In this article, we present results of a survey designed to understand teachers’ (n = 77) and students’ (n = 875) perceptions of purported negative consequences of using one-minute oral reading fluency (ORF) measures such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) ORF assessment and the aimsweb Reading CBM (R-CBM). Specifically, we investigated whether teachers and students in two districts that use these ORF measures support that use of ORF measures relates to teaching to ORF tests, increased pressure and anxiety for teachers and students, and misuse of ORF measures and results. We provide detailed results across teachers and students, and implications for practice.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
ArchambaultI.EcclesE.VidaM. (2010). Ability self-concepts and subjective value in literacy: Joint trajectories from grades 1-12. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 804–816.
3.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J.MorenaL. S.CormierD. C.KlingbeilD. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding Curriculum-Based Measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18.
4.
BakerE. L. (2013). The chimera of validity. Teachers College Record, 115(9), 1-26.
5.
BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.KatzR.FienH.SeeleyJ. R.Kame’enuiE. J.BeckC. T. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing high poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37.
6.
BalanosD.ColeR.WardW.HasbrouckJ.TindalG.SchwanenflugelP. (2013). Human and automated assessment of oral reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1142–1151.
7.
BanduraA. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
8.
BegenyJ.KrouseH.BrownK.MannC. (2011). Teacher judgments of students’ reading abilities across a continuum of rating methods and achievement measures. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 23–38.
9.
BenjaminR.SchwanenflugelP.MeisingerE.GroffC.KuhnM.SteinerL. (2013). A spectrographically grounded scale for evaluating reading expressiveness. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 105–133.
10.
BonifacciP.CandriaL.ContentoS. (2008). Reading and writing: What is the relationship with anxiety and depression?Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 609–625.
11.
BuckJ.TorgesenJ. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. Tallassee: Florida Center for Reading Research.
12.
CampbellD. (1976). Assessing the impact of planned social change (Paper No. 8). Hanover, NH: The Public Affairs Center, Dartmouth College.
13.
ChardD. J.VaughnS.TylerB. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–407.
14.
CummingsK.BiancarosaG.SchaperA.ReedD. (2014). Examiner error in curriculum- based measurement of oral reading. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 361–375.
15.
DaaneM. C.CampbellJ. R.GriggW. S.GoodmanM. J.OranjeA. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading (NCES 2006-469). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
16.
DenoS. (1985). Curriculum based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
17.
DuesburyL.Braun-MoneganJ.WerblowJ.BraunD. (2012). Practical issues in field based testing of oral reading fluency at upper elementary grades. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38, 121–126.
Dynamic Measurement Group. (2012). Progress monitoring with DIBELS Next. Eugene: University of Oregon Center for Learning and Teaching.
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. D.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
21.
GoffredaC.DiPernaJ. (2010). An empirical review of psychometric evidence for the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 39, 463–483.
22.
GoodR.KaminskiR. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
23.
GoodmanK. (2006). A critical review of DIBELS. In GoodmanK. S. (Ed.), The truth about DIBELS: What it is, what it does (pp. 1-39). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
24.
GrimmL. G.YarnoldP. R. (2000). Introduction to multivariate statistical. In GrimmL.YarnoldP. (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 3–21). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
25.
GuthrieJ. T.DavisM. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85.
26.
GuthrieJ. T.McRaeA.KlaudaS. L. (2007). Contributions of concept oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42, 237–250.
27.
HarrisT. L.HodgesR. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
28.
HospJ.SucheyN. (2014). Reading assessment: Reading fluency, reading fluently, and comprehension. School Psychology Review, 43, 59–68.
29.
IveyS.GuthrieJ. (2008). Struggling readers: Boosting motivation in low achievers. In GuthrieJ. (Ed.), Engaging adolescents in reading (pp. 115–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
JohnstonP.WinogradP. (1985). Passive failure in reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 279–301.
32.
JonesG.JonesB.HardinB.ChapmanL.YarbroughT.DavisM. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199–203.
33.
KingstonN.NashB. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.
34.
KuhnM.SchwanenflugelP. J.MeisingerE. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and the definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 230–251.
35.
MeisingerE. B.BradleyB. A.SchwanenflugelP.KuhnM. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of word callers and related literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 54–68.
MessickS. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 12, 241–256.
38.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
39.
MillerJ.SchwanenflugelP. (2008). A longitudinal study of the development of reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency in early elementary school children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 336–354.
40.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. 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 (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NCS Pearson, Inc. (2014). AIMSweb Reading. New York, NY: Pearson.
43.
Newman-ThomasC. N.SmithC. A.ZhaoX.KethleyC. I.RiethH. J.SwansonE. A.HeoY. (2012). The efficacy of technology to teach oral reading fluency assessment to preservice teachers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27, 15–32.
44.
PoncyB. C.SkinnerC. H.AxtellP. K. (2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute using curriculum- based measurement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 326–338.
45.
RasinskiT. (2010). The fluent reader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Scholastic.
46.
RichardsonV.PlacierP. (2001). Teacher change. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
47.
RoehrigA.PetscherY.NettlesS.HudsonR.TorgesenJ. (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.
48.
SamuelsS. J. (2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In SamuelsS. J.FarstrupA. E. (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 24–46). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
49.
SamuelsS. J. (2007). The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we really mean by reading fluency?Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 563–566.
ShapiroE. S. (2008). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skill improvement. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed., pp. 141–158). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
52.
ShephardL. A. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 5–8.
53.
TierneyR. J.ThomeC. (2006). Is DIBELS leading us down the wrong path? In GoodmanK. S. (Ed.), The truth about DIBELS: What it is, what it does (pp. 50–59). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
ValenciaS.SmithA.ReeceA.LiM.WixsonK.NewmanH. (2010). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 270–291.
56.
VesayJ. P.GischlarK. L. (2013). The big 5: Teacher knowledge and skill acquisition in early literacy. Reading Horizons, 52, 281–303.
57.
WeirC. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
58.
WelnerK. G. (2013). Consequential validity and the transformation of tests from measurement tools to policy tools. Teachers College Record, 115(9), 1-6
