Top Lang Disorders

Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 197–209

Copyright c 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

A Comprehensive Definition
of Morphological Awareness
Implications for Assessment
Kenn Apel

Purpose: Although there is an increasing body of evidence for the important role morphological
awareness plays in written language development, there is little consensus on a fully specified
definition of this linguistic awareness ability. Without agreement on a definition, several problems
arise, at least one of which impacts researchers’ and practitioners’ ability to fully and consistently
assess students’ morphological awareness abilities. Method: In the first portion of this article, I
discuss insufficiencies with current definitions of morphological awareness and propose a more
comprehensive definition. Following this, I relate the implications of this new definition for
assessment: the inability of current norm-referenced tests and experimenter-designed tasks to meet
the definition and considerations from the research to keep in mind about stimuli on morphological
awareness tasks. Conclusion: In the final segment of the article, I provide implications and
suggestions for practitioners who wish to assess morphological awareness in a comprehensive
manner, using the new definition as a guide to measure students’ morphological awareness abilities.
Key words: assessment, morphological awareness, reading, spelling, written language

F OR decades, researchers and practi-

tioners have focused predominantly on
phonemic awareness when assessing the po-
tential impact of linguistic awareness on stu-
dents’ reading and spelling abilities (e.g., Ehri
et al., 2001; Griffith & Olson, 1992). A uni-
form and mutually agreed upon definition of
phonemic awareness is that it is a conscious
awareness of the sounds of language and the
ability to talk about and manipulate those
sounds. This definition is accepted by re-
searchers and practitioners alike, and several
norm-referenced phonemic awareness mea-
sures that align with the definition are avail-
Author Affiliation: Department of Communication
Sciences and Disorders, University of South
Carolina, Columbia.
The author has indicated that he has no financial and
no nonfinancial relationships to disclose.
Corresponding Author: Kenn Apel, Department of
Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of
South Carolina, 124 Sumter St, Suite 300, Columbia, SC
29201 (kennapel@sc.edu).
DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000019
able for use in research studies and in clinical
and school settings (e.g., Wagner & Torgesen,
1987; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999;
Yopp, 1992).
More recently, morphological awareness
has begun to receive attention as another
linguistic awareness skill that impacts
written language abilities. Multiple inves-
tigations have demonstrated the power-
ful influence it has on word-level read-
ing, reading comprehension, and spelling
development (e.g., Apel, Wilson-Fowler,
Brimo, & Perrin, 2012; McCutchen, Green,
& Abbott, 2008; Nagy, Berninger, Abbott,
Vaughan, & Vermeulen, 2003; Roman, Kirby,
Parrila, Wade-Woolley, & Deacon, 2009;
Walker & Hauerwas, 2006; Wolter, Wood, &
D’zatko, 2009). Furthermore, recent reviews
of morphological awareness interventions
have demonstrated that instruction in mor-
phological awareness can lead to improve-
ment in students’ written language abilities
(Bowers, Kirby, & Deacon, 2010; Goodwin
& Ahn, 2013). Collectively, these findings
suggest that morphological awareness is an
important linguistic awareness ability that

197

Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 198 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
deserves as much attention for the role it plays
in reading and spelling development as does
phonemic awareness (e.g., Berninger, Abbott,
Nagy, & Carlisle, 2010).
Given the importance of morphological
awareness for written language development,
it would seem that a consensus definition
of morphological awareness must exist; how-
ever, this is not the case. Without agreement
on a definition, several problems arise, some
of which impact the assessment of morpho-
logical awareness, as well as the scientific re-
porting of researchers’ findings of this skill. In
the first portion of this article, I discuss insuf-
ficiencies with current definitions of morpho-
logical awareness and propose a more com-
prehensive definition. Then, in the second
portion of this article, I relate the implications
of this new definition for assessment. Specif-
ically, in the second section, I discuss the in-
ability of current norm-referenced tests and
experimenter-developed tasks to assess the
construct represented by the proposed defi-
nition. I also offer considerations on the basis
of the research to keep in mind about stim-
uli on morphological awareness tasks. I con-
clude the article with implications and sug-
gestions for practitioners who wish to assess
morphological awareness in a comprehensive
manner.
DEFINING MORPHOLOGICAL
AWARENESS
Morphemes are the smallest units of
meaning in our language. Thus, the term
“morphological awareness” implies an
awareness of these small units of meaning.
Given that morphemes occur in spoken and
written language, morphological awareness
necessarily involves an awareness of both
spoken and written morphemes, including
an understanding of what written affixes
(i.e., prefixes and suffixes) look like or-
thographically and the rules that govern
how affixes attach to base words or roots.
Unfortunately, current definitions used by
researchers and authors come up short in
defining morphological awareness at this
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
level of detail (see Table 1 for examples).
Although many definitions involve some varia-
tion of the notion of the conscious awareness
of, or an ability to manipulate, morphemes,
they differ in whether they specify modality
(i.e., some specify spoken only), vary in
emphasis on individuals’ ability to reflect on
morphemes, and, as a whole, do not address
all aspects of morphological awareness.
What is missing from all current definitions
is the full level of specificity that might guide
researchers and practitioners in evaluating
students’ morphological awareness abilities
comprehensively. Indeed, without an inclu-
sive definition of a skill such as morphological
awareness, one cannot comprehensively as-
sess that skill. Furthermore, because of
the lack of specificity in these definitions,
incomplete and, in some cases, incorrect data
have been used to draw conclusions about
students’ morphological awareness abilities.
For example, most researchers who have
assessed students’ morphological awareness
abilities have administered tasks in the spoken
mode. When researchers have used tasks that
involved written language, they frequently
have read the items to the students and asked
the students to respond orally. This is appar-
ently based on the rationale that any written
responses would be affected by the students’
(potential lack of) orthographic knowledge,
confounding the assessment of students’ mor-
phological awareness. This is an interesting
perspective, given that, as mentioned previ-
ously, part of morphological awareness nec-
essarily involves an understanding of written
morphemes, what they look like orthograph-
ically, how they are spelled, and how they
attach to base words and roots. When this
aspect of morphological awareness is not as-
sessed, then a complete picture of students’
morphological awareness abilities is lacking.
There also has been some confusion
between the concepts of morphological
awareness and morphological production,
sometimes referred to as morphological
knowledge. Morphological awareness is a
conscious reflection on morphemes. Morpho-
logical production involves the unconscious
 A Comprehensive Definition of Morphological Awareness 199

