Phonological processingCTOPP-2Ages 4;0–24;11

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition

CTOPP-2 is the standard assessment of phonological awareness, phonological memory, and rapid naming, used heavily in dyslexia identification and reading-disability evaluation.

At a glance

Publisher
PRO-ED
Edition year
2013
Age range
4;0–24;11
Domain
Phonological processing
Administration time
40 minutes

Standard scores for this battery use a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 unless noted otherwise in the publisher manual. Always cross-reference against the current edition of the manual before clinical use — publishers update norms and scoring tables on regular cycles.

What CTOPP-2 is

The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition is the dominant assessment of the three phonological-processing constructs that underlie reading: phonological awareness, phonological memory, and rapid symbolic naming. CTOPP-2 is published by PRO-ED and is widely used by school psychologists, reading specialists, and SLPs in evaluations for specific learning disability, dyslexia, and developmental language disorder with co-occurring literacy difficulty. The battery yields three composite scores aligned to the three constructs plus individual subtest scaled scores, all on a mean-100/SD-15 scale. CTOPP-2 is the test most often paired with a comprehensive oral-language battery when the referral concern is reading rather than spoken language.

Subtests and structure

  • Elision
  • Blending Words
  • Sound Matching
  • Phoneme Isolation
  • Phoneme Reversal
  • Memory for Digits
  • Nonword Repetition
  • Rapid Digit Naming
  • Rapid Letter Naming
  • Rapid Object Naming
  • Rapid Color Naming

What CTOPP-2 measures

CTOPP-2 measures three phonological-processing constructs that have decades of evidence as predictors of reading acquisition. Phonological awareness probes the child's ability to manipulate sounds within words at the syllable, onset-rime, and phoneme levels. Phonological memory probes the temporary storage of phonological material with digit-span and non-word repetition tasks. Rapid naming probes the speed and accuracy of accessing phonological representations of familiar items. The non-word repetition subtest is particularly clinically valuable because it has been shown across multiple studies to be one of the most sensitive single tasks for identifying developmental language disorder, sometimes more sensitive than the standardised language batteries themselves.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

  • Clearest single measure of phonological processing constructs available in current SLP practice
  • Non-word Repetition is one of the most sensitive single tasks for DLD identification in school-age children
  • Strong predictive validity for early reading acquisition
  • Compact administration time relative to comprehensive language batteries

Limitations

  • Does not measure spoken language directly — must be paired with a language battery for full diagnostic picture
  • Rapid naming subtests are highly sensitive to attention and executive function and can confound interpretation
  • Cultural and linguistic variation affects the Non-word Repetition subtest in bilingual children
  • Standard scores in the average range do not rule out reading disability when other indicators are positive

How language sample analysis complements CTOPP-2

CTOPP-2 measures the phonological infrastructure that supports both reading and language processing; a language sample measures the language behaviours that depend on that infrastructure. The Non-word Repetition subtest is the bridge — when the score is depressed, the language sample almost always shows reduced sentence length, grammatical errors in finite verb morphology, and lexical narrowness. Pair CTOPP-2 with a 50-utterance LSA when the referral concern includes any of: reading difficulty, word-finding problems, or developmental language disorder. The combination identifies the case where phonological processing is the upstream constraint and the language sample shows the downstream functional consequences in spontaneous speech.

A depressed Non-word Repetition score is the single most reliable signal that you should pull a language sample today, not next month. The downstream grammar gap is almost always there waiting to be measured.
Non-word repetition is the alarm bell

Free tools that pair with CTOPP-2

MLU Calculator

Paste a language sample and get Mean Length of Utterance in morphemes and words, total utterances, total morphemes, and the matching Brown's stage. Implements Brown (1973) morpheme counting rules and runs entirely in your browser.

Open tool

Phonological Process Identifier

Free interactive phonological process identifier for speech-language pathologists. Enter a target word and the child production and the calculator flags every matching process from the twelve most common English patterns (cluster reduction, fronting, stopping, gliding, vocalisation, weak syllable deletion, final consonant deletion, deaffrication, denasalisation, prevocalic voicing, devoicing, initial consonant deletion), each tagged with its Bowen (2015) age of suppression so you can see whether the production is age-expected or persistent. Mobile-friendly, client-side, no sign-up.

Open tool

Reading Grade Level Analyzer

Free interactive reading grade level analyzer for speech-language pathologists, school psychologists, audiologists, and rehabilitation clinicians. Paste a clinical report, parent handout, IEP summary, or informed-consent document and get Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG, Gunning Fog, Flesch Reading Ease, average sentence length, and a consensus grade classified against the AMA / NIH / CDC parent-readability target of grade 6 or below. Built for SLP report writing, IEP documentation, school and medical discharge planning, informed-consent review, and graduate clinical-writing training. Mobile-friendly, client-side, no sign-up.

Open tool

References

  1. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2013). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition. PRO-ED.
  2. Conti-Ramsden, G., Botting, N., & Faragher, B. (2001). Psycholinguistic markers for specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(6), 741–748.
  3. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Weismer, S. E. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? JSLHR, 48(6), 1378–1396.