decrease proportionally as the amount of context (e.g.,
story, isolation, verification) decreased, and that the story
condition would yield the highest comprehension accuracy.
71
Furthermore, assuming that contextual facilitation depends
on one’s level of familiarity with particular idioms,
comprehension within different contexts should vary as a
function of familiarity. To date, no study has examined the
interaction between context and familiarity.
This study also tested the hypothesis that rural adoles-
cents with higher reading and language proficiency levels
would show greater idiom accuracy than those with lower
reading and language proficiency scores. Direct examination
of regional effects on idiom comprehension was not a goal
of the present study. However, it was expected that this
study would provide preliminary data on a set of idioms
for determining whether regional differences in adolescents’
idiom knowledge do, in fact, exist.
METHODS
Participants
Ninety-five eighth-grade students (51 females and 44
males, M age = 13.4 years, SD = .59, range: 11–15 years)
from two rural schools in central Pennsylvania provided
data for this study (see Table 1 for a breakdown by task).
For both schools, intact classes (e.g., second, third, fifth
period) were randomly assigned to each of the three test
conditions. The students were African American (n = 2),
Asian American (n = 1) (the only 11-year-old), and
European American (n = 92), and were all native speakers
of American English. None of the students was identified
as having a language or learning disability, nor were any of
the students receiving learning support services (i.e., special
education or speech and language therapy). The majority
(83%) of the students were reading at or above grade level
as reported by the classroom teachers. Before testing,
written consent was obtained from at least one parent or
guardian and from each student who participated.
Materials
The Idiom Comprehension Test (ICT), developed by
Qualls and Harris (1999), was used for the study. This test
consists of 24 short stories, each containing an idiom at the
end of the story and a question about that idiom. Each
story is followed by four response choices, only one of
which is the target response. The stories are written at a
third-grade reading level. To answer the question of
whether context facilitates comprehension, two additional
Table 1. Research participant characteristics by condition.
Number of students
Males
Females
Mean age (years)
Percentage of students reading at or above grade level
72 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 34 • 69–79 • January 2003
versions of the ICT (isolation and verification) were
constructed for this study. Therefore, three versions of the
ICT were used in this study: idioms in a story, idioms in
isolation, and idioms in a verification task. All three
versions contained the identical 24 idioms (see Appendix
A). Across the three conditions, the order of presentation of
the idioms was identical: eight high-familiarity idioms
followed by eight moderate-familiarity and eight low-
familiarity idioms. The familiarity rankings used for this
experiment were established in a previous study (see
Nippold & Rudzinski, 1993).
The story condition was a forced-choice task that was
used in prior research (Nippold & Martin, 1989; Nippold &
Taylor, 1995; Nippold et al., 1996; Qualls & Harris, 1999;
Qualls et al., 2001) (see Appendix B for examples). The
second condition consisted of idioms presented in isolation.
In this condition, only the idiom and its four corresponding
response choices were provided. For example, the student
read, “skate on thin ice,” and then selected a response from
among the same four response choices presented in the
story condition (see Appendix C). The third condition was
a verification task in which a question containing an idiom
was posed. The participant responded by indicating yes or
no as to the truth of the idiom’s interpretation. For ex-
ample, one of the queries is, “Does read between the lines
mean to make things plain and clear?” The definitions used
in the questions were randomly selected from the response
choices in the forced-choice task. There was an equal,
random dispersion of yes and no answers within each of
the three familiarity levels (see Appendix D).
A separate test booklet was provided for each of the
three conditions, with the first page of all test booklets
containing instructions and the remaining pages containing
the experimental stimuli. For each condition, a separate set
of instructions was videotape-recorded using a Panasonic
Omni Movie VHS recorder model #PV-9400 and a TDK T-
120 EHG videotape. The videotapes were produced and
recorded in a quiet room with artificial lighting.
Reading and language arts scores, taken from the
California Achievement Tests (5th ed.) (CAT/5; 1993), were
obtained from school records. The CAT/5 assesses students’
abilities in reading, language, and math; only the reading
and language scores were of interest in the present study.
The reading total reflects performance on the Vocabulary
and Reading Comprehension subtests. Vocabulary objectives
included word meaning (e.g., synonymy and word rela-
tions), multiple meaning words, and words in context.
Comprehension objectives included recall of information,
constructing meaning, and analyzing form (e.g., style
Story Isolation Verification All conditions
25 32 38 95
13 17 14 44
12 15 24 51
13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4
72 88 87 83
techniques, such as figurative or persuasive language).
Language total is a combined score from the Language
Mechanics and Language Expression subtests. Language
Mechanics objectives included punctuation (e.g., endmark,
comma, colon) for sentences, phrases and clauses, quota-
tions and dialogue, writing conventions (e.g., title of work,
apostrophe, parts of a letter), and editing skills. Language
Expression objectives included sentence formation, sentence