Table 1. Sample definitions of morphological awareness

Definition of
Researchers Morphological Awareness

Berninger et al. (2010) “ . . . judgments about semantic or semantic-syntactic

relationships that depend upon the form of the word
or its parts” (p. 142).
Carlisle (2000) “ . . . the ability to parse words and analyze constituent
morphemes for the purpose of constructing meaning”
(p. 170).
Deacon, Kirby, and Casselman-Bell “ . . . the awareness of and ability to manipulate the
(2009) minimal units of meaning . . . ” (p. 301).
Deacon, Benere, and Pasquarella “ . . . the awareness of and the ability to manipulate
(2013) morphemes in the oral language . . . ” (p. 1113).
Guo, Roehrig, and Williams (2011) “ . . . explicit knowledge of the way in which words are
built up by combining smaller meaningful units, such
as prefixes, roots, and suffixes . . . ” (p. 160).
Kirby et al. (2012) “ . . . conscious awareness of the morphemic structure of
words and (their) ability to reflect on and manipulate
that structure . . . ” (p. 389).
Kuo and Anderson (2006) “The ability to reflect upon and manipulate morphemes
and employ word formation rules in one’s
language . . . ” (p. 161).
Tong, Deacon, Kirby, Cain, and “ . . . conscious awareness of the morphemic structure of
Parrila (2011) words and (individuals’) ability to reflect on and
manipulate that structure . . . ” (p. 523).

use of morphemes, typically during spon-
taneous spoken language. When individuals
converse, they produce morphemes but typ-
ically do not think actively about the mor-
phemes they are producing. Mature writers
also may write without thinking actively about
the specific morphemes they are writing, par-
ticularly when engaged in less formal writing
situations, such as notes, e-mails, and the like.
In the past, however, researchers have not
always kept these two notions distinct. For
example, two investigations by Tyler, Lewis,
Haskill, and Tolbert (2002, 2003) were incor-
porated into separate recent syntheses of mor-
phological awareness interventions—a sys-
tematic review (Bowers et al., 2010) and a
meta-analysis (Goodwin & Ahn, 2013); how-
ever, the two studies conducted by Tyler
et al. (2002, 2003) were focused on interven-
tions to increase the production of spoken
morphemes in preschoolers with speech and
language impairments and not on morpholog-
ical awareness (i.e., with the goal to increase
the children’s ability to consciously consider
or think about morphemes). An inconsistent
definition, then, led to introduction of data
into both systematic syntheses that was in-
consistent with the purposes of the reviews.
Including them thus had the potential to al-
ter the outcomes of the reviews and related
conclusions. An agreed upon comprehensive
definition of morphological awareness may re-
duce such problems in the future.
Assessment of morphological awareness
also hinges on a complete and unified defi-
nition. The definitions used by others have
been incomplete. I recommend that a more
comprehensive definition of morphological
awareness is needed that acknowledges mor-
phology in both spoken and written modal-
ities. Such an all-encompassing definition
would allow researchers and practitioners the

Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 200 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
specificity to address all aspects of morpho-
logical awareness when they assess students’
morphological awareness. I propose that such
a definition should take the following form:
Morphological awareness includes: (a) awareness
of spoken and written forms of morphemes; (b)
the meaning of affixes and the alterations in mean-
ing and grammatical class they bring to base
words/roots (e.g., -ed causes a verb to refer to the
past as in walked; -er can change a verb to a noun,
as in teach to teacher); (c) the manner in which
written affixes connect to base words/roots, in-
cluding changes to those base words/roots (e.g.,
some suffixes require a consonant to be doubled
or dropped when attached to a base word/root
in written form, such as in hop to hopping and
hope to hoped); and (d) the relation between base
words/roots and their inflected or derived forms
(e.g., knowing that a variety of words are related
because they share the same base word/root, such
as act, action, react, and activity).
Applying this definition to current mea-
sures can reveal whether they provide ade-
quate coverage of the key components of this
definition, either solely or in combination, to
constitute a comprehensive assessment of stu-
dents’ morphological awareness. In the fol-
lowing section, I provide a review of several
current norm-referenced assessments that po-
tentially assess morphological awareness, in
which I examine their consistency with the
proposed definition. I follow this with a sim-
ilar review of experimenter-developed tasks
that have been used in the research literature
to examine students’ morphological aware-
ness skills.
CURRENT TASKS USED TO ASSESS
MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS
Morphological awareness has received less
attention than phonemic awareness, both in
the research literature and in everyday as-
sessment and intervention practice. Thus, it
is not surprising that there are fewer exam-
ples of norm-referenced measures that assess
students’ morphological awareness than there
are experimenter-developed tasks.
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Norm-referenced morphological
awareness measures
No norm-referenced measures dedicated
solely to assessing morphological awareness
have been published. One norm-referenced
test, the Process Assessment of the Learner—
Second Edition (PALS-2; Berninger, 2007),
contains a few subtests that are identified as
morphological awareness tasks (e.g., students
view printed words and identify those con-
taining affixes, students determine whether
two presented words share the same root).
The PALS-2 thus far has not been used widely
in the field of speech–language pathology and
may not be familiar to language specialists.
Additionally, there are a few norm-referenced
measures, or subtests of norm-referenced
measures, that assess some aspect of mor-
phological awareness (see Table 2 for exam-
ples), at least indirectly. These tasks, however,
are not identified as measures of morpholog-
ical awareness and never have been used in
any research study as a measure of morpho-
logical awareness. Furthermore, they tend to
assess awareness of inflectional morphology
more than derivational morphology, which is
a limitation because inflectional morpholog-
ical awareness is less predictive of reading
in students beyond the early primary grades
(e.g., Kuo & Anderson, 2006). In addition, the
range of affixes is highly constrained in num-
ber and types.
The norm-referenced measures reviewed in
Table 2, therefore, assess only a limited por-
tion of the construct encompassed by the
proposed definition. Among other limitations,
they all are measures of students’ awareness
of spoken morphology only. They do not as-
sess students’ awareness of written morphol-
ogy, including students’ awareness of what
written morphemes look like orthographi-
cally, the manner in which written affixes
connect to base words, and the changes that
can occur to base words because of those
affix additions. In addition, they assess stu-
dents’ awareness of the relation between base
words and their derived forms only minimally.
Thus, even in combination, they would fail to
 A Comprehensive Definition of Morphological Awareness
Table 2. Examples of norm-referenced measures that assess aspects of morphological
awareness
Measure
Test for Examining
Expressive Morphology
(Shipley, Stone, & Sue,
1983)
Test of Language
Development—Primary:
4 (Hammill & Newcomer,
2008a)
Subtest: Morphological
Completion
Test of Language
Development—
Intermediate: 4 (Hammill
& Newcomer, 2008b)
Subtest: Morphological
Comprehension
Illinois Test of
Psycholinguistic Abilities:
3 (Hammill, Mather, &
Roberts, 2001)
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
201
Aspect of Proposed
Morphological
Awareness
Mode Description Definition Assessed
Spoken Assesses awareness of five Awareness of the
inflections (present relation of base words
progressive—ing, plurals, to their inflected and
possessives, third person derived forms
singular, past tense) and two
derivational forms (the
comparative —er and the
superlative—est).
Students complete a sentence
with an affixed word (e.g.,
here is one boat, here are
two _____ [boats]).
Spoken Assesses awareness of 13 Awareness of the
inflections (seven plurals, relation of base words
four possessives, and two to their inflected and
past tense) and five derived forms
derivational forms (three
agentive and two
comparative).
Students complete a
sentence with an
affixed word (e.g.,
“Carla has a dress,
Denise has a dress. They
have two ____[dresses]).
Spoken Some of the target items tap Awareness of the
into inflectional and meaning of affixes and
derivational knowledge, the alterations in
whereas others rely more on meaning they bring to
syntactic awareness. base words
Students read a sentence and
must judge whether the
sentence sounds
grammatically correct (e.g.,
“Those boys is happy”).
Spoken Assesses awareness of 13 Awareness of the
inflections (six plurals and relation of base words
seven past tense) and 13 to their inflected and
derivational forms (four derived forms
superlatives, three
comparative, and six others).
(Continues)
 202 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014

Table 2. Examples of norm-referenced measures that assess aspects of morphological

awareness (Continued)

Aspect of Proposed
Morphological
Awareness
Measure Mode Description Definition Assessed

