Evaluation of the DIBELS (Sixth Edition) Diagnostic System for the Selection of Native and Proficient English Speakers at Risk of Reading Difficulties

Abstract

This comprehensive evaluation of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Sixth Edition (DIBELS6) set of measures gives a practical illustration of signal detection methods, the methods used to determine the value of screening and diagnostic systems, and offers an updated set of cut scores (decision thresholds). Data were drawn from a sample of 13,507 English-proficient students in kindergarten through Grade 3, with more than 4,500 students per grade level. Results indicate that most DIBELS6 measures accurately predict comprehensive test performance and that previously published decision thresholds for DIBELS6 are generally appropriate with some key exceptions. For example, the performance of phoneme segmentation fluency did not always meet expectations. The revised DIBELS6 decision thresholds can satisfactorily identify students who may require additional supports.

Keywords

evaluation of diagnostic systems signal detection theory Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

S. K.

Smolkowski

Katz

Fien

Seeley

J. R.

Kame’enui

E. J.

Thomas Beck

(2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low performing high poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18-37.

Baker

S. K.

Smolkowski

Smith

J. M.

Fien

Kame’enui

E. J.

Thomas Beck

(2011). The impact of Oregon Reading First on student reading outcomes. Elementary School Journal, 112, 307-331.

Cummings

K. D.

Dewey

Latimer

Good

R. H.

(2011). Pathways to word reading and decoding: The roles of automaticity and accuracy. School Psychology Review, 40, 284-295.

Cummings

K. D.

Park

Bauer Schaper

H. A.

(2012). Form effects on DIBELS Next oral reading fluency progress-monitoring passages. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 91-104.

Dynamic Measurement Group. (2008). DIBELS 6th edition technical adequacy information (Technical Report No. 6). Eugene, OR: Author. Retrieved from http://dibels.org/pubs.html

Fien

Baker

S. K.

Smolkowski

Smith

J. M.

Kame’enui

E. J.

Thomas Beck

(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.

Gersten

Compton

Connor

C. M.

Dimino

Santoro

Linan-Thompson

Tilly

W. D.

(2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades: A practice guide (NCEE No. 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Gigerenzer

Goldstein

(1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650-669.

Good

R. H.

III Kaminski

R. A.

(Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Available from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/

10.

Good

R. H.

III Simmons

D. C.

Kame’enui

E. 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.

11.

Good

R. H.

III Simmons

Kame’enui

Kaminski

R. A.

Wallin

(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.

12.

Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2002). Stanford Achievement Test (SAT10). San Antonio, TX: Author.

13.

Harper

Reeves

(1999). Reporting of precision of estimates for diagnostic accuracy: A review. British Medical Journal, 318, 1322-1323.

14.

Hintze

J. M.

Ryan

A. L.

Stoner

(2003). Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills and the comprehensive test of phonological processing. School Psychology Review, 32(4), 541-556.

15.

Jacowitz

K. E.

Kahneman

(1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.

16.

Juel

(1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

17.

Kaminski

R. A.

Good

R. H.

(1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215-227.

18.

Kaminski

R. A.

Good

R. H.

(1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem solving model: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. In Shinn

M. R.

(Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 113-142). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.

Marston

Muyskens

Lau

Canter

(2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187-200. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00074

20.

Martin

S. D.

Shapiro

E. S.

(2011). Examining the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of DIBELS performance. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 343-356.

21.

McGrath

R. E.

(2008). Predictor combination in binary decision-making situations. Psychological Assessment, 20, 195-205. doi:10.1037/a0013175

22.

Nelson

J. M.

(2008). Beyond correlational analysis of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): A classification validity study. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 542-552.

23.

Oregon Department of Education. (2008). OAKS—Test administration manual: 2008-2009 school year. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/testing/manuals/2009/0809tam.pdf

24.

Pepe

M. S.

(2003). The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

25.

SAS Institute. (2009). Base SAS^® 9.2 procedures guide: Statistical procedures (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://support.sas.com/documentation/index.html

26.

Slavin

R. E.

(1989). PET and the pendulum: Faddism in education and how to stop it. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 752-758.

27.

Smolkowski

Cummings

(2015). Evaluation of diagnostic systems: The selection of students at risk for reading difficulties. Assessment for Effective Intervention. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1534508415590386

28.

Sprick

Jones

S. V.

Dunn

Gunn

(2008). Read well kindergarten: Critical foundations in beginning reading (2nd ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

29.

Stecker

P. M.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795-819. doi:10.1002/pits.20113

30.

Swets

J. A.

(1973). The relative operating characteristic in psychology. Science, 182, 990-1000.

31.

Swets

J. A.

(1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285-1293.

32.

Swets

J. A.

Dawes

R. M.

Monahan

(2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1-26.