Although several measures are available for monitoring kindergarten reading progress, little research has directly compared them to determine which are superior in predicting year-end reading skills relative to other measures, and how validity may change across the school year as reading skills develop. A sample of 426 kindergarten students who were considered to be at risk for reading difficulty at the start of kindergarten were monitored across the year with a set of paper-based progress monitoring measures and a computer-adaptive test. Dominance analyses were used to determine the extent to which each measure uniquely predicted year-end reading skills relative to other measures. Although the computer-adaptive test was the most dominant predictor at the start of the year over letter sound fluency, letter naming fluency, and phoneme segmentation fluency, letter sound fluency was most dominant by December. Measures of fluency reading real words administered across the second half of the year were dominant to all other assessments. The implications for measure selection are discussed.
American Institutes for Research. (2007). Reading first state APR data. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
AzenR.BudescuD. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129–148.
3.
BadianN. A. (1995). Predicting reading ability over the long term: The changing roles of letter naming, phonological awareness and orthographic processing. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 79–96.
4.
BettsJ.PickartM.HeistadD. (2009). An investigation of the psychometric evidence of CBM-R passage equivalence: Utility of readability statistics and equating for alternate forms. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 1–17.
5.
Brasseur-HockI. F.HockM. F.KiefferM. J.BiancarosaG.DeshlerD. D. (2011). Adolescent struggling readers in urban schools: Results of a latent class analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 438–452.
6.
BudescuD. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542–551.
7.
CattsH. W.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.BridgesM. S.MendozaK. (2009). Floor effects associated with universal screening and their impact on the early identification of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 163–176.
8.
ClemensN. H.Hagan-BurkeS.LuoW.CerdaC. A.BlakelyA.FroschJ.. . . JonesM. (2015). The predictive validity of a computer-adaptive assessment of kindergarten and first-grade reading skills. School Psychology Review, 44, 76–97.
9.
ClemensN. H.ScholtenT. L. (2012, February). The implications of growth in word identification fluency across first grade. Paper presented at the 2012 Annual Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Philadelphia, PA.
10.
ClemensN. H.ShapiroE. S.ThoemmesF. J. (2011). Improving the efficacy of first grade reading screening: An investigation of Word Identification Fluency with other early literacy indicators. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 231–244.
11.
ClemensN. H.ShapiroE. S.WuJ. Y.TaylorA.CaskieG. L. (2014). Monitoring early first grade reading progress: A comparison of two measures. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 254–270.
12.
ClemensN. H.SoohooM.WileyC. P.HsiaoY.EstrellaI.Allee-SmithP.J.YoonM. (2018). Advancing stage 2 research on measures for monitoring kindergarten reading progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51, 85–104.
13.
CoyneM. D.SimmonsD. C.Hagan-BurkeS.SimmonsL. E.KwokO. M.KimM.. . . RawlinsonD. M. (2013). Adjusting beginning reading intervention based on student performance: An experimental evaluation. Exceptional Children, 80, 25–44.
14.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
15.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
EhriL. C. (1998). Research on learning to read and spell: A personal-historical perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 97–114.
18.
EhriL. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
19.
ElliottJ.LeeS. W.TollefsonN. (2001). A reliability and validity study of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills—Modified. School Psychology Review, 30, 33–44.
20.
FastBridge Learning. (2016). Decodable word reading. Minneapolis, MN: Author. Available from http://www.fastbridge.org/
FoulinJ. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read?Reading and Writing, 18, 129–155.
23.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–193.
24.
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.
25.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.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.
26.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.. . . TillyW. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A Practice Guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
27.
GoffredaC. T.DiPernaJ. C. (2010). An empirical review of psychometric evidence for the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. School Psychology Review, 39, 463–483.
28.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Available from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/
HulmeC.Bowyer-CraneC.CarrollJ. M.DuffF. J.SnowlingM. J. (2012). The causal role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read combining intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science, 23, 572–577.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–600.
33.
KamiiC.ManningM. (2005). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): A tool for evaluating student learning?Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 75–90.
34.
KegelC. A.van der Kooy-HoflandV. A.BusA. G. (2009). Improving early phoneme skills with a computer program: Differential effects of regulatory skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 549–554.
35.
LittleR. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202.
36.
LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.GrundS. (2017). Multiple imputation of missing data in multilevel designs: A comparison of different strategies. Psychological Methods, 22, 141–165.
37.
LuoW.AzenR. (2013). Determining predictor importance in hierarchical linear models using dominance analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 3–31.
38.
MakarB. W. (1995). Primary phonics. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
39.
MellardD. F.AnthonyJ. L.WoodsK. L. (2012). Understanding oral reading fluency among adults with low literacy: Dominance analysis of contributing component skills. Reading and Writing, 25, 1345–1364.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
42.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2013). Measures of academic progress. Available from www.nwea.org
PearsonN. C. S. (2012). AIMSweb technical manual. Bloom-ington, MN: Author.
45.
PetscherY.KimY. S. (2011). Efficiency of predicting risk in word reading using fewer, easier letters. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 17–25.
46.
PiastaS. B.PetscherY.JusticeL. M. (2012). How many letters should preschoolers in public programs know? The diagnostic efficiency of various preschool letter-naming benchmarks for predicting first-grade literacy achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 945–958.
47.
KimY. S.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.FoormanB. (2010). Does growth rate in oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement?Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 652–667.
48.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
49.
Renaissance Learning. (2009). With the right information, you can help your students shine like stars (Product brochure). Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
50.
Renaissance Learning. (2010). Getting the most of STAR early literacy: Using data to inform instruction and intervention. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469.
53.
RitcheyK. D. (2008). Assessing letter sound knowledge: A comparison of letter sound fluency and nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 74, 487–506.
54.
RitcheyK. D.SpeeceD. L. (2006). From letter names to word reading: The nascent role of sublexical fluency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 301–327.
55.
SchaferJ. L.YucelR. M. (2002). Computational strategies for multivariate linear mixed-effects models with missing values. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 11, 437–457.
56.
SchaferJ. L.ZhaoJ. H. (2013). Pan: Multiple imputation for multivariate panel or clustered data (R package version 1.4) [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pan
57.
SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.CarlsonC. D.FoormanB. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–279.
58.
SpeeceD. L.SchatschneiderC.SilvermanR.CaseL. P.CooperD. H.JacobsD. M. (2011). Identification of reading problems in first grade within a response-to-intervention framework. The Elementary School Journal, 111, 585–598.
59.
StageS. A.SheppardJ.DavidsonM. M.BrowningM. M. (2001). Prediction of first-graders’ growth in oral reading fluency using kindergarten letter fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 225–237.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
62.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.PeytonJ. 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, 508–516.
63.
van der LindenW. J.GlasC. A. W. (2010). Elements of adaptive testing. New York, NY: Springer.
64.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–203.
65.
WoodcockR. (2011). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests—Third Edition (WRMT–III). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