Subtest: Morphological Students asked to fill in a final

Closure
Clinical Evaluation of Spoken
Language Fundamentals:
4 (Semel, Wiig, & Secord,
2006)
Subtest: Word Structure
missing part (e.g., “big,
bigger, ____[biggest]).
Assesses awareness of 12 Awareness of the
inflections (two plurals, two relation of base words
third person singular, three to their inflected and
possessives, four present derived forms
progressive—ing, and one
past tense) and four
derivational forms (one
superlative, two
comparative, and one other).
Students complete a sentence
with an affixed word (e.g.,
“This man sings. He is called
a _______[singer]).

cover all of the components of the proposed
definition. Partially in response to these lim-
itations, researchers have constructed tasks
that fill some of the gaps in assessing the key
components of the proposed, comprehensive
definition.
Experimenter-designed morphological
awareness tasks
Different researchers have used different
experimenter-designed morphological aware-
ness tasks, and often just one or two tasks,
to assess students’ morphological awareness
skills. Because the focus in the literature has
been on the more general definition of mor-
phological awareness, it is not surprising that
experimenter-designed tasks have not cov-
ered the range of abilities identified in the
proposed comprehensive definition. I would
argue, then, that researchers should discuss
their findings in a manner that acknowl-
edges that students’ morphological awareness
skills have been measured in an incomplete
manner.
The tasks that researchers have adminis-
tered have taken various forms, including
production tasks, judgment tasks, blending/
segmenting tasks, and analogy tasks, each
with several subvarieties. In addition, in one
investigation, my colleagues and I included a
measure of children’s awareness of written af-
fixes (Apel, Diehm, & Apel, 2013). I provide a
brief overview of each of these categories of
tasks below.
Productive morphological awareness
tasks
Some researchers have used productive
morphological awareness tasks to assess
students’ morphological awareness skills;
these tasks have varied in their requirements.
The cloze procedure has been a typical
means for assessing students’ productive
morphological awareness abilities (e.g., Apel
et al., 2013; Apel & Lawrence, 2011; Casalis
& Cole, 2009; McCutchen et al., 2008; Wolter
et al., 2009). For example, a common task
involves providing a word, such as a base

Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 A Comprehensive Definition of Morphological Awareness
word (e.g., help), and then requiring the
student to use an inflected or derived form of
the word to complete a sentence (e.g., The
Girl Scout was a great _____[helper]). The
target response has varied by researchers.
Sometimes, the student changes a multimor-
phemic word into a base word (farmer. Bill
works on a ____[farm]). Other times, the stu-
dent changes a base word into an inflected or
derived word (as in the aforementioned exam-
ple with helper). When the response involves
a change into a derived word, the response
may be a transparent form (tall–taller) or one
that involves either a phonological (magic–
magician) and/or an orthographic shift
(silly–silliness). Other cloze tasks have been
similar to norm-referenced tasks discussed
earlier (e.g., Here is one dress; Here are two
____[dresses]; e.g., Berninger et al., 2010).
Fluency tasks offer a different approach.
These require students to name as many
inflected or derived forms of a base word as
possible (e.g., act could yield action, acting,
react, etc.). Some researcher-developed pro-
duction tasks have included definition tasks
(e.g., Apel et al., 2013; Casalis, Cole, & Sopo,
2004; Jeon, 2011; Tsesmeli & Seymour, 2006).
To elicit productions of definitions, for exam-
ple, Casalis et al. required their 8- 12-year-old
students to finish sentences with a derived
form that completed a definition (e.g., “a
person who paints is a . . . ..painter”). Finally,
some experimenter-designed production
tasks require students to read (e.g., Carlisle,
2000) or spell multimorphemic words (e.g.,
Apel et al., 2012; Kirk & Gillon, 2009).
Morphological awareness judgment
tasks
Some investigators have constructed judg-
ment tasks to measure morphological aware-
ness. Judgment tasks often require students
to make decisions about the semantic re-
lationship between two words (e.g., “Does
ban come from banana?”; Berninger et al.,
2010; Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Mahony,
Singson, & Mann, 2000; Nagy, Berninger,
& Abbott, 2006). Students simply respond
yes or no. Others have involved a judgment
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
203
about the semantic and/or syntactic accuracy
of a word, often within a multiple choice
paradigm (e.g., “When Ali Baba’s wife saw
the gold coins, she was _______ speechi-
fied, specialized, speechmaker, speechless”;
Berninger et al., 2010; Nagy et al., 2003; Nagy
et al., 2006; Nippold & Sun, 2008). These
types of judgment tasks have varied addition-
ally in their presentation mode (some were
spoken-only, some were spoken but also pro-
vided in print) as well as stimulus type (i.e.,
inflectional and/or derivational items). Deriva-
tional items varied in whether they were trans-
parent or involved a phonological and/or or-
thographic shift. Finally, as can be seen in the
aforementioned example of speechified, on
some tasks, pseudowords were used with real
affixes.
Morphological awareness tasks
involving blending or segmenting
A few researchers have used blending
or segmenting tasks to assess students’
morphological awareness skills (e.g., Casalis
et al., 2004; Lyster, 2002). For example,
Casalis et al. required their 8- to 12-year-old
students to blend and segment base words
and their affixes to either create or decom-
pose, respectively, a multimorphemic word.
An example was blending the French base
word nettoie and the suffix age to produce
nettoyage. In another segmenting task, they
required their students to pronounce the base
portions of multimorphemic words produced
by the experimenters (e.g., producing the
base jour from the French word journeée).
Morphological awareness tasks based
on word analogy
Word analogy tasks also have been used
to assess students’ morphological aware-
ness skills (e.g., Bryant, Nunes, & Bindman,
1997; Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Kirby et al.,
2012; Roman, Kirby, Parrila, Wade-Woolley, &
Deacon, 2009; Tsesmeli & Seymour, 2006).
These tasks, which commonly are presented
via spoken language, follow the typical for-
mat for an analogy: A is to B as C is to D.
For morphological awareness tasks, students
 204 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
are asked to complete the fourth component
of the analogy after hearing either three
words (e.g., mess: messy, fun: _____) or three
sentences (e.g., Peter plays at school: Pe-
ter played at school; Peter works at home:
_____________). The studies using word
analogies have varied in whether the response
required an inflected or derived word (e.g.,
Kirby et al., 2012; Roman et al., 2009); all
investigations using sentence analogies have
required only inflected words (e.g., Bryant
et al., 1997).
A task involving identification
of written affixes
Finally, my colleagues and I conducted an
investigation of children’s identification of
written affixes (Apel et al., 2013). In our
study, we provided first- and second-grade
children from low SES homes, with a paper
containing a list of pseudowords with real af-
fixes (e.g., rinning). The children were given
3 min to circle all affixes (i.e., “add-ons”) they
saw. The task allowed us to examine the stu-
dents’ recognition of written prefixes and suf-
fixes.
Morphological awareness assessment
challenges
Overall, quite a range of tasks have been
used by researchers to assess students’ mor-
phological awareness abilities. As mentioned
previously, with few exceptions (e.g., Apel
et al., 2013), most researchers have used
only one, or perhaps two, of these tasks to
assess students’ morphological awareness
skills. Even when some researchers have used
multiple measures, albeit an incomplete set of
tasks, to represent morphological awareness,
they then combined responses from those
tasks into one composite measure (e.g., Clin,
Wade-Woolley, & Heggie, 2009; Tong et al.,
2011). This can make it difficult to understand
patterns of strengths and weaknesses. Thus,
for both researchers and practitioners, it is
unknown whether the variety of morphologi-
cal awareness tasks used across investigations
measure the same underlying construct and
can be used interchangeably or whether
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
they may be measuring different aspects of
morphological awareness that constitute a
multifactorial construct. Some indirect evi-
dence suggests that the latter is true; that is,
that the different tasks used actually may be
measuring different aspects of morphological
awareness.
For example, two research teams examined
whether the morphological awareness tasks
they used in their study related to one an-
other and found only moderate correlations
(r values ranged from .46 to .58; Deacon
et al., 2013; Ramı́rez, Chen, & Pasquarella,
2013). In addition, in the study by Apel
et al., we found that certain morphological
awareness tasks predicted early elementary
grade students’ reading abilities better than
other morphological awareness tasks, and
