This article compares 2 fluency-based assessments of letter sound knowledge: letter sound fluency and nonsense word fluency (NWF). Ninety-one children were administered both assessments 5 times during the second half of kindergarten. The assessments were comparable for concurrent and predictive criterion-related validity at single points. The ability to accurately identify which students were at risk for reading difficulty using a single assessment point was examined using established and modified benchmarks. Additionally, 2 scores were analyzed for NWF: total number of sounds and number of sounds blended together in words. Students' responses to NWF varied within and across assessment points. This variability should be considered when NWF is used to make progress monitoring decisions about beginning readers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AIMSWeb (2006). Progress monitoring and improvement system. Retrieved January 29, 2006, from http://www.aimsweb.com.
3.
BishopA. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading achievement: A comparison of fall and winter kindergarten screenings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 189–200.
4.
CattsH. W. (1991). Early identification of dyslexia: Evidence from a follow-up study of speech-language impaired children. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 163–177.
5.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.ZhangX.TomblinJ. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38–50.
6.
ChallJ. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
DalyE. J.WrightJ. A.KellyS. Q.MeadowsB. K. (1997). Measures of early academic skills: Reliability and validity with a first grade sample. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 268–280.
8.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
9.
DIBELS. (2006). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. Retrieved January 29, 2006, from http://dibels.uoregon.edu.
10.
EhriL. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In MetsalaJ. L.EhriL. C. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
ElliottJ.LeeS. W.TollefsonN. (2001). A reliability and validity study of the Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills—Modified. School Psychology Review, 30, 33–49.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2004). Determining adequate yearly progress from kindergarten through grade 6 with curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(4), 25–37.
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–23.
15.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. C.Kame'enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and utility of a continuum of fluency based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
JenkinsJ. R.O'ConnorR. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 99–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
KaminskiR. A.GoodR. H. (1998). Towards a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.
19.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Towards a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
O'ConnorR. E.JenkinsJ. R. (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies in Reading, 3, 159–197.
22.
RackJ.SnowlingM.OlsonR. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 29–53.
23.
Reading First. (2002). (Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001: Student Reading Skills Improvement Grant). Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg4.html.
24.
RitcheyK. D.SpeeceD. L. (2006). From letter names to word reading: The nascent role of sublexical fluency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 301–327.
25.
ScanlonD. M.VellutinoF. R. (1996). Prerequisite skills, early instruction, and success in first-grade reading: Selected results from a longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 2, 54–63.
26.
ScarboroughH. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some promising predictors. In ShapiroB. K.AccardoP. J.CaputeA. J. (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press.
27.
SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.CarlsonC. D.FoormanB. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–282.
28.
ShareD. L.StanovichK. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in reading acquisition: Accommodating individual differences into a model of reading acquisition. Issues in Education, 1, 1–57.
29.
SpeeceD. L.CaseL. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
SpeeceD. L.MillsC.RitcheyK. D.HillmanE. (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education, 36, 223–233.
32.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew's effect in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in reading differences. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–467.
33.
TorgesenJ. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, 22, 32–39.
34.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
35.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SmallS.FanueleD. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157–169.
36.
WoodcockR. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—Revised/Normative Update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
