The current study examined the predictive validity of oral reading fluency measures across first, second, and third grades for two reading achievement measures at the end of third grade. Oral reading fluency measures were administered to students from first grade to third. The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills and the Stanford Achievement Test were also administered in the third grade. Oral reading fluency was a reliable predictor of student success on both measures. Data suggest that greater student growth in oral reading fluency is needed through the grade levels to ensure high probabilities of success on the nationally normed measure, as compared to what is needed for the state-normed measure. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
Baker, S.K., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Hank, F., 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.
Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Stieber, S. ( 2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7, 303-323.
3.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. ( 2003). TerraNova Second Edition: California Achievement Tests technical report. Monterey, CA: Author.
4.
Deno, S.L. ( 1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 18, 19-32.
5.
Deno, S.L. ( 2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
6.
Florida Statute, Section 1008.25 (2002).
7.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J.R. ( 2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
8.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. ( 1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures . Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20-29.
9.
Good, R. H., III, & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene: University of Oregon, Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
10.
Good, R.H., III, Kaminski, R.A., Shinn, M., Bratten, J., Shinn, M., Laimon, L., et al. (2001). Technical adequacy and decision making utility of DIBELS (Technical Report No. 7). Eugene: University of Oregon.
11.
Good, R.H., III, 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.
12.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2003). Stanford Achievement Test (10th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment .
13.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G.A. ( 2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636-644.
14.
Hintze, J.M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372-386.
15.
Hoover, H., Dunbar, S., & Frisbie, D. ( 2005). Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
16.
Hosp, M.K., & Fuchs, L.S. ( 2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade?School Psychology Review, 34, 9-26.
17.
Jenkins, J.R., Fuchs, L.S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C.L., & Deno, S.L. ( 2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719-729.
18.
Klein, J.R., & Jimerson, S.R. (2005). Examining ethnic, gender, language, and socioeconomic bias in oral reading fluency scores among Caucasian and Hispanic students. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 23-50.
19.
Lee, J. ( 2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into the national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
20.
McGlinchey, M.T., & Hixson, M.D. ( 2004). Using curriculum based measurement to predict performance on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review , 33, 193-203.
21.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles : Author.
22.
Newman, D.A. ( 2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 328-362.
23.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002).
24.
Riedel, B.W. ( 2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary in urban first-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 546-567.
25.
Roehrig, A.D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S.M., Hudson, R.F., & Torgesen, J.K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343-366.
26.
Schilling, S.G., Carlisle, J.F., Scott, S.E., & Zeng, J. ( 2007). Are fluency measures accurate predictors of reading achievement ? The Elementary School Journal, 107, 429-448.
27.
Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H., III, Knutson, N., Tilly, W.D., III, & Collins, V.L. ( 1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459-479.
28.
Silberglitt, B., Burns, M.K., Madyun, N.H., & Lail, K.E. ( 2006). Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels . Psychology in the Schools, 43, 527-536.
29.
Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J. ( 2005). Formative assessment using CMB-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304-325.
30.
Singer, J.D., & Willett, J.B. ( 2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. ( 1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children . Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
32.
Spear-Swerling, L. ( 2006). Children’s reading comprehension and oral reading fluency in easy text. Reading and Writing, 19, 199-220.
33.
Stage, S.A., & Jacobsen, M.D. (2001). Predicting student success on state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency . School Psychology Review, 30, 407-419.
34.
Texas Education Agency. (2004). Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Austin, TX: Author.
35.
Texas Education Agency. (2006). Testing and accountability. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index.aspx?id=3426&menu_id=660&menu_id2=795
36.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Woodruff, A.L., Murray, C.S., Wanzek, J., Scammaca, N., et al. (2008). Effects of professional development on improving at-risk students’ performance in reading. In C. R. Greenwood, T. R. Kratochwill , & M. Clements (Eds.), Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools (pp. 115-142). New York: Guilford Press.
37.
Wiley, H.I., & Deno, S.L. ( 2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207-214.
38.
Wood, D.E. ( 2006). Modeling the relationship between oral reading fluency and performance on a statewide reading test. Educational Assessment , 11, 85-104.
39.
Zimmerman, B.I., & Dibenedetto, M.K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 206-216.
