Understanding CTOPP-2 score interpretation is essential for writing clear, helpful evaluation reports that truly reflect a student’s needs. This blog is designed to support special education teachers, school psychologists, and evaluators who want to make their reports more meaningful and accessible. You’ll also find sample phrases you can use when describing student strengths and needs, perfect for weaving into assessment reports, IEPs, or discussions at parent meetings.
If you’re a literacy specialist, tutor, or interventionist, you’ll also benefit from learning how to connect CTOPP-2 data to instruction and advocacy. Let’s take a closer look at what these scores really tell us and how to communicate that clearly and effectively!
What is the CTOPP-2, and what is it used for?
The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-2) is a standardized, norm-referenced test that measures phonological processing abilities related to reading. CTOPP-2 score interpretation can offer detailed information about a student’s phonological awareness and rapid naming skills, which are two skills that are often weak in struggling readers, including those with dyslexia. If a student is struggling with early reading skills and you want to know why, the CTOPP-2 is likely to reveal part of the puzzle.
If you’re new to the test, please read this blog first. When you’re ready, you can return here to explore CTOPP-2 score interpretation in more detail.
Generally speaking, what does it mean if a student does poorly on the CTOPP-2?
The child may need remediation in early literacy skills. The evaluation team should consider the results of the CTOPP-2 alongside the results of achievement testing and cognitive testing. The team may also wish to complete a diagnostic test, such as the WIST, to determine which skills the student has mastered and which skills the student needs to learn.
Why does poor performance on the CTOPP-2 indicate the need for support?
Rapid naming and phonological awareness are the two primary factors in the double deficit theory of dyslexia. Individuals with a deficit in phonological awareness but intact rapid naming skills tend to present with decoding weaknesses. Individuals with a deficit in naming skills but intact phonological awareness skills tend to present with fluency weaknesses. A “double deficit” in both phonological awareness and rapid naming impacts the individual’s reading speed and accuracy and is harder to remediate (Wendling & Mather, 2012).
Let’s Get Into It: CTOPP-2 Score Interpretation
The CTOPP-2 includes 13 subtests that combine to measure several composite scores: Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory, Rapid Symbolic Naming (or Rapid Non-Symbolic Naming for younger students), and Alternative Phonological Awareness. We’ll discuss one composite area at a time.
Interpreting the Phonological Awareness Scores on the CTOPP-2
The Phonological Awareness cluster measures an individual’s awareness of and ability to access the sound structure of oral language. This cluster is a combination of:
- Elision (saying a word after dropping designated sounds)
- Blending Words (combining sounds to form words)
- Phoneme Isolation (identifying target sounds in words)
All of these tasks require students to notice and manipulate sounds within words. The ability to complete these phonological awareness tasks has a significant impact on the development of reading skills during those crucial early stages of becoming a fluent reader: As Kilpatrick (2015) said, “Every point in a child’s development of word-level reading is affected by phonological awareness skills.”
In simplest terms, if you want a child to read and spell all the sounds within a word, then you’ll need that child to hear all the sounds within the word. Blending individual sounds into words is an essential skill for decoding (reading). Segmenting a word into its individual sounds is an essential skill for encoding (spelling). Both of these skills are required to complete the subtests in the Phonological Awareness cluster.
Let’s move away from the academic terms and think in terms of what a weakness in phonological awareness looks like in a real child. Imagine that we are working with a young boy named Alex. He is trying to spell the word lamp. He is unable to segment the word into its four individual phonemes. He sounds out the word as best as he can and writes the letters lap. Because Alex could not hear that /m/ sound when he segmented the word into phonemes, he could not write a letter to represent it.
Sample Statements: Alex’s weakness in phonological awareness suggests difficulty noticing and manipulating the sounds in spoken words. This can affect his ability to blend sounds to read unfamiliar words and to segment sounds when spelling. He may struggle to identify each sound in a word, making it harder to map those sounds to the correct letter(s).
Jack’s strength in phonological awareness suggests that he can notice and manipulate sounds within words. This strength likely supports his ability to blend individual sounds when reading unfamiliar words and to segment sounds when spelling, both of which are essential skills for developing foundational literacy skills.
