Although several measures exist for frequently monitoring early reading progress, little research has specifically investigated their technical properties when administered on a frequent basis with kindergarten students. In this study, kindergarten students (N = 137) of whom the majority was receiving supplemental intervention for reading skills were monitored using Letter Sound Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Word Reading Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, Highly Decodable Passages, and Spelling on a biweekly basis between February and May. Acceptable reliability was observed for all measures. Analyses of slope validity using latent growth models, latent change score models, and slope differences according to level of year-end achievement indicated that the relation of slope to overall reading skills varied across the measures. A suggested approach to kindergarten students’ reading progress is offered that includes Letter Sound Fluency and a measure of word-reading skills to provide a comprehensive picture of student growth toward important year-end reading outcomes.
Al OtaibaS.FolsomJ. S.SchatschneiderC.WanzekJ.GreulichL.MeadowsJ.ConnorC. M. (2011). Predicting first-grade reading performance from kindergarten response to Tier 1 instruction. Exceptional Children, 77, 453–470.
3.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Estimates of standard error when monitoring progress using alternate passage sets. School Psychology Review, 38, 266–283.
4.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BurnsM. K.SenesacB. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393–406.
6.
CaffreyE. (2006). A comparison of dynamic assessment and progress monitoring in the prediction of reading achievement for students in kindergarten and first grade. Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.
7.
CaseL. P.SpeeceD. L.MolloyD. E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557–582.
8.
CattsH. W.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.BridgesM. S.MendozaK. (2009). Floor effects associated with universal screening and their impact on the early identification of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 163–176.
9.
CavanaughC. L.KimA.WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2004). Kindergarten reading interventions for at-risk students: Twenty years of research. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 9–21.
10.
ChafouleasS. M.MartensB. K. (2002). Accuracy-based phonological awareness tasks: Are they reliable, efficient, and sensitive to growth?School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 128–147.
11.
ChristT. J.SilberglittB. (2007). Estimates of the standard error of measurement for curriculum-based measures of oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 36, 130–146.
12.
ChristT. J.ZopluogluC.MonaghenB. D.Van NormanE. R. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Multi-study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset quality on progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 19–57.
13.
ClemensN. H.Hilt-PanahonA.ShapiroE. S.YoonM. (2012). Tracing student responsiveness to intervention with early literacy skills indicators: Do they reflect growth toward text reading outcomes?Reading Psychology, 33, 47–77.
14.
ClemensN. H.ShapiroE. S.ThoemmesF. (2011). Improving the efficacy of first grade reading screening: An investigation of word identification fluency with other early literacy indicators. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 231–244.
15.
ClemensN. H.ShapiroE. S.WuJ. Y.TaylorA. B.CaskieG. L. (2014). Monitoring early first-grade reading progress: A comparison of two measures. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 254–270.
16.
ClemensN. H.WileyC. P.SoohooM.Allee-SmithP. (2014, February). Monitoring kindergarten reading progress: Choosing measures and making data-based decisions. Paper presented at the 2014 Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC.
17.
CoyneM. D.LittleM.RawlinsonD. A.SimmonsD.KwokO. M.KimM.CivetelliC. (2013). Replicating the impact of a supplemental beginning reading intervention: The role of instructional context. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 1–23.
18.
CummingsK. D.DeweyE. N.LatimerR. J.GoodR. H. (2011). Pathways to word reading and decoding: The roles of automaticity and accuracy. School Psychology Review, 40, 284–295.
19.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
20.
DenoS. L. (2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 3–12.
21.
DentonC. A.NimonK.MathesP. G.SwansonE. A.KethleyC.KurzT. B.ShihM. (2010). Effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools. Exceptional Children, 76, 394–416.
22.
DuncanT. E.DuncanS. C. (2004). An introduction to latent growth curve modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35, 333–363.
23.
Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. (2011). DIBELS Next assessment manual. Retrieved from http://www.dibels.org
24.
EhriL. C. (1998). Research on learning to read and spell: A personal-historical perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 97–114.
