The current study examines the predictive relationship of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills oral reading fluency (DORF) scores to high-stakes test performance. Data were collected from 423 students. The participants were divided into three groups based on the level of progress that was made from the fall to the spring benchmark period. A descriptive, nonexperimental design was followed by a quasiexperimental examination of the relations between progress measured by DORF and results of high-stakes testing. Results indicate that progress in oral reading is meaningful in terms of fluency and high-stakes outcomes. In addition, progress measured using oral reading fluency increases the chances of students with special education needs meeting standards on high-stakes tests. Implications of the findings are presented.
Baker, S.K., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Fein, H., Seeley, J.R., Kame’enui, E.J., et al. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high-poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18-37.
2.
Christ, T.J., & Silberglitt, B. (2007). Estimates of the standard error of measurement for curriculum-based measures of oral reading fluency . School Psychology Review, 36, 130-146.
3.
Coyne, M.D., Kameénui, E.J., Simmons, D.C., & Harn, B.A. ( 2004). Beginning reading intervention as inoculation or insulin: First-grade reading performance of strong responders to kindergarten intervention . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 90-104.
4.
Cronbach, L.J., & Furby, L. ( 1970). How we should measure "change": Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74(1), 68-80.
5.
Deno, S.L. ( 1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
6.
Deno, S.L. ( 2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
7.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D., Shinn, M., & Tindal, G. ( 1983). Oral reading fluency: A simple datum for scaling reading disability. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities , 2(4), 53-59.
8.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. ( 1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
9.
Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Stuebing, K.K., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1994). Measurement of change: Assessing behavior over time and within a developmental context. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 29-58). Baltimore: Brooks.
10.
Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Stuebing, K.K., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 3-17.
11.
Fuchs, L.S. ( 2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 18, 172-186.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. ( 1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 449-460.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment . School Psychology Review, 28(4), 659-671.
14.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 2004a). Curriculum-based measurement: Describing competence, enhancing outcomes, evaluating treatment effects, and identifying treatment nonresponders. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology , 4(1), 112-130.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 2004b). Determining adequate yearly progress from kindergarten through grade 6 with curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(4), 13-22.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. ( 1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22(1), 27-48.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Hamlett, C.L. ( 2003). The potential diagnostic analysis within curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3-4), 13-22.
18.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. ( 2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33-45.
19.
Good, R.H., Deno, S.L., & Fuchs, L.S. ( 1995, February). Modeling academic growth for students with and without disabilities. Paper presented at the third annual Pacific Coast Research Conference, Laguna Beach, CA.
20.
Good, R.H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2002). 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. 699-720). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Graves, A.W., Plasencia-Peinado, J., Deno, S.L., & Johnson, J.R. ( 2005). Formatively evaluating the reading progress of first-grade English learners in multiple-language classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 215-225.
23.
Harn, B.A., Stoolmiller, M., & Chard, D.J. ( 2008). Measuring the dimension of alphabetic principle on the reading development of first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 143-157.
24.
Hart, T.M., Berninger, V.M., & Abbott, R.D. ( 1997). Comparison of teaching single or multiple orthographic-phonological connections for word recognition and spelling: Implications for instructional consultation. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 279-297.
25.
Healy, K., Vanderwood, M., & Edelston, D. ( 2005). Early literacy interventions for English language learners: Support for an RTI model. California School Psychologist, 10, 55-63.
26.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2005a). Guide to the 2005 Illinois state assessment. Retrieved March 13, 2007, from http://www.isbe.net/assessment/pdfs/isat_interpretive_guide_05.pdf
27.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2005b). Introduction to the Illinois learning standards. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ILS/pdf/ils_introduction.pdf
28.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2006). Report on the ISAT/SAT-10 Bridge Study and development of the 2006 ISAT Reporting Scales. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/assessment/pdfs/Bridge_Study.pdf
29.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-466, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
30.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H., III. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward a proactive/prevention model of decision-making for early literacy skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(4), 326-336.
31.
Kranzler, J.H., Brownell, M.T., & Miller, M.D. ( 1998). The construct validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading: An empirical test of a plausible rival hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 36(4), 399-415.
32.
Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Prater, K., & Cirino, P.T. ( 2006). The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 39, 390-398.
33.
McMaster, K.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. ( 2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children , 71, 445-463.
34.
Mehta, C.R., & Patel, N.R. ( 1983). A network algorithm for performing Fisher’s exact test in r*c contingency tables. Journal of American Statistical Association, 78(382), 427-434.
35.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
36.
Powell-Smith, K.A., & Bradley-Klug, K.L. (2001). Another look at the "C" in CBM: Does it really matter if curriculum-based measurement reading probes are curriculum-based? Psychology in the Schools, 38, 299-312.
37.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
38.
Shin, J., Deno, S.L., & Espin, C.A. ( 2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education , 34, 140-153.
39.
Shinn, M.R. ( 1995). Best practices in curriculum-based measurement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 547-567). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
40.
Shinn, M.R., & Shinn, M.M. ( 2000). Writing and evaluating IEP goals and making appropriate revisions to ensure participation and progress in general curriculum. In C. F. Telzrow & M. Tankersley (Eds.), IDEA amendments of 1997: Practice guidelines for school-based teams (pp. 351-382). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists.
41.
Speece, D.L., & Ritchey, K.D. ( 2005). A longitudinal study of the development of oral reading fluency in young children at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 387-399.
42.
Stage, S.A., Abbott, R.D., Jenkins, J.R., & Berninger, V.W. (2001). Predicting response to early intervention using verbal IQ, reading related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy: Failure to validate discrepancy method. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(1), 24-33.
43.
Stecker, P., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools , 42, 795-819.
Vadasy, P.F., Sanders, E.A., & Peyton, J.A. ( 2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 508-528.
46.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., & Jimerson, S.R. (2005). Using response-to-intervention to enhance outcomes for students. California School Psychologist , 10, 21-32.
47.
Vellutino, F.R., & Scanlon, D.M. ( 2002). The interactive strategies approach to reading intervention . Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 573-635.
48.
Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. ( 2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 126-142.