combining, paragraph structure, and coherence. For the
present study, the national percentile (NP) score was used.
The NP represents the percentage of students from across
the nation who scored lower than a particular student.
Procedures
Thirty-one percent (n = 41) of the students were tested
at the end of the school year; 69% (n = 54) were tested at
the beginning of the following school year. Intact classes
(e.g., second, third, fifth period) were randomly assigned to
each of the three conditions. All of the students in a
specified class received only one of the conditions—either
idioms in a story, in isolation, or in a verification task.
Before testing, the examiner familiarized the students
with idioms and answered questions posed by the students.
To ensure that all of the students received the same instruc-
tions, videotaped instructions were presented for each of the
three conditions (see Appendix E). After viewing the
videotaped instructions, the students were reminded to
answer every question. All students were given sufficient
time to complete the test, which took approximately 30 min.
The standardized reading and language arts scores from
the CAT/5 were available for only one of the schools. No
standard achievement test was administered at the other
school. With parental consent, the students’ scores were
obtained from the school principal. The students who
completed the CAT/5 did so during the second half of their
seventh-grade year.
Reliability
The isolation and verification tasks were constructed
specifically for this experiment. Reliability was established
to ensure that (1) the response choices provided would
yield accurate responses across individuals, and (2) the
instructions for the testing conditions were understandable
and complete. Twenty-three graduate students in communi-
cation sciences and disorders served as judges for the
isolation (n = 13) and verification tasks (n = 10). Only
native speakers of English were used as judges.
Before the experiment, each judge completed only one
of the two versions of the ICT. Judges in the isolation
condition were instructed to read each idiom and select the
most appropriate response from among four choices. Judges
in the verification condition were instructed to read each
question containing an idiom and a given interpretation and
to respond either yes or no as to the truth of the idiom’s
interpretation. The judges were also asked to provide
constructive feedback concerning the stimuli and instruc-
tions. Changes and corrections were incorporated as
Qualls et al.: Idiom Comprehension in Rural Adolescents
appropriate. Interjudge reliability (intraclass correlation
coefficient; George & Mallery, 2000) was .80 and .73 for
the isolation and verification conditions, respectively.
Convention suggests that higher coefficients are associ-
ated with higher reliability, although indices (e.g., .70, .80)
of reliability are arbitrary. For the present study, we
adopted Rowntree’s (1981) classification system, which
considers correlation coefficients of .70 to .90 to indicate
moderate-to-strong association. Furthermore, this study
represents a first-time examination of idiom knowledge
using a verification task. According to Pedhuzar and
Schmelkin (1991), lower correlation coefficients are
tolerable in the early stages of research, but higher relia-
bilities are needed when measurements are used for the
selection and placement of individuals.
Data Analysis
This study employed a 3 × 3 quasirandom mixed design,
with the independent variables of condition (story, isolation,
and verification) as the between-subjects factor and idiom
familiarity (high, moderate, and low) as the within-subjects
factor. The dependent variable was performance accuracy
on the ICT (Qualls & Harris, 1999). Mean accuracy scores
were calculated for each of the three conditions and across
familiarity levels. Descriptive analyses were conducted, and
mean differences for all of the variables were evaluated
using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).
Effect sizes (ES) (ηp2), also reported, show the proportion
of variance accounted for by the statistic F (Mertler &
Vannatta, 2002). For this study, an ES of .1 or greater is
considered adequate for explaining the variance. Significant
Fs were followed by Tukey’s post hoc analysis to identify
significant differences between means. Pearson product-
moment correlations examined associations between idiom
comprehension and reading and language ability.
It is noteworthy that 17% (n = 16) of the eighth-grade
students were reportedly reading below grade level. For all
conditions, reading grade level did not show an association
with performance on the idiom comprehension task (story:
r = –.21, p = .31; isolation: r = .03, p = .85; verification:
r = –.05, p = .77). However, to determine whether the
performance of these students would impact on the results,
all analyses were conducted with and without these 16
students. The results remained the same; therefore, the data
from all 95 students are reported.
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
At the time of testing, all of the students were attending
the eighth grade. To determine if the performance of
students tested at the end of the school year differed from
the performance of those who were tested at the beginning
of the following year, a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted. Results indicated no significant
difference between the groups on total idiom score, F(1,
73
93) = .636, p = .427. Nonsignificant group differences were
also observed at all familiarity levels: high, F(1, 93) =
.229, p = .633); moderate, F(1, 93) = .609, p = .437; and
low familiarity, F(1, 93) = 2.009, p = .160. These findings
indicate that the students were comparable in their idiom
abilities, and that time of testing was not a factor in their
performance on the idiom task.
Performance accuracy varied by idiom for both condi-
tion and school, with no particular trends emerging.