25.
EhriL. C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 19–36.
26.
EhriL. C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. In StainthorpR.TomlinsonP. (Eds.), Learning and teaching reading (pp. 7–28). Leicester, UK: British Psychology Society.
27.
EhriL. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5–21.
28.
ElliotJ.LeeS. W.TollefsonN. (2001). A reliability and validity study of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills—Modified. School Psychology Review, 30, 33–49.
29.
EngelmannS.OsbornJ. (1999). Language for learning. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
30.
FienH.ParkY.BakerS. K.Mercier-SmithJ. L.StoolmillerM.Kame’enuiE. J. (2010). An examination of the relation of nonsense word fluency initial status and gains to reading outcomes for beginning readers. School Psychology Review, 39, 631–653.
31.
FrancisD. J.SantiK. L.BarrC.FletcherJ. M.VariscoA.FoormanB. R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students’ oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315–342.
32.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
33.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
34.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28, 659–671.
35.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2004). Determining adequate yearly progress from kindergarten through Grade 6 with curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29, 25–37.
36.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–21.
37.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–28.
38.
FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203.
39.
GeiserC. (2012). Data analysis with Mplus. New York, NY: Guilford.
40.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades. A practice guide. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
41.
GoffredaC. T.DiPernaJ. C. (2010). An empirical review of psychometric evidence for the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. School Psychology Review, 39, 463–483.
42.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A.ShinnM.BrattenJ.ShinnM.LaimonD.FlindtN. (2004). Technical adequacy of DIBELS: Results of the Early Childhood Research Institute on measuring growth and development (Technical Report No. 7). Eugene: University of Oregon.
43.
HarnB. A.StoolmillerM.ChardD. J. (2008). Measuring the dimensions of alphabetic principle on the reading development of first graders: The role of automaticity and unitization. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 143–157.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
47.
HulmeC.Bowyer-CraneC.CarrollJ. M.DuffF. J.SnowlingM. J. (2012). The causal role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read combining intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science, 23, 572–577.
48.
JenkinsJ.TerjesonK. J. (2011). Monitoring reading growth: Goal setting, measurement frequency, and methods of evaluation. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 28–35.
49.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–600.
50.
KaminskiR. A.GoodR. H.III. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–230.
51.
KimY. S.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.FoormanB. (2010). Does growth rate in oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement?Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 652–667.
52.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
53.
LittleT. D.BovairdJ. A.SlegersD. W. (2006). Methods for the analysis of change. In MroczekD.LittleT. D. (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 181–211). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54.
Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. (2009). Texas treasures (reading curriculum). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
55.
MakarB. W. (1995). Primary phonics. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
56.
MastersonJ. J.ApelK. (2010). The spelling sensitivity score: Noting developmental changes in spelling knowledge. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 35–45.
57.
MathesP.TorgesenJ.HerronJ. (2011). Istation’s indicators of progress: Early reading. Dallas, TX: Istation. Retrieved from www.istation.com
58.
MathesP. G.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J.SchatschneiderC. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.
59.
McArdleJ. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.
60.
McArdleJ. J.GrimmK. J. (2010). Five steps in latent curve and latent change score modeling with longitudinal data. In MontfortK. V.OudJ. H. L.SatorraA. (Eds.), Longitudinal research with latent variables (pp. 245–273). Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
61.
McMasterK. L.DuX.YeoS.DenoS. L.ParkerD.EllisT. (2011). Curriculum-based measures of beginning writing: Technical features of the slope. Exceptional Children, 77, 185–206.
62.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.
63.
MellardD. F.McKnightM.JordanJ. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 217–225.
64.
MellardD. F.McKnightM.WoodsK. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 186–195.
65.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
66.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards: Kindergarten reading. Washington, DC: Author.
67.
NCS Pearson. (2010). AIMSweb progress monitoring and RTI system. Retrieved from www.aimsweb.com
68.
O’ConnorR. E.FulmerD.HartyK. R.BellK. M. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–455.
69.
