Assessing a student’s ability to name a series of familiar items aloud quickly and with accuracy can be a strong predictor of current and future reading performance when administered early in a child’s literacy journey (Araújo et al., 2015).  However, the logistics of adding another assessment that must be done one-on-one can present challenges for teachers. That’s why we at MindPlay have created a Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) assessment in MindPlay Reading Studio.  With this tool, educators can quickly assess a whole class all at once, empowering them to identify potential challenges and provide targeted intervention early.

What Is RAN?

RAN is an indication of a student’s lexical access, or the speed at which they can name items. It enables us to assess the cognitive and linguistic processes involved in reading (Norton & Wolf, 2012), and thereby identify potential deficits. In doing so, we can identify students who may require further diagnostic testing by a professional, as well as support students with more intensive intervention.

Early Intervention

Research has shown that a low RAN score is a strong indicator of dyslexia, especially when administered early  (Logan, et al. 2011). When pairing MindPlay’s RAN assessment with our Dyslexia Screener, educators are better able to identify students who have a double deficit, where they have challenges in two different areas of reading. With the use of both assessments in tandem, educators can support students with early intervention. 

What does a RAN score specifically indicate for early intervention?

If a student struggles with basic reading concepts, but earns a high RAN score, they may respond positively to interventions. 

If a student’s RAN score is low and they still struggle with basic reading concepts, this indicates this indicates that student may need to meet with a specialist for an official dyslexia diagnosis. In addition, students may require more intensive intervention or their score may simply indicate why interventions have yet to show improvement (Kilpatrick, 2015).

How is a RAN assessment administered?

MindPlay’s Rapid Automatized Naming assessment is presented in an 8×5 array (i.e. grid) of letters, with a total of 40 letters. The objective is to name the items from left to right, top to bottom, as fast as they can, while being timed. It is measured in Letters Correct Per Minute (LCPM). 

When should I administer a RAN assessment?

At MindPlay, we suggest administering the MindPlay RAN assessment three times throughout the year in both kindergarten and first grade. This shows benchmark scores as students become more proficient with phonological skills and automaticity. Each benchmark score should show students increasing their score over time. 

Success with a RAN assessment directly predicts future success and performance in reading (McWeeny, et al., 2022).

 

Interested in supporting the reading development of your students with the MindPlay RAN assessment paired with our dyslexia screener? Read more on our website or contact us at info@mindplay.com.

 

References

Araújo, S., Reis, A., Petersson, K. M., & Faísca, L. (2015). Rapid automatized naming and reading performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 868–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000006

Kilpatrick, D.A. (2015). Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Difficulties. Wiley.

Logan, J. A., Schatschneider, C., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Rapid serial naming and reading ability: the role of lexical access. Reading and writing, 24(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9199-1

McWeeny, S., Choi, S., Choe, J., LaTourrette, A., Roberts, M.Y., & Norton, E.S. (2002). Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) as a Kindergarten Predictor of Future Reading in English: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(4), 1187-1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.467

Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual review of psychology, 63, 427–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100431