The Convergent Validity of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and the Test of Word Reading Efficiency for the Beginning of First Grade
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2006
The Convergent Validity of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and the Test of Word Reading Efficiency for the Beginning of First Grade
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are a series of fluency-based measures designed to assess early literacy skills. These fluency-based measures function as predictors of future reading performance and target critical component skills required to learn to read. This study was conducted to establish the convergent validity of DIBELS with a standardized measure of phonological decoding ability and sight word reading fluency, the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997). The TOWRE has been shown to have sufficient reliability and validity as a measure of word reading ability (Torgesen et al., 1997). DIBELS and TOWRE subtests were administered to 202 first-grade students. Correlations were examined between scores on the DIBELS subtests of Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Word Use Fluency with the TOWRE subtests of Phonetic Decoding Efficacy and Sight Words. The DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency measure was found to have the strongest association with both the TOWRE Phonetic Decoding Efficacy and Sight Word subtests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
2.
Ball, E.W., & Blachman, B.A. (1991). Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling?Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.
3.
Bowey, J.A. (1995). Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 476-487.
4.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Bamsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2 and 3-year follow-up and a new preschool trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 488-503.
5.
Calfee, R.C., Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, C. (1973). Acoustic-phonetic skills and reading—kindergarten through twelfth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 293-298.
6.
Coyne, M.D., Kame'enui, E., & Simmons, D. (2004). Improving beginning reading instruction and intervention for students with LD: Reconciling "all" with "each". Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 231-239.
7.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
8.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Willows, D., Schuster, B., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.
9.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Stahl, S., & Willows, D. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393-447.
10.
Elliot, J., Lee, S.W., & Tollefson, N. (2001). A reliability and validity study of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills-Modified. School Psychology Review, 30, 33-49.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
13.
Good, R.H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2001). Best practices in using dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
14.
Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (1996a). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward a proactive/prevention model for decision-making for early literacy skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 326-336.
15.
Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (1996b). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review , 25, 215-227.
16.
Good, R.H., Kaminski, R., Laimon, D., & Johnson, D. (2000). Advances in assessment for the prevention of early academic problems. The Oregon Monograph, Eugene: University of Oregon.
17.
Good, R., 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.
18.
Hintze, J.M., Ryan, A.L., & Stoner, G. (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, 541-556.
19.
Johnson, P., & Allington, R. (1991). Remediation. In R. Barr, P Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol II, pp. 984-1012). New York: Longman.
20.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
21.
Kame'enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (Eds.). (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
22.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215-227.
23.
Karlen, B.K., & Gardner, E. (1985). Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
24.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Peterson, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263-284.
25.
McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation .
26.
McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 475-490.
27.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction . Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
28.
Nurss, J.R., & McGauvran, M.E. (1986). Metropolitan Readiness Tests. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
29.
Shinn, M. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: The Guilford Press.
30.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
31.
Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E., & Feeman, D.J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 278-303.
32.
Torgesen, J.K., & Bryant, B.R. (1994). Test of Phonological Awareness. Burlingame, CA. Psychological and Educational Publications, Inc.
33.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1997). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
34.
Wagner, R.K., & Torgesen, J.K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin,101, 192-212.
35.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing . Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
36.
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211-239.