However, an item analysis revealed that the combined
students (N = 95) generally performed poorly (< 50%) on
four idioms: the high-familiarity idiom let off steam (32%),
the moderate-familiarity idiom go against the grain (44%),
and the low-familiarity idioms vote with one’s feet (43%)
and lead with one’s chin (42%). These results suggest that
the rural students in this study were less familiar with these
particular idioms.
Context and Familiarity Effects
Across conditions and familiarity levels, the overall
mean accuracy for the students (N = 95) was 66%. Total
mean accuracy for the story condition was 73%, isolation =
61%, and verification = 63%. Moderate-familiarity idioms
showed the greatest comprehension accuracy (overall
average = 69%), followed by high-familiarity (overall
average = 67%) and low-familiarity (overall average =
60%) idioms. Performance varied across conditions and
familiarity levels (see Figure 1). This finding was con-
firmed on a MANOVA, which showed a significant
interaction between condition and familiarity, F(4, 184) =
6.033, p < .001, ηp2 = .116.
To reduce the possibility of making a Type I error when
making multiple comparisons, an adjusted alpha (.01) was
used for the Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis. Results
indicated significant differences by familiarity levels for the
isolation and verification conditions, but not the story
condition. The students in the isolation condition performed
significantly better on the high-familiarity idioms as
compared to the low-familiarity idioms, t = 12.429, p <
.001; they also performed better on the moderate-familiarity
idioms as compared to the low-familiarity idioms, t =
9.039, p < .001. These same students performed similarly
Figure 1. Performance on the idiom task by condition and
familiarity.
74 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 34 • 69–79 • January 2003
on the high- and moderate-familiarity idioms in the
isolation condition, t = 3.890, p ≥ .01. On the other hand,
the students in the verification condition did better on the
moderate-familiarity idioms as compared to the high-
familiarity, t = 7.382, p < .001, and low-familiarity idioms,
t = 5.369, p < .001, whereas their performance did not
differ significantly on the high- and low-familiarity idioms,
t = 2.013, p ≥ .01. The students in the story condition
performed similarly across all familiarity levels. These
results substantiate the contribution of enriched context for
idiom comprehension for the adolescents. These data also
demonstrate that idiom performance was variably affected
by presentation context and idiom familiarity, particularly
for the nonstory contexts.
Literacy and Comprehension
Measures of reading and language literacy were avail-
able for 54 of the 95 students. The students represented a
broad range of abilities, with percentile rankings for
reading ranging from 8 to 97 and for language from 6 to
99. The students in the isolation condition (ranges: reading,
36 to 97; language, 36 to 99) showed the least variability
among rankings, followed by students in the verification
(ranges: reading, 8 to 94; language, 11 to 99) and story
(ranges: reading, 6 to 91; language, 6 to 80) conditions.
Table 2 shows the correlations between the students’
percentile rankings on the reading and language arts tests
and their overall performance for the story, isolation, and
verification conditions. To demonstrate the practical
significance of these data, the r2 or coefficient of determi-
nation (Schiavetti & Metz, 2002) is also reported. The r2
shows the actual amount of variance shared between
variables, with any correlation greater than .50 (r2 = .25)
interpreted as a large effect (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
Significant correlations were observed between rankings
of reading and overall performance in the story (r = .72,
p = .008, r2 = .53) and verification condition (r = .48, p =
.018, r2 = .23), but not the isolation condition (r = .46, p =
.056, r2 = .21). Significant correlations were also observed
between rankings of language arts and total idiom compre-
hension for the story (r = .63, p = .029, r2 = .39) and
verification (r = .48, p = .018, r2 = .23) condition, but not
Table 2. Pearson product-moment correlations (r) and r2 values
(in parentheses) showing associations between the standard-
ized literacy scores and total idiom scores by condition.
Condition Reading Language arts
Story (n = 12) .723** (.53) .628** (.39)
Isolation (n = 18) .457 (.21) .402 (.16)
Verification (n = 24) .479* (.23) .478* (.23)
** p <. 01; * p < .05
Note. r2 values denote the amount of variance shared between
variables (e.g., total idiom score and reading; total idiom score and
language arts).
the isolated condition (r = .40, p = .098, r2 = .16). How-
ever, a significant correlation was found for reading and
high-familiarity idioms (r = .48, p = .046, r2 = .23) in the
isolation condition, likely contributing to the marginal
correlation observed for total score. Significant correlations
were also observed between rankings of language arts and
total idiom comprehension for the story (r = .63, p = .029,
r2 = .39) and verification (r = .48, p = .018, r2 = .23)
conditions, but not the isolation condition (r = .40, p =
.098, r2 = .16).
To examine further the relationship between idiom
comprehension and reading literacy, the students were
divided into high- and low-proficiency readers using a
median split and their idiom performance was compared.
Following Nippold, Allen, and Kirsch (2001), the students
with percentile rankings of 50 and greater were assigned to
the “high-proficiency readers” (HPR) group and those with
rankings less than the 50th percentile were assigned to the
“low-proficiency readers” (LPR) group. For the HPR group
(n = 37), mean total score on the idiom task was 69% (SD
= 10); for the LPR group (n = 17), the total score on the
idiom task was 58% (SD = 10). An ANOVA was conducted
to determine whether the HPR group and the LPR group
