Universal screening is a critical component of school-based prevention systems. Screening data enable educators to target students for supplemental intervention, align resources to meet needs, and identify students who may be at risk for learning disabilities. One major requirement of the screening process is that all students are included to gain an accurate picture of school performance. It is therefore surprising that few evaluations of screening systems have focused on English language measures and their use with English learners. In this article, we aim to evaluate common screening thresholds, 54 across Grades k–3, to determine the extent to which they may differ between English learners and English proficient students. Results indicate that many thresholds are consistent between groups with some exceptions in kindergarten. We discuss implications for screening assessment and decision making but suggest that similar cut scores across groups do not imply similar intervention strategies.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council of Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
2.
BakerD. L.ParkY.BakerS. K.BasarabaD. L.Kame’enuiE. J.Thomas BeckC. (2012). Effects of a paired bilingual reading program and an English-only program on the reading performance of English learners in Grades 1–3. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 737-758.
3.
BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.KatzR.FienH.SeeleyJ. R.Kame’enuiE. J.Thomas BeckC. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low performing high poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37.
4.
BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.SmithJ. M.FienH.Kame’enuiE. J.Thomas BeckC. (2011). The impact of Oregon Reading First on student reading outcomes. Elementary School Journal, 112, 307–331. doi:10.1086/661995
5.
BettsJ.ReschlyA.PickartM.HeistadD.SheranC.MarstonD. (2008). An examination of predictive bias for second grade reading outcomes from measures of early literacy skills in kindergarten with respect to English-language learners and ethnic subgroups. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 553–570.
6.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
CummingsK. D.DeweyB.LatimerR.GoodR. H. (2011). Pathways to word reading and decoding: The roles of automaticity and accuracy. School Psychology Review, 40, 284–295.
8.
CummingsK. D.SmolkowskiK. (2015). Bridging the gap: Selecting students at risk for academic difficulties. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 44, 55–61. doi:10.1177/1534508415590396
9.
de RamírezR. D.ShapiroE. S. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of reading skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 356–369.
10.
Dynamic Measurement Group. (2008). DIBELS 6th Edition technical adequacy information (Technical Report No 6). Eugene, OR: Author. Retrieved from http://dibels.org/pubs.html
11.
FienH.BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.SmithJ. M.Kame’enuiE. J.Thomas BeckC. (2008). Using nonsense word fluency to predict reading proficiency in K-2 for English learners and native English speakers. School Psychology Review, 37, 391–408.
12.
GarcíaE. (2015). Inequality at the starting gate: Cognitive and noncognitive skills gaps between 2010–2011 kindergarten classmates (Report). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
13.
GerberM.JimenezT.LeafstedtJ.VillaruzJ.RichardsC.EnglishJ. (2004). English reading effects of small-group intensive intervention in Spanish for K–1 English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 239–251.
14.
GoodR. H.IIIGrubaJ.KaminskiR. (2001). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 679–700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
15.
GoodR. H.IIIKaminskiR. (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th edition: Administration and scoring guide. Eugene: University of Oregon Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
GoodR. H.IIISimmonsD.Kame’enuiE.KaminskiR. A.WallinJ. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through third grade (Technical Report No. 11). Eugene: University of Oregon, Center on Teaching and Learning.
18.
GoodR. H.IIISimmonsD. C.Kame’enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
19.
GreenlandS.SennS. J.RothmanK. J.CarlinJ. B.PooleC.GoodmanS. N.AltmanD. G. (2016). Statistical tests, p-values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. The American Statistician, 70(2), 1–12.
HonigB.DiamondL.GutlohnL. (2000). Teaching reading sourcebook for kindergarten through eighth grade. Novato, CA: Arena Press.
22.
HospJ. L.HospM. A.DoleJ. K. (2011). Potential bias in predictive validity of universal screening measures across disaggregation subgroups. School Psychology Review, 40, 108–131.
23.
JacowitzK. E.KahnemanD. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161–1166.
24.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments?Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 174–185. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00291.x
25.
KimJ. S.VanderwoodM. L.LeeC. Y. (2016). Predictive validity of curriculum-based measures for English learners at varying English proficiency levels. Educational Assessment, 21(1), 1–18.
26.
KlingnerJ. K.ArtilesA. J.Méndez BarlettaL. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or learning disabilities?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108–128.
27.
MalhotraR.IndrayanA. A. (2010). A simple nomogram for sample size for estimating sensitivity and specificity of medical tests. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 58, 519–522. doi:10.4103/0301-4738.71699
28.
MartinS. D.ShapiroE. S. (2011). Examining the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of DIBELS performance. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 343–356.
29.
MeehlP. E. (1971). High school yearbooks: A reply to Schwarz. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 143–148.
30.
NakamotoJ.LindseyK. A.ManisF. R. (2012). Development of reading skills from K-3 in Spanish-speaking English language learners following three programs of instruction. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 537–567. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9285-4
31.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI—A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.
32.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2004). Reliability and validity estimates: NWEA Achievement Level tests and Measures of Academic Progress. Lake Oswego, OR: Author.
PepeM. S. (2003). The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. New York, NY: Oxford.
35.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615–620.
36.
RoehrigA. D.PetscherY.NettlesS. M.HudsonR. F.TorgesenJ. K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343–366.
37.
RuedaR.WindmuellerM. P. (2006). English language learners, LD, and overrepresentation: A multiple-level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 99–107.
38.
SandbergK. L.ReschlyA. L. (2011). English learners: Challenges in assessment and the promise of Curriculum-Based Measurement. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 144–154. doi:10.1177/0741932510361260
39.
SAS Institute. (2016). SAS/STAT® 14.2 user’s guide. Cary, NC: Author.
40.
ScheffelD.LeflyD.HouserJ. (2012). The predictive utility of DIBELS reading assessment for reading comprehension among third-grade English language learners and English speaking children. Reading Improvement, 49, 75–92.
41.
ShapiroE. S.SolariE.PetscherY. (2008). Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 316–328. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.03.002
42.
SmolkowskiK.BakerS.SeeleyJ. (2008, February). ROC done right, part 1: The statistical evaluation of diagnostic tests. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
43.
SmolkowskiK.CummingsK. D. (2015). Evaluation of diagnostic systems: The selection of students at risk of academic difficulties. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41, 41–54. doi:10.1177/1534508415590386
44.
SmolkowskiK.CummingsK. D. (2016). Evaluation of the DIBELS (Six Edition) diagnostic system for the selection of native and proficient English speakers at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 103–118. doi:10.1177/0734282915589017
45.
SmolkowskiK.CummingsK. D.StrykerL. (2016). An introduction to the statistical evaluation of fluency measures with signal detection theory. In CummingsK. D.PetscherY. (Eds.), The fluency construct: Curriculum-based measurement concepts and applications. New York, NY: Springer.
46.
SwetsJ. A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285–1293.
47.
University of Oregon, Center on Teaching and Learning. (2012). DIBELS Next recommended benchmark goals: Technical supplement (Technical Report 1204). Eugene, OR: Author.
48.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics 2015, Table 204.20. Washington, DC: Author.
49.
VanderwoodM. L.TungC. Y.CheccaC. J. (2014). Predictive validity and accuracy of oral reading fluency for English learners. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 249–258.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
