The purpose of this study was to determine the relation between word recognition errors made at a letter–sound pattern level on a word list and on a curriculum-based measurement oral reading fluency measure (CBM-ORF) for typical and struggling elementary readers. The participants were second, third, and fourth grade typical and struggling readers (n = 69) who were systematically sampled from a pool of 265 students participating in a larger study. Participants read a nonsense word list composed of 599 words across 89 letter–sound patterns and three CBM-ORF passages. Pearson product–moment (Pearson r) correlation coefficients indicate students’ recognition of letter–sound patterns on word list and CBM-ORF differs between patterns as well as between type of reader. Results are discussed in terms of usefulness for CBM-ORF to assess letter–sound pattern recognition skills of typical and struggling elementary readers.
BaderL. A. (2005). Bader Reading and Language Inventory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
2.
BeckI. L.JuelC. (1995). The role of decoding in learning to read. American Educator, 19(2), 8, 21–25, 39–42.
3.
CaldwellJ. S. (2002). Reading assessment: A primer for teachers and tutors. New York, NY: Guilford.
4.
CapizziA. M.FuchsL. S. (2005). Effects of curriculum based measurement with and without diagnostic feedback on teacher planning. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 159–174.
5.
CattsH. W.HoganT. P.FeyM. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 151–164.
6.
ClayM. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Auckland, New Zealand; Heinemann.
7.
CohenL.HollidayM. (1982). Statistics for social scientists. London, UK: Harper and Row.
8.
CunninghamA.StanovichK. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945.
9.
de AyalaR. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford.
10.
DentonC. A.CiancioD. J.FlethcherJ. M. (2006). Validity, reliability, and utility of the observation survey of early literacy achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 8–34.
11.
DrewC. J.HardmanM. L.HospJ. L. (2008). Designing and conducting research in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
EhriL. C.McCormickS. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implication for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14, 135–163.
13.
EhriL. C.RobbinsC. (1992). Beginners need some decoding skill to read words by analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 12–26.
14.
FawsonP. C.ReutzelD. R.SmithJ. A.LudlowB. C.SudweeksR. (2006). Examining the reliability of running records: Attaining generalizable results. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 113–126.
15.
FlynnL. J. (2009). Word recognition error analysis: A comparison of struggling readers’ word recognition on an isolated word list and oral reading passages (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
16.
FryE. (2004). Phonics: A large phoneme-grapheme frequency count revised. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 85–98.
17.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–21.
18.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamletC. L. (2007). Using curriculum-based measurement to inform reading instruction. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 553–567.
19.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.HamletC. L. (2003). The potential for diagnostic analysis within curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4), 13–22.
20.
GallM. D.GallJ. P.BorgW. R. (2007). Educational research (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
21.
GoodR. H.GrubaJ.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Best practices using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In GrimesT.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 679–700). Washington, DC; National Association of School Psychologists.
22.
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.
23.
GoodmanK. S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 9–30.
24.
GoughP. B.JuelC. (1991). The first stages of word recognition. In RiebenL.PerfettiC. A. (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp 47–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
GreenS. B.SalkindN. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
26.
HintzeJ. M.ShapiroE. S.ConteK. L.BasileI. M. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Criterion validity and technical features of CBM survey level assessment. School Psychology Review, 26, 535–553.
27.
HoaglinD. C.MostellerF.TukeyJ. W. (1985). Exploring data tables, trends, and shapes. New York, NY: John Wiley.
28.
HospJ. L. (2008). Best practices in aligning academic assessment with instruction. In GrimesT.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1–14). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
29.
HospM. K.FuchsL. 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.
30.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford.
31.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2008). Multilevel academic skills inventory–decoding. Manuscript in preparation.
32.
JenkinsJ. R.FuchsL. S.van den BroekP.EspinC. A.DenoS. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729.
33.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–477.
34.
JuelC.Roper-SchneiderD. (1985). The influence of basal readers on first grade reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 134–152.
35.
KelleyB.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2008). Curriculum-based evaluation and math: An overview. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(4), 250–256.
36.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
37.
ManisF. R. (1985). Acquisition of word identification skills in normal and disabled readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 78–90.
38.
MarstonD. B. (1982). The technical adequacy of direct, repeated measurement of academic skills in low achieving elementary students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, AAT8301966.
39.
Martin-ChangS. L.LevyB. A.O’NeilS. (2007). Word acquisition, retention, and transfer: Findings from contextual and isolated word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 114–122.
40.
MostellerF.TukeyJ. (1977). Data analysis and regression: A second course in statistics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
41.
MunroB. H. (2005). Statistical methods for health care research (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
42.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel (NIH 00–4754). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
43.
NoellG. H.FreelandJ. T.WittJ. C.GansleK. A. (2001). Using brief assessments to identify effective interventions for individual students. Journal of School Psychology, 39(4), 335–355.
RoeB. D. (2002). Burns/Roe Informal Reading Inventory (6th ed.). Scarborough, Canada: Nelson Education.
46.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ. E.BoltS. E. (2007). Assessment in special and inclusive education (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
47.
ShinnM. R. (1981). A comparison of psychometric and functional differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, AAT8275871.
48.
ShinnM. R.GoodR. H. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459–480.
49.
SpectorJ. E. (2005). How reliable are informal reading inventories?Psychology in the Schools, 42, 593–603.
50.
SpeeceD. L.RitcheyK. 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.
51.
StanovichK. E. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 418–452). New York: Longman.
52.
StreckerS. K.RoserN. L.MartinezM. G. (1998). Toward understanding oral reading fluency. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 47, 295–310.
53.
TherrienW. J.KubinaR. M. (2007). Importance of context in repeated reading. Reading Improvement, 44, 179–188.
54.
TindalG.GermannG.DenoS. L. (1983). Descriptive research on the pine county norms: A compilation of findings (Research Report No. 132). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute on Learning Disabilities.
55.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TichaR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
56.
WilsonV. L.RupleyW. H. (1993). Structural components of single word recognition: Activation of orthographic, meaning, and phonological processors. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 33–45.
57.
WoodcockR. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised. Boston, MA: Pearson.