differed in their mean performance on the idiom compre-
hension task. Reading proficiency level (HPR, LPR) was
the independent variable. Results showed that the HPR
group performed significantly better than the LPR group,
F(1, 52) = 15.958, p < .001, ηp2 = .235.
DISCUSSION
The first hypothesis in the present study was that idiom
comprehension would decrease proportionally as the amount
of context decreased (proportionality theory), and that the
story condition would yield the greatest accuracy. The
premise was that the story condition provided the most
context; differences in contextual support between the
isolation and verification conditions were not as clear. For
the isolation condition, it was assumed that the response
choices would provide contextual support, and, for the
verification condition, the stimulus (question) would
provide cues.
As hypothesized, the enriched context provided by the
story condition yielded the greatest comprehension accuracy
of all the conditions across familiarity levels. On the other
hand, overall comprehension was comparable for the
isolation and verification conditions; however, the students’
performance varied by condition as a function of idiom
familiarity. Together, these results provide partial support
for the proportionality theory. For the adolescents in the
present study, limited contextual support presented a greater
challenge for making decisions about the idioms. However,
even when the idiom was less familiar, contextual informa-
tion enabled comprehension. This suggests that adolescents
are able to overcome the boundary of unfamiliarity by
using contextual cues. Consequently, as the amount of
context decreases, the amount of prior meaningful exposure
will become even more important for accurate responses.
Qualls et al.: Idiom Comprehension in Rural Adolescents
The data in the present study support this notion, showing
that, in the absence of enriched contextual information (i.e.,
in the isolation condition), accuracy was compromised. This
was especially true for the less familiar idioms. Generally,
the more familiar idioms tended to yield the greatest
accuracy for the story and isolation conditions—a finding
that is consistent with prior research (Nippold & Rudzinski,
1993; Nippold & Taylor, 1995; Nippold et al., 1996).
An unexpected finding was that, for the verification
group, moderate-familiarity idioms were comprehended with
the greatest accuracy as compared to the high- and low-
familiarity idioms. One possible interpretation has to do
with the particular idioms tested. Social and regional
culture influence idiom understanding (Qualls & Harris,
1999); therefore, it is possible that another set of idioms
would yield different results. For example, to better
represent the students’ idiom knowledge, Nippold and
Baker (1995) suggested that ratings of idiom familiarity be
taken from the target population before testing idiom
knowledge. This was not done in the present study. The
assumption was that similar performance across familiarity
levels would be observed because the familiarity ratings
used in the present study were taken from adolescents
(Nippold & Rudzinski, 1993) with a racial–cultural
background (rural European American students) that was
similar to the majority (97%) of the students in this study.
This premise was not supported by the results of this study.
Therefore, it is possible that the observed differences in the
comprehension of particular idioms may have to do with
regional differences in language and language use (e.g.,
vocabulary, amount of exposure to idioms) (Qualls et al.,
2001; Qualls & Harris, 1999).
An alternate, and perhaps more viable, explanation for
the different pattern of performance by the students in the
verification condition has to do with the lack of random
selection among the students. Intact classes were used;
therefore, it is possible that the students who completed the
verification condition in these classes were more familiar
with the moderate-familiarity idioms. It is also possible that
the verification students’ performance may reflect their
superior reading skills, as the majority (76%) were reading
above grade level. However, this is likely not to be the
case given their substantially depressed performance on the
high- and low-familiarity idioms as compared to the story
context students. Still, no ceiling effect was observed for
any of the conditions, suggesting that adolescents are
continuing to develop competency with idioms (Nippold &
Taylor, 1995). These findings lend additional support for
the notion that familiarity plays an important role in idiom
comprehension (Nippold & Martin, 1989).
The second hypothesis was that reading and language
abilities would be associated with idiom comprehension,
and that higher reading and language proficiency would
yield higher idiom accuracy in the rural adolescents. Study
data robustly supported these assertions. First, performance
in the story condition showed the greatest association with
reading and language literacy. These data are consistent
with prior research showing significant correlations between
idiom comprehension (tested in a story context) and reading
and writing literacy in adolescents (Nippold & Martin,
75
1989; Nippold, Maron et al., 2001). Small, but significant,
associations between comprehension and reading and
language arts were observed for the students in the
verification condition. This result suggests that similar
skills (e.g., word knowledge and the ability to infer
meaning) are used for reading, language arts, and idiom
knowledge tested by verifying meaning. For the isolation
condition, associations were seen between the literacy
rankings and high-familiarity idioms only, suggesting the
interrelationships between academic literacy, familiarity, and
the context in which the idiom is presented. Although these
data are informative, correlations provide only limited
information about the relationships between variables.
