What is the TOPL-2? The Test of Pragmatic Language explained

The TOPL-2, or Test of Pragmatic Language, Second Edition, is a standardized, individually administered test of "pragmatic language," the ability to use language appropriately in a social situation. It is published by PRO-ED, written by Diana Phelps-Terasaki and Trisha Phelps-Gunn, and covers ages 6 years 0 months through 18 years 11 months. A speech-language pathologist or similarly qualified examiner shows the student color picture prompts, reads a short scenario aloud, and scores what the student says in response. The TOPL-2 is not an IQ test. It measures how well a young person handles the social side of communication, while an intelligence test estimates general reasoning ability, and clinicians typically use the two as companions in a full evaluation. This article explains what pragmatic language is, how the TOPL-2 is given and scored, what the research says about it, and how it differs from vocabulary, grammar, and IQ tests.

Most language tests ask whether a child knows words and can put them into grammatical sentences. Pragmatic language is a different layer. The publisher describes it as language in social context, the layer that lets a listener work out why something was said as well as what was said. A child with strong pragmatics greets a teacher differently from a friend, asks for things politely, stays on topic, reads facial expressions, and knows that "Can you pass the salt?" is a request rather than a question about ability.

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) describes "social communication disorder" as persistent difficulty using verbal and nonverbal language for social purposes. The difficulties ASHA lists include communicating in ways that fit the context, adjusting to the needs of the listener, following the rules of conversation and storytelling, understanding nonliteral or ambiguous language, and grasping what is left unstated. ASHA also notes that behaviors such as eye contact and body language are shaped by cultural and individual factors, with a wide range of acceptable norms across families and cultures, a caveat that applies to any pragmatics test.

Pragmatic weaknesses can occur in children whose vocabulary and grammar are age-appropriate, which is why a dedicated test exists. A general language battery such as the CELF-5 or the CASL-2 includes some pragmatic content, but the TOPL-2 devotes the whole session to it.

According to PRO-ED, the TOPL-2 offers "an even more in-depth and comprehensive analysis of social communication in context" than the original edition. Western Psychological Services (WPS), which also distributes the test, lists six core subcomponents that the items sample:

• Physical setting: whether the student adjusts what they say to where they are.

• Audience: whether the student speaks differently to different listeners, such as a younger child versus an adult.

• Topic: whether the student stays on subject and chooses relevant content.

• Purpose (speech acts): whether the student can make requests, express feelings, apologize, and persuade.

• Visual-gestural cues: whether the student reads and uses facial expression, gesture, and body language.

• Abstraction: whether the student handles nonliteral language such as idioms, sarcasm, and inference.

The format is scenario-based. PRO-ED describes the picture book as an easel-back set of 37 color pictures, updated in this edition to reflect the environment of children and adolescents more accurately. The examiner reads a verbal prompt that sets up a social problem, the student looks at the picture and says what a character should say or do, and the examiner records the response. Separate record booklets are used for ages 6 to 7 and ages 8 to 18. PRO-ED lists the testing time as 45 to 60 minutes and the administration as individual.

PRO-ED sells the TOPL-2 at its Test Level B, which requires professional training in assessment, and WPS lists it at its Level C. The publisher states that the test was designed for speech-language pathologists but that school psychologists, counselors, clinical psychologists, and special education specialists took part in its development and norming and now use it "as part of a full individual evaluation and program planning." Any diagnosis belongs to a qualified clinician who has also gathered observations, interviews, and other test data.

Because the student answers in their own words, scoring relies on judgment guided by the manual. PRO-ED reports that the second edition added a comprehensive scoring guideline indicating which pragmatic components each response measures, with multiple examples of correct and incorrect responses, plus a "Clinical Interpretive Framework" showing which components of the model are relevant to each item.

The publisher and WPS report that the TOPL-2 yields raw scores, percentiles, standard scores, and age equivalents. The single overall standard score is called the "Pragmatic Language Usage Index." Standard scores on most norm-referenced language tests use a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, the same scale used for IQ, and the examiner's manual defines the exact metric along with the confidence intervals that should accompany any reported score. A "percentile rank" tells the examiner what share of same-age students in the norm sample scored at or below that level.

Two features distinguish the second edition. A "Pragmatic Evaluation" component, in PRO-ED's description, focuses on the student's ability to monitor and appraise how effective their own response would be in resolving the social problem, and WPS lists a qualitative analysis of responses alongside the index score. PRO-ED adds that the manual includes sample IEP goals and progress-monitoring guidance for students with a range of learning, language, behavioral, and attention difficulties.

The original Test of Pragmatic Language appeared in 1992. A 1997 review by Collette Leyva, archived in the ERIC database, describes it as a 44-item test normed on 1,016 examinees from 24 U.S. states and one Canadian province, with a sample described as representative for sex, residence, race and ethnicity, region, and age. Leyva reported that validity findings were acceptable but limited by small samples.

PRO-ED states that the 2007 second edition "addresses reviewers' concerns with the previous edition" and lists extended norms that carry the assessment through age 18 years 11 months. The publisher does not post the size or composition of the second edition's normative sample on its product page; those details are in the 136-page examiner's manual, which evaluators should consult before interpreting a score.

Independent research has mostly used the first edition. In a 2005 study in Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, Elizabeth Young and colleagues gave the TOPL to 34 participants, children with autism spectrum disorders matched to controls on verbal IQ and language fundamentals, and found that the autism group scored significantly lower. In a 2010 study in the American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Joanne Volden and Linda Phillips compared 16 children with autism who had age-appropriate structural language to 16 typically developing children matched on age, nonverbal IQ, and structural language. The TOPL identified 9 of the 16 children with autism as pragmatically impaired, a parent questionnaire identified 13, and neither instrument flagged any control child.