that some tasks discriminated between grades
better than others. These findings suggest
that not all morphological awareness tasks
measure the same aspects of morpholog-
ical awareness, and that some tasks may
relate to students’ written language skills
differently.
At the very least, no one type of task
(i.e., judgment task, production task, blend-
ing/segmentation task, analogy task, affix
identification task) adequately assesses all of
the components of the proposed morphologi-
cal awareness definition. Before discussing im-
plications for researchers and practitioners, I
first discuss other factors that impact students’
performances on these types of measures.
When researchers have examined students’
morphological awareness abilities, they have
found that several specific item features af-
fect task performance, including morpheme
type and transparency between base words
and their inflected or derived forms. For ex-
ample, in general, children in the primary el-
ementary grades demonstrate greater aware-
ness of inflectional forms than derivational
forms; it is around third grade that children
typically demonstrate greater awareness of
derivational morphology (e.g., Kuo & Ander-
son, 2006). Not surprisingly, then, inflectional
morphological awareness is mostly associated
with literacy abilities in younger elementary
 A Comprehensive Definition of Morphological Awareness
school students rather than upper-grade el-
ementary school students (e.g., Carlisle &
Nomanbhoy, 1993). Task items that represent
transparent relations between base words and
their derived forms are typically easier to com-
plete than items that represent a shift phono-
logically and/or orthographically (e.g., Apel
& Thomas-Tate, 2009; Carlisle, 2000). How-
ever, both of these item feature issues, mor-
pheme type and transparency, may be con-
founded by morpheme and word frequency
issues.
Word frequency issues can function on mul-
tiple levels. There are far fewer inflectional
affixes than derivational affixes, and those
inflectional affixes are more frequent in occur-
rence and shorter in letter length, which may
lead to ease in performance on tasks. Non-
transparent forms also may be confounded
by word frequency; many multimorphemic
words that involve shifts are lower in word
frequency counts than transparent forms.
Across previous investigations, researchers
have not always accounted for these item-
specific features on a complete, consistent
basis.
Another factor to consider is students’
prior vocabulary knowledge. Some re-
searchers have discussed whether morpho-
logical awareness is actually another mea-
sure of vocabulary, supported by findings
on the strong relation between vocabulary
and morphological awareness (e.g., Kuo &
Anderson, 2006). However, in studies that
have examined the associations of morpho-
logical awareness and vocabulary simultane-
ously, with reading as an outcome (e.g., Apel
et al., 2012; Nagy et al., 2003), morphologi-
cal awareness has uniquely predicted reading
beyond vocabulary knowledge. Thus, there
appear to be distinct aspects of morpholog-
ical awareness that separate it from general
vocabulary abilities. Finally, with additional
studies, such as the investigation conducted
by Mitchell and Brady (2014), more informa-
tion about specific affixes and when they are
acquired will provide needed developmental
information for assessment and hierarchy of
stimuli.
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
205
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS
Additional research is required to inform
assessment practices. Investigators will need
to determine whether different morphologi-
cal awareness tasks measure the same or dif-
ferent aspects of morphological awareness.
By determining whether multiple measures
are needed to capture the full range of com-
ponents contained in the recommended def-
inition, researchers and practitioners will be
better prepared to assess students’ morpho-
logical awareness abilities. In the meantime,
the important role of morphological aware-
ness in the development of students’ written
language abilities necessitates that practition-
ers consider how they can best assess their
students’ morphological awareness abilities
now.
Although practitioners await the needed re-
search, they have several options available to
them. My first suggestion is to use the pro-
posed definition as a guide for assessment.
Using this definition will guide practitioners
in their use of different tasks that tap into
the different components of the definition
(see Table 3 for suggestions). For example,
to assess students’ awareness of spoken mor-
phemes, a segmenting or blending task can
be used on which students are asked to either
break up multimorphemic words into their
component morphemes or, conversely, blend
morphemes into multimorphemic words
(e.g., see Casalis et al., 2004). An affix iden-
tification task, such as the timed task that re-
quired students to circle affixes within writ-
ten pseudowords (i.e., Apel et al., 2013),
can be used to assess awareness of written
morphemes.
Awareness of the meaning of affixes and
the alterations in meaning they bring to base
words can be assessed by using spoken and
written production and judgment tasks (e.g.,
see Apel et al., 2013; Berninger et al., 2010).
On these tasks, students may be asked to com-
plete cloze tasks with appropriate morpho-
logically related words or to make decisions
about the semantic relation between two
 206 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
Table 3. Examples of morphological awareness tasks aligned with proposed definition
Aspect of Proposed
Morphological Awareness
Definition Assessed Mode
Awareness of the morphemes Spoken
in words and what they
“sound like”
Awareness of the morphemes Written
in words and what they
“look like”
Awareness of the meaning of Spoken
affixes and the alterations in
meaning they bring to base
words
Awareness of the meaning of Written
affixes and the alterations in
grammatical class they bring
to base words
Awareness of spelling of Written
written affixes
Awareness of how the addition Written
of morphemes can affect
base word spellings
Awareness of the relation of Spoken
base words to their inflected
and derived forms
Awareness of the relation of Written
base words to their inflected
and derived forms
words. Students’ awareness of the spelling of
written affixes and the consequences (rule
affects base word changes) when attached
to base words or roots can be assessed us-
ing multimorphemic spelling tasks (e.g., see
Apel et al., 2013). Finally, awareness of the
relationship of base words to their inflected
and derived forms also may be assessed using
spoken and written cloze tasks (e.g., teach.
Mrs. Smith is my favorite ______[teacher]).
By using the whole range of tasks representing
the comprehensive definition proposed, prac-
titioners will have a clearer idea of students’
possible strengths and weaknesses in morpho-
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Potential
