Previous research on curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM ORF) found high levels of variability around the estimates of students’ fluency; however, little research has studied the issue of variability specifically with well-designed passage sets and a sample of students who scored below benchmark for the purpose of progress monitoring. We examined the variability in oral reading fluency score slopes due to passage and student characteristics using DIBELS Next progress monitoring passages over 4 weeks using a hierarchical linear growth model. Participants included second-, third-, and fourth-grade students identified as at risk for reading difficulties. The results showed an average growth rate of approximately 1 correctly read word per minute per week, with considerably lower variability than shown in previous research with less controlled passage sets and/or higher performing student samples. Implications for practice are discussed, including procedural recommendations for administrators and teachers.
AbelJ. R.BrouwerA. E.ColbournC. J.DinitzJ. H. (1996). Mutually orthogonal Latin squares (MOLS). In ColbournC. J.DinitzJ. H. (Eds.), The CRC handbook of combinatorial designs (pp. 111–142). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
2.
AkaikeH. (1974). A new look at the statistical model of identification. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.
3.
AlbanoA. D.RodriguezM. C. (2012). Statistical equating with measures of oral reading fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 43–59. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.002
4.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
5.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Standard errors associated with progress monitoring outcomes from DIBELS, AIMSweb, and an experimental passage set. School Psychology Review, 38, 266–283.
6.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J.MorenaL. S.CormierD. C.KlingbeilD. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18.
7.
ArdoinS. P.SuldoS. M.WittJ.AldrichS.McDonaldE. (2005). Accuracy of readability estimates’ predictions of CBM performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 1–22.
8.
ArdoinS. P.WilliamsJ. C.ChristT. J.KlubnikC.WellbornC. (2010). Examining readability estimates’ predictions of students’ oral reading rate: Spache, Lexile, and Forcast. School Psychology Review, 39, 277–285.
9.
BakerS. K.GoodR. H. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561–578.
10.
BegenyJ. C.GreeneD. J. (2014). Can readability formulas be used to successfully gauge difficulty of reading materials?Psychology in the Schools, 51, 198–215. doi:10.1002/pits.21740
11.
BettsJ.PickartM.HeistadD. (2009). An investigation of the psychometric evidence of CBM-R passage equivalence: Utility of readability statistics and equating for alternate forms. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 1–17.
12.
BieberG.ChoiH. (2004). The use of curriculum based measurement by school psychologists. Journal of Psychological Practice, 10, 25–36.
13.
BriggsR. N. (2011). Investigating variability in student performance on DIBELS oral reading fluency third grade progress monitoring probes: Possible contributing factors (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest database. (UMI No. 3466319)
14.
BurnsM. K.SenesacB. K. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria for diagnosis of unresponsiveness to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393–406.
15.
ChristT. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimating standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133.
16.
ChristT. J.ArdoinS. P. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Passage equivalence and probe-set development. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 55–75.
17.
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.
18.
CoyneM. D.CookB. G.TherrienW. J. (2016). Recommendations for replication research in special education: A framework of systematic conceptual replications. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 244–253.
19.
CummingsK. D.ParkY.SchaperH. A. B. (2013). Form effects on DIBELS Next oral reading fluency progress-monitoring passages. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 91–104. doi:10.1177/1534508412447010
20.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
21.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
22.
DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
Derr-MinneciT. F. (1990). A behavioral evaluation of curriculum-based assessment for reading: Tester, setting and task demand effects on high vs. average vs. low level readers (Doctoral dissertation). Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139.
27.
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.
28.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement and student awareness of learning. American Education Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
29.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.SteckerP. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Education Research Journal, 28, 617–641.
30.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
31.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal measures of reading comprehension. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–28.
32.
GoffredaC. T.DiPernaJ. C. (2010). An empirical review of psychometric evidence for theDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. School Psychology Review, 39, 463–483.
33.
GoodR. H.IIIKaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
34.
GoodR. H.IIIKaminskiR. A. (2011). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Next. Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
GoodR. H.IIIKaminskiR. A.DeweyE. N.WallinJ.Powell-SmithK.LatimerR. J. (2011). DIBELS Next technical manual. Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
37.
HarwellM.LeBeauB. (2010). Student eligibility for a free lunch as an SES measure in education research. Educational Researcher, 39, 120–131. doi:10.3102/0013189X1036
38.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204–217.
39.
HoltJ. K. (2008). Modeling growth using multilevel and alternative approaches. In O’ConnellA. A.McCoachD. B. (Eds.), Multilevel modeling of educational data (pp. 111–160). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
40.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
41.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
42.
KaminskiR. A.GoodR. H.III. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.
KauffmanJ. M. (1996). Research to practice issues. Behavioral Disorders, 22(1), 55–60.
45.
KimY.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.FoormanB. (2010). Does growth rate in oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement?Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 652–667.
46.
KovaleskiJ. F.VanDerHeydenA. M.ShapiroE. S. (2013). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
47.
MarstonD.FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1986). Measuring pupil progress: A comparison of standardized achievement tests and curriculum-related measures. Diagnostique, 11, 77–90.
48.
MarstonD.MagnussonD. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52, 266–276.
49.
McCoachD. B.BlackA. C. (2008). Evaluation of model fit and adequacy. In O’ConnellA. A.McCoachD. B. (Eds.), Multilevel modeling of educational data (pp. 245–272). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
50.
McCoachD. B.RamboK. E.WelshM. (2013). Assessing the growth of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 56–67. doi:10.1177/0016986212463873
51.
NelsonS. R.LefflerJ. C.HansenB. A. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving the use of research evidence. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from www.nwrel.org/researchuse/report.pdf
52.
PoncyB. C.SkinnerC. H.AxtellP. K. (2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute using curriculum based measurement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 226–238.
53.
Powell-SmithK. A.GoodR. H.AtkinsT. (2010). DIBELS Next oral reading fluency readability study (Technical Report No. 7). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
54.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
55.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CongdonR. (2011). HLM7 for Windows [Computer software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
56.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ. E.BoltS. (2013). Assessment in special and inclusive education (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
57.
SchwarzG. (1978). Estimating the dimensions of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.
58.
ShapiroE. S. (2013). Commentary on progress monitoring with CBM-R and decision making: Problems found and looking for solutions. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 59–66.
59.
ShinnM. M.ShinnM. R. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. New York, NY: Pearson.
60.
ShinnM. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
61.
ShinnM. R. (2007). Identifying students at risk, monitoring performance, and determining eligibility within response to intervention: Research on educational need and benefit from academic intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 601–617.
62.
TindalG. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement: A brief history of nearly everything from the 1970s to the present. ISRN Education, 2013, Article 958530. doi:10.1155/2013/958530
63.
TindalG.NeseJ. F. T.StevensJ. J.AlonsoJ. (2016). Growth on oral reading fluency measures as a function of special education and measurement sufficiency. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 28–40.
64.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TicháR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
65.
WileyH. I.DenoS. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English language learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207–214.
