As schools implement response to intervention to identify and serve students with learning difficulties, it is critical for educators to know how to evaluate screening measures. In the present study, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Oral Reading Fluency was used to compare the differential decisions that might occur in screening accuracy when predicting two reading comprehension measures (i.e., Stanford Achievement Test–10th Edition and Gates-McGinitie Reading Test–Fourth Edition) at the end of second grade. The results showed that the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Oral Reading Fluency tended to have higher sensitivity and negative predictive power for Stanford Achievement Test–10th Edition and higher specificity and positive predictive power for Gates-McGinitie Reading Test–Fourth Edition. Furthermore, attempting to achieve a criterion of positive predictive power for a given reading comprehension outcome (Stanford Achievement Test–10th Edition, in this study) appears to render a favorable balance compared to other indices of diagnostic accuracy. These results are discussed in light of trade-offs and a need for considering specific contexts of schools and districts.
American Institutes for Research. (2007). Reading first state APR data. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
AndreassenR.BratenI. (2010). Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 263–283.
3.
BargerJ. (2003). Comparing the DIBELS oral reading fluency indicator and the North Carolina end of grade reading assessment. Asheville, NC: North Carolina Teacher Academy.
4.
CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.
5.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BryantJ. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409.
6.
DavisF. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension of reading. Psychometrika, 9, 185–197.
7.
FoormanB. R.BreierJ. I.FletcherJ. M. (2003). Interventions aimed at improving reading success: An evidence-based approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24, 613–639.
8.
FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.StuebingK. K.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17.
9.
GloverT. A.AlbersC. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117–135.
10.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A.ShinnM.BrattenJ.ShinnM.LaimonL.. (2004). Technical adequacy and decision making utility of DIBELS (Technical Report No. 7). Eugene: University of Oregon.
11.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A.SmithS.LaimonD.DillS. (2001). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (5th ed.). Eugene: University of Oregon.
12.
GoodR. H.WallinJ.SimmonsD. C.Kame’euniE. J.KaminskiR. A. (2002). System-wide percentile ranks for DIBELS benchmark assessment (Technical Report No. 9). Eugene: University of Oregon.
HintzeJ. M.RyanA. L.StoneG. (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.
15.
InvernizziM.MeierJ. D.SwankL.JuelC. (1999). Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening. Charlottesville: University of Virginia.
16.
JenkinsJ. R. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities’ Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/jenkins/index.html
17.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for service delivery in an RTI framework: Candidate measures. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–599.
18.
JenkinsJ. R.JohnsonE.HilemanJ. (2004). When is reading also writing: Sources of individual differences on the new reading performance assessments. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 125–151.
19.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
20.
KeenanJ. M.BetjemannR. S.OlsonR. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.
21.
LittleR. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202.
RoehrigA. D.PetscherY.NettlesS. M.HudsonR. F.TorgesenJ. K. (2008). Not just speed reading: Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting high-stakes third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343–366.
26.
SchatschneiderC.PetscherY.WilliamsK. M. (2008). How to evaluate a screening process: The vocabulary of screening and what educators need to know. In JusticeL.VukelichC. (Eds.), Achieving excellence in preschool literacy instruction (pp. 304–316 ). New York: Guilford Press.
27.
ShapiroE.SolariE.PetscherY. (2008). Use of an assessment of reading comprehension in addition to oral reading fluency on the state high stakes assessment for students in Grades 3 through 5. Journal on Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 316–328.
28.
SilberglittB.HintzeJ. M. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304–325.
29.
StreinerD. L. (2003). Diagnosing tests: Using and misusing diagnostic and screening tests. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 209–219.
30.
TorgesenJ. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64.
31.
TorgesenJ. K.BurgessS. R. (1998). Consistency of reading-related phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal-correlational and instructional studies. In MetsalaJ.EhriL. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning reading (pp. 148–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
WilsonJ. (2005). The relationship of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) oral reading fluency to performance on Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) (Technical Report). Tempe, AZ: Assessment and Evaluation Department, Tempe School District No.3.