When the students were grouped into HPRs and LPRs and
their idiom performance compared, the results confirmed
that HPRs were better comprehenders of idioms. These
results support Nippold and Martin’s argument that idiom
comprehension is intricately linked to academic literacy,
particularly reading ability, and provide stronger evidence
for the association between reading ability and idiom
comprehension in adolescents.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Normative data on adolescent comprehension of idioms
and other figurative language types is necessary to under-
stand what might be expected in adolescents with language
impairments. For example, children with language-based
learning disabilities (LBLD) often interpret idioms literally
(Fisher, White, & Fisher, 1984; Nippold, 1991), although
Nippold acknowledged that “even normal adolescents
sometimes interpret idioms literally, particularly if they
have not had sufficient and meaningful exposure to those
expressions” (p. 101). Consequently, children with LBLD
as well as some typically developing adolescents may miss
the point both in the utterances of teachers and peers and
when reading academic and literary texts. The actual
frequency of occurrence of idioms in teachers’ utterances,
in adolescent communications, and in school texts (e.g.,
English, math, science and so forth) is unknown. Neverthe-
less, given that idioms commonly occur in the school
setting, facilitating better understanding of idioms for
students showing difficulty with these expressions should
be a goal of speech-language pathologists and educators.
Idiom assessment is the first step. However, performance
will vary, depending on the assessment procedure (e.g.,
verbal interpretations vs. forced-choice task) employed. The
present study validates prior research that idiom testing
using a forced-choice story format provided an advantage
over the other test conditions (isolation, verification) for
typically developing adolescents, including the students
who were reading below grade level. The question is
whether children with LBLD will perform similarly on the
forced-choice story format. Considering the reading
difficulties children with LBLD face, the enriched context,
such as that found in a story, may in fact reduce their
ability to understand the figurative connotation of idioms.
The present study was an initial examination of eighth
76 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 34 • 69–79 • January 2003
grader’s idiom knowledge using a verification condition.
The results showed that, compared to the story context,
verification of idiomatic meaning substantially depressed
the adolescent’s scores. Future research should investigate
the effects of context on idiom comprehension for adoles-
cents with LBLD. As was found with the adolescents in the
present study, it is expected that the reading ability of
LBLD adolescents will provide some indication of their
idiom knowledge.
The present study contributes significantly to our
understanding of idiom comprehension in adolescents by
demonstrating that several variables interact to determine
adolescents’ idiom knowledge, including contextual factors,
familiarity, and academic literacy (reading and language
abilities). This study also provides preliminary data on a
set of idioms that can be used to determine whether
regional differences in adolescents’ idiom knowledge exist.
Finally, increased knowledge about typically developing
adolescents will provide much needed insights for teaching
and testing idiom knowledge in adolescents with language
impairments. To gain a complete understanding of the
variables that affect idiom knowledge in adolescents,
further research is necessary.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Research to
Practice Division, Grant No. H325H9900734. We are grateful to
the school principals, parents, and students for their important
contribution to this research project. We also acknowledge the
graduate students in communication sciences and disorders at Penn
State (Class of 2002) who provided reliability data. Finally, very
special thanks to Beth Treaster, Jennifer Lantz, Heather Jordan,
Alex Gaither, Emily Arnold, Lauren Ness, and Paul Pietrzyk for
their support and assistance on various aspects of this research.
REFERENCES
Abkarian, G., Jones, A., & West, G. (1992). Young children’s
idiom comprehension: Trying to get the picture. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 580–587.
Ackerman, B. (1982). On comprehending idioms: Do children
get the picture? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33,
439–454.
Bell, R., & Healey, J. (1992). Idiomatic communication and
interpersonal solidarity in friends’ relational cultures. Human
Communication Research, 18, 307–335.
Cacciari, C., & Levorato, M. (1989). How children understand
idioms in discourse. Journal of Child Language, 16, 387–405.
California Achievement Tests, 5th ed. (1993). Class Management
Guide. Monterey, CA: CTB MacMillan/McGraw Hill.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Cohen, J, & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences
in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–460.
DeLain, M. T., Pearson, P. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1985).
Reading comprehension and creativity in Black language use:
You stand to gain by playing the sounding game! American
Educational Research Journal, 22, 155–173.
Donahue, M., & Bryan, J. (1984). Communicative skills and peer
relations of learning disabled adolescents. Topics in Language
Disorders, 4, 10–21.
Fisher, E. L., White, J. M., & Fisher, J. H. (1984). Teaching
figurative language. Academic Therapy, 19, 403–407.
Flora, C. B., Flora, J. L., Spears, J. D., Swanson, L. E.,
Lapping, M. B., & Weinberg, M. L. (1992). Rural communi-
ties: Legacy and change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2000). SPSS for Windows, step by