Assessment Tasks Sample Item
Segmenting task “Tap out how many ‘parts’
you hear in recyclable”
(see Casalis et al., 2004).
Affix identification “Circle all the ‘add-ons” you
task see in this list of words”
(e.g., rinning; see Apel
et al., 2013).
Definition task “A person who makes art is
an . . . artist”; see Casalis
et al., 2004).
Suffix choice task “Matthew was not known
for being overly [friendly,
friendship, friendliness,
friends] to others” (see
Nagy et al., 2003).
Spelling “Spell dresses. Spell
multimorphemic plainest . . . ..” (see Apel
words et al., 2013).
Derivational spelling “Which ending goes with
task luck to make lucky: —y,
ie, —ey” (see Sangster
and Deacon, 2011).
Spoken relatives task “Farm. My uncle is a ____
farmer. (See Apel et al.,
2013).
Written relatives task “Shine. The boy’s bike was
very ____shiny. (See Apel
et al., 2013).
logical awareness, which then will lead to spe-
cific targeted intervention goals.
As practitioners are using researcher-
designed tasks, they should keep in mind the
potential factors that may influence students’
performance on those tasks. As mentioned,
derivational items likely will be more chal-
lenging than inflectional items. Furthermore,
derivational items that involve a shift away
from the base word, either a phonological
shift or an orthographic shift, may be more
challenging than one in which the base word
is transparent within the derived word. Prac-
titioners can be aware of these effects, noting
 A Comprehensive Definition of Morphological Awareness
their impact on students’ performance and us-
ing that information to inform intervention
(i.e., if a phonological or orthographic shift
response was more challenging for a student,
then intervention would start with stimuli
that involved only transparent forms). Fur-
thermore, as Mitchell and Brady (2014) point
out, students appear to be aware of prefixes
earlier than suffixes. Should this developmen-
tal sequence be found in assessment, practi-
tioners would use this information to guide
intervention practices as well.
Finally, practitioners should be aware of
norm-referenced measures they are using that
may be assessing aspects of their students’
morphological awareness abilities although
the tasks are not labeled as such. Although
an assessment test may state that it measures
one skill, practitioners should be conscious of
what the task truly measures. Furthermore, if
the practitioner’s work setting requires stan-
dard scores for students to receive direct ser-
vices, these assessment tasks can be used
to assess morphological awareness even if
the name assigned to the measure suggests
REFERENCES
Apel, K., Diehm, E., & Apel, L. (2013). Using multiple
measures of morphological awareness to assess its re-
lation to reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 33,
42–56. doi:10.1097/TLD.Ob013e318280f57b
Apel, K., & Lawrence, J. (2011). Contributions of
morphological awareness skills to word-level read-
ing and spelling in first-grade children with and
without speech sound disorder. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 1312–
1327.
Apel, K., & Thomas-Tate, S. (2009). Morphological aware-
ness skills of fourth grade African American students.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
40, 312–324.
Apel, K., Wilson-Fowler, E. B., Brimo, D., & Perrin, N. A.
(2012). Metalinguistic contributions to reading and
spelling in second and third grade students. Reading
and Writing, 25, 1283–1305.
Berninger, V. W. (2007). The process assessment of the
learner—second edition. San Antonio, TX: Psycho-
logical Corporation.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle,
J. (2010). Growth in phonological orthographic,
and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6.
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
207
something different. As long as the practi-
tioner follows the procedures outlined by the
publisher, the scores obtained still may be
compared with the normative database and
standard scores obtained. The results then
may be interpreted qualitatively with respect
to what they indicate about a student’s mor-
phological awareness. As with the suggestions
for the experimenter-designed tasks, practi-
tioners will need to determine whether the
items on the norm-referenced task are im-
pacted by morpheme type (i.e., inflected or
derived forms) and transparency of the base
word or root (i.e., transparent or shift form).
Morphological awareness is an important
linguistic awareness skill that impacts the de-
velopment of written language: reading and
spelling. With a comprehensive definition, re-
searchers and practitioners will be prepared
to assess students’ morphological awareness
skills more completely. This may enable them
to form a more complete and inclusive picture
of students’ morphological awareness abilities
and, if needed, develop a prescriptive, optimal
plan for intervention.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 141–163.
doi:1007/s10936-009-9130-6
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010).
The effects of morphological instruction on liter-
acy skills: A systematic review of the literature.
Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179.
doi:10.3102/0034654309359353
Bryant, P., Nunes, T., & Bindman, M. (1997). Backward
readers’ awareness of language: strengths and weak-
nesses. European Journal of Psychology of Educa-
tion, 12, 357–372. doi:10.1007/BF03172798
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the struc-
ture and meaning of morphologically complex
words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writ-
ing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 169–190.
doi:10.1023/A:1008131926604
Carlisle, J .F., & Nomanbhoy, D. M. (1993). Phonological
and morphological awareness in first graders. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 14, 177–195.
Casalis, S., & Cole, P. (2009). On the relationship
between morphological and phonological aware-
ness: Effects of training in kindergarten and in
first-grade reading. First Language, 29, 113–142.
doi:10.1177/0142723708097484
 208 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2014
Casalis, S., Cole, P., & Sopo, D. (2004). Morphologi-
cal awareness in developmental dyslexia. Annals of
Dyslexia, 54, 114–138.
Clin, E., Wade-Woolley, L., & Heggie, L. (2009). Prosodic
sensitivity and morphological awareness in children’s
reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
104(2), 197–213.
Deacon, S. H., Benere, J., & Pasquarella, A. (2013). Recip-
rocal relationship: Children’s morphological aware-
ness and their reading accuracy across grades 2 to 3.
Developmental Psychology, 49, 1113–1126.
Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological aware-
ness: Just “more phonological”? The roles of mor-
phological and phonological awareness in reading de-
velopment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223–238.
doi:10.1017.S0124716404001117
Deacon, S. H., Kirby, J. R., & Casselman-Bell,
M. (2009). How robust is the contribution