A 2021 review by Geralyn Timler and Rachel Covey in Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups examined the accuracy of commercially available pragmatic and social communication tests. Across domain-specific tests, optimal cut scores ranged from 85 to 92 and reported sensitivity and specificity were generally at or above 80 percent, but likelihood ratios and their confidence intervals showed limited confidence in those levels, and none of the tests met every standard for test accuracy. Angela Morgan, reviewing the TOPL-2 for the University of New South Wales Moving Ahead outcome-measure library, added that a test developed in 2007 may become dated as social contexts change, with young people now interacting through social media. ASHA likewise notes a lack of ecological validity in standardized social communication assessments and recommends combining formal tests with informal observation.

A vocabulary test asks whether a child knows what words mean. A grammar test asks whether a child can build and understand sentences. The TOPL-2 assumes those tools are present and asks whether the child can deploy them for a social purpose, such as comforting a friend or correcting a teacher without being rude. Volden and Phillips's design makes the distinction concrete: every child in their autism group had age-appropriate structural language, and more than half were still flagged on the TOPL.

The difference from an IQ test is larger. The mainstream definition of intelligence, set out in a 1997 editorial in the journal Intelligence signed by 52 researchers and edited by Linda Gottfredson, describes a general mental capability involving reasoning, planning, problem solving, abstract thinking, and learning from experience. As Dr. Russell T. Warne explains in his 2020 book In the Know, an IQ test samples reasoning across many kinds of content so that the shared factor underneath them, "general intelligence" or g, can be estimated. Pragmatic language draws on some of that reasoning, especially in the abstraction items, but it also depends on social learning, cultural exposure, attention, and emotional regulation. That is why the autism studies above could match groups on IQ and still find pragmatic differences, and why our article on IQ and autism stresses that cognitive ability and social communication must be assessed separately.

In practice the two kinds of tests are companions. A cognitive measure establishes reasoning ability, a language battery establishes vocabulary and grammar, and a pragmatics test such as the TOPL-2 shows whether social use of language is keeping pace. A low Pragmatic Language Usage Index alongside an average IQ points to a specific need.

Adults curious about their own reasoning ability have a different tool available. The Reasoning and Intelligence Online Test, developed by RIOT IQ with psychometrician Dr. Russell T. Warne for adults 18 and older, uses 15 subtests across six cognitive indices (verbal reasoning, fluid reasoning, spatial ability, working memory, processing speed, and reaction time), takes about 52 minutes, and reports scores on the mean-100, standard-deviation-15 scale. It measures reasoning rather than pragmatic language, and it does not replace an individually administered diagnostic evaluation. Adults who want a norm-referenced estimate of their cognitive ability can take the RIOT IQ test. Parents concerned about a child's social use of language should ask a speech-language pathologist whether a pragmatic language evaluation such as the TOPL-2 is appropriate.

TOPL-2 stands for Test of Pragmatic Language, Second Edition. It is published by PRO-ED, authored by Diana Phelps-Terasaki and Trisha Phelps-Gunn, and carries a 2007 copyright.

PRO-ED lists the age range as 6 years 0 months through 18 years 11 months, with separate examiner record booklets for ages 6 to 7 and ages 8 to 18.

The publisher lists a testing time of 45 to 60 minutes. The test is individually administered by a trained examiner.

No. It measures pragmatic language, the social use of language, and produces a Pragmatic Language Usage Index. An IQ test estimates general reasoning ability. Research on the test has matched children on IQ and still found pragmatic differences, which shows the two constructs are distinct.

PRO-ED sells it at Test Level B and states it was designed for speech-language pathologists, with school psychologists, counselors, clinical psychologists, and special education specialists also using it within a full individual evaluation.

The test yields raw scores, percentile ranks, standard scores, and age equivalents. The overall composite is the Pragmatic Language Usage Index, and the examiner also records a qualitative analysis of the student's responses.

1. PRO-ED. (n.d.). TOPL-2: Test of Pragmatic Language–Second Edition, Complete Kit. proedinc.com

2. Western Psychological Services. (n.d.). (TOPL-2) Test of Pragmatic Language, Second Edition. wpspublish.com

3. Texas Education Agency, Texas Statewide Leadership for Autism Training. (n.d.). Test of Pragmatic Language, Second Edition. txautism.net

4. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Social communication disorder (Practice Portal). asha.org

5. Leyva, C. (1997). Test of Pragmatic Language: A review and critique (ED408312). ERIC. eric.ed.gov

6. Young, E. C., Diehl, J. J., Morris, D., Hyman, S. L., & Bennetto, L. (2005). The use of two language tests to identify pragmatic language problems in children with autism spectrum disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(1), 62-72. doi.org

7. Volden, J., & Phillips, L. (2010). Measuring pragmatic language in speakers with autism spectrum disorders: Comparing the Children's Communication Checklist-2 and the Test of Pragmatic Language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(3), 204-212. doi.org

8. Timler, G. R., & Covey, R. (2021). Pragmatic language and social communication tests for students aged 8-18 years: A review of test accuracy. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 6(1), 18-38. doi.org

9. Morgan, A. (n.d.). Outcome measure: Test of Pragmatic Language Second Edition (TOPL-2). Moving Ahead Centre for Research Excellence, University of New South Wales. movingahead.psy.unsw.edu.au

10. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13-23. doi.org

11. Warne, R. T. (2020). In the know: Debunking 35 myths about human intelligence. Cambridge University Press. doi.org

Hero photo: Three girls chatting on a wall. Photo by Ketitalevska, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0 (cropped).