Interpreting the Phonological Memory Scores on the CTOPP-2
Phonological Memory refers to the process of coding information phonologically for temporary storage in working memory or short-term memory. This cluster is a combination of:
- Memory for Digits (repeat a series of numbers ranging in length from two to eight digits)
- Nonword Repetition (repeating nonwords that range in length from 3 to 15 sounds)
Let’s imagine a student named Theo. Theo is attempting to sound out the word Wisconsin. He produces each sound accurately, but there are too many sounds for him to hold in his phonological memory. He loses some of the sounds and pronounces the word as “Wiskins.”
When Theo tries to spell the word fantastic, the task is slow and effortful. He often has to pause and start over, repeating the sounds from the beginning to keep them in working memory. This reduces his writing fluency and makes it harder for him to express his ideas, even when he knows what he wants to say.
Sample Statement: Theo’s weakness in phonological memory may impact his ability to read and spell, particularly when he is working with longer or unfamiliar words. He may struggle to keep the sequence of sounds in mind long enough to blend them into a word while reading. Similarly, when spelling, he may lose track of individual sounds before he can write the letters that represent them.
Jack’s strength in phonological memory suggests that he can hold sounds and words within his working memory long enough to support him in accurate reading and spelling.
Interpreting the Rapid Symbolic Naming Scores on the CTOPP-2
The Rapid Symbolic Naming cluster on the CTOPP-2 measures the ability to retrieve phonological information from long-term memory. Kilpatrick (2015) defines rapid automatized naming as “the skill of quickly accessing presumably rote information” such as numbers, letters, colors, and objects. These tasks require speed and effective processing of both visual and phonological information. On the CTOPP-2, the Rapid Symbolic Naming cluster is a combination of the following tasks:
- Rapid Digit Naming (speed of naming numbers)
- Rapid Letter Naming (speed of naming letters)
Rapid Non-Symbolic Naming is an option for younger students who are not yet able to name letters and numbers. Students between the ages of 4 and 6 complete Rapid Object Naming and Rapid Color Naming tasks rather than the letter and number naming tasks noted above. These non-symbolic naming tasks offer a way to investigate the presence of dyslexia in students at the pre-reading stage.
Students with a weakness in rapid automatized naming (RAN) skills are more likely to have weaknesses in reading accuracy, reading speed, and reading comprehension (Wendling & Mather, 2012). Wendling and Mather also cite studies indicating that kindergarten and first-grade students with RAN deficits are more likely to struggle with reading fluency in the future and that RAN performance is a predictor of a student’s ability to read irregular/exception words but not necessarily of their ability to decode phonetically regular words.
Sample Statements: Alex’s weakness in rapid naming suggests that he may struggle to quickly retrieve familiar verbal information, which puts him at risk for reduced reading fluency. Because fluent reading supports comprehension, especially in longer texts, this may impact Alex’s ability to fully understand what he has read.
Jack’s strong rapid naming skills indicate that he can efficiently retrieve phonological information from his long-term memory. This supports his ability to read connected text with fluency and ease. Because fluent reading allows for better focus on meaning, this strength will also benefit his overall reading comprehension.
Interpreting the Alternative Phonological Awareness Scores on the CTOPP-2
The Alternative Phonological Awareness cluster reflects performance on two supplemental subtests:
- Blending Nonwords (combining sounds to make nonwords)
- Segmenting Nonwords (saying the separate sounds that make up a nonword)
You might notice the similarities between the skills required to complete the Phonological Awareness tasks and the Alternative Phonological Awareness tasks. They both require the student to hear and manipulate the sounds within words, but the Phonological Awareness cluster uses real words while the Alternative Phonological Awareness cluster uses nonwords.
Why use nonwords? The ability to hear and manipulate the sounds in nonwords is an important skill because reading unfamiliar words requires a child to apply known rules to a word that is not already stored in their bank of words that are automatically recognized, either visually or auditorily. Our student, Theo, might perform better when decoding a familiar multisyllabic word like basketball, but he may struggle to decode a less familiar word like disinfect.
Sample Statements: Theo’s difficulty with the Alternative Phonological Awareness tasks suggests that he may struggle to read and spell unfamiliar words and words that are not in his oral vocabulary. Blending sounds in unfamiliar words is a critical skill because being able to decode new words supports reading fluency and comprehension, as well as vocabulary expansion.