of morphological awareness to general spelling
outcomes? Reading Psychology, 30, 301–318.
doi:10.1080/02702710802412057
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V.,
Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic
awareness instruction helps children learn to read:
Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-
analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2013). A meta-analysis of mor-
phological interventions in English: Effects on literacy
outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 17(4), 257–285.
Griffith, P. L., & Olson, M. W. (1992). Phonemic aware-
ness helps beginning readers break the code. Reading
Teacher, 45, 516–523.
Guo, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Williams, R. S. (2011). The rela-
tion of morphological awareness and syntactic aware-
ness to adults’ reading comprehension: Is vocabulary
knowledge a mediating variable? Journal of Literacy
Research, 43(2), 159–183.
Hammill, D. D., Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (2001). Illi-
nois test of psycholinguistic abilities—Third Edition
(ITPA-3). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Hammill, D. D., & Newcomer, P. L. (2008a). Test of
language development—primary, Fourth Edition.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Hammill, D. D., & Newcomer, P. L. (2008b). Test of lan-
guage development—intermediate, Fourth Edition.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Jeon, E. H. (2011). Contribution of morphological
awareness to second-language reading comprehen-
sion. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 217–235.
doi:10.1111/j.1540 4781.2011.01179x
Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P. N., Izenberg, L.,
Wade-Woolley, L., & Parrila, R. (2012). Children’s
morphological awareness and reading ability. Read-
ing and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25,
389–410. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9276-5
Kirk, C., & Gillon, G. T. (2009). Integrated morpho-
logical awareness intervention as a tool for improv-
ing literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Ser-
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
vices in Schools, 40, 341–351. doi:10.1044/0161-
1461(2008/08-0009)
Kuo, L. J., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphologi-
cal awareness and learning to read: A cross lan-
guage perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41(3),
161–180.
Lyster, S. H. (2002). The effects of morphological
versus phonological awareness training in kinder-
garten on reading development. Reading and Writ-
ing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 261–294.
doi:10.1023/A:1015272516220
Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading abil-
ity and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 191–
218. doi:10.1023/A:1008136012492
McCutchen, D., Green, L., & Abbott, R. D. (2008). Chil-
dren’s morphological knowledge: Links to literacy.
Reading Psychology, 29(4), 289–314.
Mitchell, A. M., & Brady, S. A. (2014). Assessing affix
knowledge using both pseudoword and real-word
measures. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(3),
210–227.
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contri-
butions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy
outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school stu-
dents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–
147. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., &
Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology
and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk
second-grade readers and at-risk fourth grade writ-
ers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730–742.
doi:10.1037/0022-06663.95.4.730
Nippold, M. A., & Sun, L. (2008). Knowledge of mor-
phologically complex words: A developmental study
of older children and young adolescents. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 365–
373. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/034)
Ramı́rez, G., Chen, X., & Pasquarella, A. (2013). Cross-
linguistic transfer of morphological awareness in
Spanish-speaking English language learners: The fa-
cilitating effect of cognate knowledge. Topics in Lan-
guage Disorders, 33(1), 73–92.
Roman, A. A., Kirby, J. R., Parrila, R., Wade-Woolley, L., &
Deacon, S. H. (2009). Towards a comprehensive view
of the skills involved in word reading in Grades 4,
6, and 8. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
102, 96–113. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2008.01.004
Sangster, L., & Deacon, S. H. (2011). Development
in children’s sensitivity to the role of deriva-
tions in spelling. Canadian Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie
expérimentale, 65(2), 133.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2006). Clini-
cal evaluation of language fundamentals (4th ed).
London: Harcourt.
Shipley, K. G., Stone, T. A., & Sue, M. B. (1983). Test for
Examining Expressive Morphology (TEEM). Tucson,
AZ: Communication Skill Builders.
 A Comprehensive Definition of Morphological Awareness
Tong, X., Deacon, S. H., Kirby, J. R., Cain, K., & Parrila,
R. (2011). Morphological awareness: A key to un-
derstanding poor reading comprehension in English.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 523–534.
doi:10.1037/a0023495
Tsesmeli, S. N., & Seymour, P. H. K. (2006). Derivational
morphology and spelling in dyslexia. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 587–625.
doi:10.1007/s11145-006-9011-4
Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., Haskill, A., & Tolbert, L. C.
(2002). Efficacy and cross-domain effects of a mor-
phosyntax and a phonology intervention. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33,
52–66.
Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., Haskill, A., & Tolbert, L.
C. (2003). Outcomes of different speech and lan-
guage goal attack strategies. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1077–
1094.
Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
209
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of
phonological processing and its causal role in the
acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin,
101, 192–212.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A.
(1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Process-
ing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Walker, J., & Hauerwas, L. B. (2006). Development
of phonological, morphological, and orthographic
knowledge in young spellers: The case of inflected
verbs. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 19, 819–843.
Wolter, J. A., Wood, A., & D’zatko, K. W. (2009). The
influence of morphological awareness on the liter-
acy development of first-grade children. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 286–
298. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0001)
Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in
young children. The Reading Teacher, 45, 696–703.