step: A simple guide and reference, 9.0 update (2nd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gibbs, R. (1987). Linguistic factors in children’s understanding of
idioms. Journal of Child Language, 14, 569–586.
Henry, F., Reed, V. A., & McAllister, L. (1995). Adolescents’
perceptions of the relative importance of selected communication
skills in their positive peer relationships. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 26, 263–272.
Kerbel, D., & Grunwell, P. (1997). Idioms in the classroom: An
investigation of language unit and mainstream teachers’ use of
idioms. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 13, 113–123.
Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts, R. M. (1993). The empirical study of
figurative language in literature. Poetics, 22, 151–169.
Lazar, R., Warr-Leeper, G., Nicholson, C., & Johnson, S.
(1989). Elementary school teachers’ use of multiple meaning
expressions. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
20, 420–430.
Levorato, M., & Cacciari, C. (1992). Children’s comprehension
and production of idioms: The role of context and familiarity.
Journal of Child Language, 19, 415–433.
Makkai, A., Boatner, M. T., & Gates, J. E. (1995). A dictionary
of American idioms (3rd ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Baron’s
Educational Series.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002). Advanced and
multivariate statistical methods (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Pyrczak.
Milosky, L. (1994). Nonliteral language abilities. In G. Wallach &
K. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age
children and adolescents (pp. 275–303). New York: Merrill.
Nippold, M. (1991). Evaluating and enhancing idiom comprehen-
sion in language disordered students. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 100–106.
Nippold, M. A., Allen, M. M., & Kirsch, D. I. (2001). Proverb
comprehension as a function of reading proficiency in preadoles-
cents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32,
90–100.
Nippold, M., Maron, C., & Schwartz, E. (2001). Idiom under-
standing in preadolescents: Synergy in action. American Journal
of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 169–180.
Nippold, M., & Martin, S. (1989). Idiom interpretation in
isolation versus context: A developmental study with adoles-
cents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 59–66.
Nippold, M., & Rudzinski, M. (1993). Familiarity and transpar-
ency in idiom explanation: A developmental study of children
Qualls et al.: Idiom Comprehension in Rural Adolescents
and adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36,
728–737.
Nippold, M., & Taylor, C. (1995). Idiom understanding in youth:
Further examination of familiarity and transparency. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 426–433.
Nippold, M., Taylor, C., & Baker, J. (1996). Idiom understanding
in Australian youth: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 442–447.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. J.
(1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of
context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 17, 464–477.
Ortony, A., Turner, T., & Larson-Shapiro, N. (1985). Cultural
and instructional influences on figurative language comprehen-
sion by inner city children. Research in the Teaching of English,
19, 25–36.
Owens, R. E. (1995). Language disorders: A functional approach
to assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Pedhuzar, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design,
and analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.).
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pollio, H., Barlow, J., Fine, H., & Pollio, M. (1977). Psychology
and the poetics of growth. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Popiel, S. J., & McRae, K. (1988). The figurative and literal
senses of idioms, or all idioms are not used equally. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 475–487.
Qualls, C. D., Bodle, H. S., Blood, G. W., & Hammer, C. S.
(2001, March). Idiom development in rural 5th graders. Poster
session presented at the annual meeting of the Pennsylvania
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Qualls, C. D., & Harris, J. L. (1999). Effects of familiarity on
idiom comprehension in African American and European
American fifth graders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 30, 141–151.
Qualls, C. D., Treaster, B., Blood, G. W., & Hammer, C. S.
(2002). Lexicalization of idioms in urban fifth graders: A
reaction time study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Reed, V., McLeod, K., & McAllister, L. (1999). Importance of
selected communication skills for talking with peers and
teachers: Adolescents’ opinions. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 30, 32–49.
Reynolds, M., Qualls, C. D., & Harris, J. L. (1998, April). It’s a
hard row to hoe: Idioms in African American children. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Black Associa-
tion for Speech, Language, and Hearing, Washington, DC.
Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use
figurative language? Psychological Science, 5, 159–163.
Rowntree, D. (1981). Statistics without tears: A primer for non-
mathematicians. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Schiavetti, N., & Metz, D. E. (2002). Evaluating research in
communicative disorder (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social
sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Webster’s II new Riverside University dictionary. (1995). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Wolfram, W. (1991). Dialects and American English. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
77
Received September 28, 2002 Contact author: Constance Dean Qualls, PhD, Department of
Accepted October 12, 2002 Communication Sciences and Disorders, The Pennsylvania State
DOI:10.1044/0161-1461(2003/007) University, 105 Moore Building, University Park, PA 16802-3100.
E-mail: cdq2@psu.edu

