This article is designed to help teachers interpret reading assessment data from DIBELS beyond individual subtests to better support their students’ needs. While it is important to understand the individual subtest measures, it is more vital to understand how each fits into the larger picture of reading development. The underlying construct of each DIBELS subtest is unpacked, followed by a demonstration of how teachers can (a) interpret results and (b) design high-quality interventions around the reading constructs, rather than teaching to individual subtests. Two classroom examples are presented that were designed to illustrate realigned interpretation of assessment results.
AmendumS. J.AmendumE.AlmondP. (2013). One dy I kud not red a book bot naw I can: One English learner’s progress. Reading Teacher, 67, 59–69. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1183
2.
AndersonR. C.WilsonP. T.FieldingL. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285–303.
3.
ApplegateK. (2012). The one and only Ivan. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
4.
ArcherA. L.GleasonM. M.VachonV. L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 89–101. doi:10.2307/1593592
5.
ArthaudT. J.GorackeT. (2006). Implementing a structured story web and outline strategy to assist struggling readers. Reading Teacher, 59, 581–586. doi:10.1598/rt.59.6.8
6.
BearD. R.InvernizziM.TempletonS.JohnsonF. (2011). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
7.
CunninghamP. M. (2009). Polysyllabic words and struggling adolescent readers: The morphemic link to meaning, reading, and spelling “big” words. In WoodK. D.BlantonW. E. (Eds.), Literacy instruction for adolescents (pp. 307–327). New York, NY: Guilford.
8.
CunninghamP. M.CunninghamJ. W. (1992). Making words: Enhancing the invented spelling-decoding connection. Reading Teacher, 46, 106–115. doi:10.2307/20201026
9.
CurtisC. P. (2000). The Watsons go to Birmingham—1963. New York, NY: Laurel Leaf Books.
DuffyG. G. (2014). Explaining reading: A resource for explicit teaching of the Common Core Standards (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
12.
DymockS.NicholsonT. (2010). “High 5!” Strategies to enhance comprehension of expository text. Reading Teacher, 64, 166–178. doi:10.1598/rt.64.3.2
13.
GaskinsI. W. (2011). Interventions to develop decoding deficiencies. In AllingtonR.McGill-FranzenA. (Eds.), Handbook of reading disabilities research (pp. 289–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. 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. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0503_4
17.
HallS. (2006). I’ve DIBEL’d, now what?Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
18.
HughesL. (1932). The dream keeper and other poems. New York, NY: Knopf.
KeeneE. O.ZimmermannS. (2013). Years later, comprehension strategies still at work. Reading Teacher, 66, 601–606. doi:10.1002/trtr.1167
21.
KeeseyS.KonradM.JosephL. M. (2015). Word boxes improve phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondences, and spelling skills of at-risk kindergartners. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 167–180.
22.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.BoardmanA. (2015). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning difficulties (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
23.
Knight-McKennaM. (2008). Syllable types: A strategy for reading multisyllabic words. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 18–24.
24.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
25.
ManyakP. C. (2008). Phonemes in use: Multiple activities for a critical process. Reading Teacher, 61, 659–662. doi:10.2307/20204646
26.
ManzoK. K. (2005). National clout of DIBELS test draws scrutiny: Critics say reading tool’s scope fails to justify its wide use. Education Week, 25(5), 1.
27.
McCarthyP. A. (2008). Using sound boxes systematically to develop phonemic awareness. Reading Teacher, 62, 346–349. doi:10.2307/27699698
28.
McKennaM. C.StahlK. A. (2009). Assessment for reading instruction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
29.
MorrisD.TrathenW.McGeeJ.GillT.WardD.FryeE. M. (2013, December). The predictive assessment of early reading skill: DIBELS gets a challenger. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Dallas, TX.
30.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature of reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
O’ConnorR. E. (2007). Teaching word recognition: Strategies for students with learning difficulties. New York, NY: Guilford.
32.
PadakN.RasinskiT. V. (2008). The games children play. Reading Teacher, 62, 363–365.
33.
PikulskiJ. J.ChardD. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519. doi:10.1598/rt.58.6.2
34.
PressleyM.Wharton-McDonaldR.AllingtonR.BlockC. C.MorrowL.TraceyD.. . . WooD. (2001). A study of effective first-grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 51, 35–58.
35.
RasinskiT. V. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot!Reading Teacher, 65, 516–522. doi:10.1002/trtr.01077
SamuelsS. J. (2007). The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by reading fluency?Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 563–566.
38.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP.(Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children: A report of the National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39.
StanovichK. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590–604.
40.
Vernon-FeagansL.KainzK.HedrickA.GinsbergM.AmendumS. J. (2013). Live webcam coaching to help early elementary classroom teachers provide effective literacy instruction for struggling readers: The Targeted Reading Intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1175–1187. doi:10.1037/a0032143
41.
WalpoleS.McKennaM. C.PhilippakosZ. (2011). Differentiated reading instruction in grades 4 and 5: Strategies and resources. New York, NY: Guilford.
42.
Wharton-McDonaldR.PressleyM.HampstonJ. M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 99(2), 101–128.
43.
WhiteT. G.SowellJ.YanagiharaA. (1989). Teaching elementary students to use word-part clues. Reading Teacher, 42, 302–308. doi:10.2307/20200115
44.
WigfieldA.GuthrieJ. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.
45.
WilliamsJ. P.PolliniS.Nubla-KungA. M.SnyderA. E.GarciaA.OrdynansJ. G.AtkinsJ. G. (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 1–17. doi:10.1037/a0033215
46.
ZuckerT. A.InvernizziM. (2008). My eSorts and digital extensions of word study. Reading Teacher, 61, 654–658. doi:10.2307/20204645