O’ConnorR. E.HartyK. R.FulmerD. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532–538.
70.
OslundE. L.Hagan-BurkeS.TaylorA. B.SimmonsD. C.SimmonsL.KwokO. M.CoyneM. D. (2012). Predicting kindergarteners’ response to early reading intervention: An examination of progress-monitoring measures. Reading Psychology, 33, 78–103.
71.
OuelletteG.SénéchalM. (2008). Pathways to literacy: A study of invented spelling and its role in learning to read. Child Development, 79, 899–913.
72.
Pearson/Scott Foresman. (2004). Scott Foresman sidewalks: Early reading intervention. Glenview, IL: Pearson.
73.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469.
74.
RitcheyK. D. (2006). Learning to write: Progress-monitoring tools for beginning and at-risk writers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 22–26.
75.
RitcheyK. D. (2008). Assessing letter sound knowledge: A comparison of letter sound fluency and nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 74, 487–506.
76.
RitcheyK. D.CokerD. L.Jr.McCrawS. B. (2010). A comparison of metrics for scoring beginning spelling. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 78–88.
77.
RitcheyK. D.SpeeceD. L. (2006). From letter names to word reading: The nascent role of sublexical fluency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 301–327.
78.
SalviaJ. S.YsseldykeJ. E.BoltS. (2010). Assessment in special and inclusive education (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage.
79.
ScammacaN.VaughnS.RobertsG.EdmondsM.WanzekJ.TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Extensive reading interventions in grades K–3: From research to practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
80.
ScarboroughH. S.NeumanS.DickinsonD. (2009). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In Fletcher-CampellF.SolerJ.ReidG. (Eds.), Approaching difficulties in literacy development: Assessment, pedagogy and programmes (pp. 23–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
81.
SchatschneiderC.WagnerR. K.CrawfordE. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 308–315.
82.
ShapiroE. S.ClemensN. H. (2009). A conceptual model for evaluating systems effects of RTI. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 3–16.
83.
ShareD. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
84.
ShareD. L. (2008). Orthographic learning, phonological recoding, and self-teaching. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 31–82.
85.
ShinnM. R. (2006). AIMSweb training workbook: Highly decodable passages for kindergarten and Grade 1. Unpublished manuscript.
86.
ShinnM. R. (2008). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-solving model. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 243–262). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
87.
ShinnM. R.GoodR. H.SteinS. (1989). Summarizing trend in student achievement: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 18, 356–370.
88.
SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D.Hagan-BurkeS.KwokO. M.SimmonsL.JohnsonC.CrevecoeurY. C. (2011). Effects of supplemental reading interventions in authentic contexts: A comparison of kindergarteners’ response. Exceptional Children, 77, 207–228.
89.
SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D.KwokO. M.McDonaghS.HarnB. A.Kame’enuiE. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention a longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158–173.
90.
SpeeceD. L.CaseL. P.MolloyD. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 147–156.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
93.
TolarT. D.BarthA. E.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.VaughnS. (2014). Predicting reading outcomes with progress monitoring slopes among middle grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 46–57.
94.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.RoseE.LindamondP.ConwayT.GarvanC. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.
95.
TreimanR. (1998). Why spelling? The benefits of incorporating spelling into beginning reading instruction. In MetsalaJ. L.EhriL. C. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 289–313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
96.
University of Oregon. (2006). EasyCBM word reading fluency (assessment probes). Retrieved from https://www.easycbm.com/
97.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.PeytonJ. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 508–528.
98.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.PrattA.ChenR.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
99.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SmallD.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 interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157–169.
100.
WanzekJ.RobertsG.Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS.WoodruffA. L.MurrayC. S. (2010). Differences in the relationship of oral reading fluency and high-stakes measures of reading comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 67–77.
101.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.
102.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TichaR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
103.
WoodcockR. W. (2011). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education.
104.
ZumetaR. O.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S. (2011). Using word identification fluency to monitor first-grade reading development. Exceptional Children, 78, 201–220.