APPENDIX A. A LIST OF THE 24 IDIOMS USED IN ALL CONDITIONS

High familiarity Moderate familiarity Low familiarity

Let off steam Go into one’s shell Take down a peg

Go around in circles
Put one’s foot down
Breathe down one’s neck
Read between the lines
Put their heads together
Skate on thin ice
Beat around the bush
Strike the right note
Keep up one’s end
Cross swords with someone
Go against the grain
Blow the cobwebs away
Make one’s hair curl
Throw to the wolves
Vote with one’s feet
Paper over the cracks
Hoe one’s own row
Talk through one’s hat
Lead with one’s chin
Rise to the bait
Have a hollow ring

Note. From “Familiarity and Transparency in Idiom Explanation: A Developmental Study of Children and
Adolescents,” by M. Nippold & M. Rudzinski, 1993, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, p. 733.
Copyright 1993 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. “Idiom Understanding in Youth:
Further Examination of Familiarity and Transparency,” by M. Nippold & C. Taylor, 1995, Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 38, p. 433. Copyright 1995 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
“Idiom Understanding in Australian Youth: A Cross-Cultural Comparison,” by M. Nippold, C. Taylor, & J.
Baker, 1996, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, p. 445. Copyright 1996 by the American Speech-
Language-Hearing Association. Reprinted with permission.

APPENDIX B. EXAMPLES OF TEST STIMULI IN THE STORY CONDITION

Example 1: High Familiarity
Saturday afternoon is a special time for the Peabody family. This is when the two youngest children get to
decide what the family outing will be. So when the twins, Johnny and Joseph, came out of their room, they
announced: “We put our heads together and decided the family should have a picnic.” What does it mean to
put their heads together?

A. to come up with your own idea

B. to plan things together*
C. to call a friend
D. to listen to the other person

Example 2: Moderate Familiarity

Kevin and Michelle had been close friends since the fifth grade. When they went to the seventh grade,
Michelle spent lots of time gossiping with her friends. Kevin didn’t understand why she had no time for him.
He told his buddy, “Michelle’s gossiping goes against the grain with me.” What does it mean to go against
the grain?

