The purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent criterion-related (or convergent) validity of first grade measures from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002). The DIBELS subtests of Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, Retell Fluency, and Word Use Fluency were administered to 213 first graders in the middle of the school year, along with the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997), a norm-referenced test with documented technical adequacy. Results from correlation, regression, and factor analyses indicated that the DIBELS subtests of Oral Reading Fluency and of Nonsense Word Fluency had the strongest associations with the TOWRE 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.
Bowey, J.A. (1995). Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 476—487.
3.
Coyne, M.D., Kame'enui, E.J., & Simmons, D.C. (2001). Prevention and intervention in beginning reading: Two complex systems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 62—72.
4.
Coyne, M.D., Kame'enui, E.J., & Simmons, D.C. (2004). Improving beginning reading instruction and intervention for students with LD: Reconciling “all” with “each.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 231—239.
5.
Coyne, M.D., Kame'enui, E.J., Simmons, D.C., & Harn, B. (2004). Beginning reading intervention as inoculation or insulin: First-grade reading performance of strong responders to kindergarten intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 90—105.
6.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36—45.
7.
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.
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.
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.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7—21.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 103—111.
12.
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., & Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61—88). New York: Guilford.
15.
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.
16.
Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (1996b). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review , 25, 215—227.
17.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
18.
Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Simmons, D., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2001). Using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. OSSCBulletin, 44, 1—24.
19.
Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Smith, S., Simmons, D., Kame'enui, E., & Wallin, J. (2003). Reviewing outcomes: Using DIBELS to evaluate kindergarten curricula and interventions. In S. Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for the observation of teaching and learning . Baltimore: Brookes.
20.
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.
21.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., Kame'enui, E., Kaminski, R.A., & Wallin, J. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through third grade (Tech. Rep. No. 11). Eugene: University of Oregon.
22.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., & Smith, S.B. (1998). Effective academic interventions in the United States: Evaluating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills. School Psychology Review, 27, 45—56.
23.
Good, R.H., Wallin, J., Simmons, D.C., Kame'enui, E.J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2002). System-wide percentile ranks for DIBELS benchmark assessment (Tech. Rep. 9). Eugene: University of Oregon.
24.
Grossen, B. (1997). Thirty years of research: What we know about how children learn to read. A synthesis of research on reading from theNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
25.
Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M., & Crowder, C. (2006). An examination of the convergent validity of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and the Test of Word Reading Efficiency for the fall of first grade. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 1—15.
26.
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.
27.
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.
28.
Kame'enui, E.J., Simmons, D.C., & Coyne, M.D. (2000). Schools as host environments: Toward a schoolwide reading improvement model. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 33—51.
29.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215—227.
30.
Karlen, B.K., & Gardner, E. (1985). Stanford diagnostic reading test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
31.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18—78). New York: Guilford Press.
32.
McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy scales of children's abilities. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
33.
McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 475—490.
34.
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—Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (Available: http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/)
35.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2004). Using our current understanding of dyslexia to support early identification and intervention. Journal ofChild Neurology, 19, 759—765.
38.
Shinn, M. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
39.
Simmons, D.C., Kuykendall, K., King, K., Cornachione, C., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2000). Implementation of a schoolwide reading improvement model: “No one ever told us it would be this hard! ” Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 92—100.
40.
Speece, D.L., Mills, C., Ritchey, K.D., & Hillman, E. (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 223—233.
41.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360—407.
42.
Thompson, B. (1995). Stepwise regression and stepwise discriminant function analysis need not apply here: A guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 525—534.
43.
Thompson, B. (2001). Significance, effect sizes, stepwise methods, and other issues: Strong arguments move the field. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 80—93.
44.
Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Deno, S.L. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Research Rep. No. 109). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
45.
Torgesen, J.K., & Bryant, B.R. (1994). Test of phonological awareness. Burlingame, CA: Psychological and Educational Publications.
46.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 27, 276—286.
47.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1997). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
48.
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.
49.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing . Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