Jack’s performance on the Alternative Phonological Awareness tasks suggests that he can hear and manipulate the sounds within unfamiliar words to support accurate reading and spelling.
Does my CTOPP-2 score interpretation indicate a need for support?
The individual CTOPP-2 subtests use scaled scores with an average (mean) of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. Scores between 8 and 12 are considered Average. Scores below 8 may indicate the need for additional support or intervention.
The composite scores (for the clusters of subtests) are based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Scores between 90 and 110 fall within the Average range, while scores below 90 may suggest a need for intervention.
Important: CTOPP-2 results should not be the sole factor in deciding whether a child needs intervention. These scores are most informative when combined with other assessments, classroom performance, and observations from parents and teachers. A comprehensive evaluation ensures the best understanding of a child’s strengths and needs.
What if CTOPP-2 scores are strong, but reading and spelling skills are weak?
Your CTOPP-2 score interpretation should always be considered alongside other assessments, such as cognitive and academic testing. Even when phonological processing skills appear strong, other factors may be impacting reading and spelling. These can include gaps in foundational instruction, language comprehension difficulties, or weaknesses in working memory and processing speed. Such challenges can significantly affect literacy development, making it harder for the child to apply their phonological skills effectively.
It’s important to take a comprehensive approach by combining CTOPP-2 results with broader assessment data and classroom observations to fully understand a child’s strengths and areas of need and to plan effective interventions.
Can we help children improve their phonological awareness skills?
Absolutely. Wendling and Mather (2012) assert that “the relationship between phonological awareness and reading ability is reciprocal and bidirectional: as phonological awareness develops, reading improves and vice versa.”
Kilpatrick (2016) shares that approximately 60-70% of children will naturally develop phoneme awareness without explicit instruction. The students who do not naturally develop it will need direct instruction. The good news is that improving phonological awareness requires a relatively modest investment of time.
Multiple researchers agree that short daily practice sessions (two to ten minutes per day of direct instruction, depending on which source you consult) have a positive impact. The National Reading Panel’s 2000 report Teaching Children to Read summarized the research by stating that effective phonemic awareness training takes anywhere from 5 to 18 total hours.
Although the specifics of how to incorporate phonological awareness into your instruction are beyond the scope of this post, it’s important to mention that phonological awareness skills are best addressed in conjunction with phonics rather than alone. According to the National Reading Panel’s 2000 report, “PA training is more effective when it is taught by having children manipulate letters than when manipulation is limited to speech.” One way to combine phonics and phonemic awareness is by completing word ladders or word chains.
Can we help children improve rapid automatized naming skills?
Yes and no. Although there is no known intervention that can directly improve rapid naming skills, research has found that rapid naming skills can improve indirectly as a result of improvement in other basic reading skills, such as phonological awareness. So while a child’s performance on a RAN task can indicate that they are at risk, it does not inform our instruction beyond telling us that the child is in need of evidence-based instruction in reading. There is no benefit in having students practice rapid naming tasks by naming objects, colors, letters, etc., as quickly as possible.
Sample recommendations based on your CTOPP-2 score interpretation
Whenever we report on a child’s weakness in an evaluation report, it is essential to offer recommendations to support the child in that area of weakness. Here are some sample recommendations you can include.
- Alex requires explicit instruction in phonemic awareness skills. His phonemic awareness instruction should align with his phonics instruction. Teaching Alex to segment sounds before spelling and incorporating the use of word chains/word ladders in his phonics lessons are two ways to help Alex improve his phonemic awareness. Completing word ladders will require Alex to blend, segment, and manipulate individual sounds within words, which are all essential skills for accurate reading and spelling.
- Theo’s weakness in rapid naming skills indicates a need for explicit instruction in phonics, word recognition, and oral reading fluency. A robust structured literacy approach will help Theo develop accuracy and automaticity at the word level, which will support the development of fluent reading of connected text.
Turning the Data into Meaningful Support
Strong CTOPP-2 score interpretation helps create clearer, more actionable evaluation reports, which leads to better instruction and support for our most vulnerable students. Whether you’re writing IEPs, guiding intervention decisions, or explaining results to families, your ability to translate test data into meaningful language matters. I hope the information and the sample phrases provided offer you a starting point for improving your communication and advocating for your students!