A. to make someone doubt you

B. to find out the truth
C. to believe what is being said
D. to be annoying or troublesome*

Example 3: Low Familiarity

It seems that every class has a practical joker. Well, John was that person in Mrs. Jones’ fifth grade class.
He would say things like the earth is nearer to the sun in summer. Mrs. Jones told him, “You’re talking
through your hat.” What does it mean to talk through one’s hat?

A. to say things that are not true

B. to talk foolishly*
C. to talk for a long time
D. to tell the truth

* denotes correct answer

Note. From “Effects of Familiarity on Idiom Comprehension in African American and European American Fifth
Graders,” by C. D. Qualls & J. L. Harris, 1999, Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, p.
151. Copyright 1999 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Reprinted with permission.

78 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 34 • 69–79 • January 2003
APPENDIX C. EXAMPLES OF TEST STIMULI APPENDIX D. EXAMPLES OF TEST STIMULI
IN THE ISOLATION CONDITION IN THE VERIFICATION CONDITION

Example 1: High Familiarity Example 1: High Familiarity

put their heads together: Does put their heads together mean to listen to the other person?
A. to come up with your own idea A. Yes
B. to plan things together* B. No*
C. to call a friend
D. to listen to the other person Example 2: Moderate Familiarity
Does go against the grain mean to make someone doubt you?
Example 2: Moderate Familiarity A. Yes
go against the grain: B. No*
A. to make someone doubt you
B. to find out the truth Example 3: Low Familiarity
C. to believe what is being said Does talk through your hat mean to talk foolishly?
D. to be annoying or troublesome* A. Yes*
B. No
Example 3: Low Familiarity
talk through one’s hat: * denotes correct answer
A. to say things that are not true
B. to talk foolishly*
C. to talk for a long time
D. to tell the truth

* denotes correct answer

APPENDIX E. VIDEOTAPED INSTRUCTIONS

Story Condition
Remember, idioms are expressions that have special meanings. For example, hold your tongue means to
keep quiet. This test is going to allow me to see how well you understand idioms when they are used in a
story. Are you ready to begin? Please listen carefully to the instructions that you are about to hear. Your
booklet contains 24 short paragraphs. Each paragraph contains an idiom and asks a question about that
expression. After each paragraph, you are given four choices to answer the question. Please CHOOSE
ONLY ONE by placing a circle around the letter. I would like you to answer the rest of the questions by
yourselves. PLEASE DO YOUR BEST WORK, AND DON’T SKIP ANY QUESTIONS. If you aren’t sure
of an answer, just take a guess. After you finish, go back and check your answers carefully. Do you have
any questions?

Isolation Condition
Remember, idioms are expressions that have special meanings. For example, hold your tongue means to
keep quiet. This test is going to allow me to see how well you understand idioms. Are you ready to begin?
Please listen carefully to the instructions that follow. Your booklet contains 24 idioms. After each idiom,
you are given four response choices. Please circle the ONE response choice that best describes the idiom.
Please CHOOSE ONLY ONE by placing a circle around the letter. I would like you to answer the rest of
the questions by yourselves. PLEASE DO YOUR BEST WORK, AND DON’T SKIP ANY QUESTIONS. If
you aren’t sure of an answer, just take a guess. After you finish, go back and check your answers carefully.
Do you have any questions?

Verification Condition
Remember, idioms are expressions that have special meanings. For example, hold your tongue means to
keep quiet. This test is going to allow me to see how well you understand idioms. Are you ready to begin?
Your booklet contains 24 questions. Each question contains an idiom. You are asked to decide whether or
not the meaning of the saying is true by indicating yes or no. Please CHOOSE YES OR NO by placing a
circle around the letter. I would like you to answer the rest of the questions by yourselves. PLEASE DO
YOUR BEST WORK, AND DON’T SKIP ANY QUESTIONS. If you are not sure of an answer, just take a
guess. After you finish, please go back and check your answers carefully. Do you have any questions?

Note. From “Familiarity and Transparency in Idiom Explanation: A Developmental Study of Children and
Adolescents,” by M. Nippold & M. Rudzinski, 1993, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, p. 730.
Copyright 1993 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Adapted with permission.

Qualls et al.: Idiom Comprehension in Rural Adolescents 79

Copyright of Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools is the property of American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.