Validation of a Kindergarten Measure of First Sound Isolation

Abstract

With an increasing number of U.S. states implementing multi-tiered systems of reading support in schools, educators require validated screening measures to identify students at risk for reading difficulties and inform reading instructional practices. This study evaluates the utility and validity of a new measure developed as part of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) literacy suite, First Sound Isolation (FSI). FSI measures students’ ability to identify and pronounce the first sound they hear in words spoken aloud. A sample of 129 kindergarten students from four schools in the Pacific Northwest were administered FSI, DIBELS measures, and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP-2) at the beginning of the 2021–2022 school year, and the CTOPP-2 and DIBELS measures at the end of the year. Descriptive statistics, concurrent and predictive correlations, Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analyses, and regression results indicate that FSI demonstrates smaller floor effects than do previous DIBELS measures of first sound and phonemic segmentation awareness, as well as strong internal consistency, concurrent validity, and predictive validity. FSI thus shows promise as an early measure of phonological awareness that, based on the current analyses, provides relevant and unique instructional information for educators.

Keywords

curriculum-based assessment early literacy individually administered

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alonzo

Tindal

Ulmer

Glasgow

(2006). easyCBM® online progress monitoring assessment system. University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching. http://easycbm.com

American Educational Research Association, American Psycho-logical Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.

Anthony

J. L.

Francis

D. J.

(2005). Development of phonological awareness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 255–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00376.x

Berkeley

Scanlon

Bailey

T. R.

Sutton

J. C.

Sacco

D. M.

(2020). A snapshot of RTI implementation a decade later: New picture, same story. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420915867

Brice

R. G.

Brice

A. E.

(2008). Investigation of phonemic awareness and phonic skills in Spanish-English bilingual and English-speaking kindergarten students. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 30(4), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740108327448

Bridges

M. S.

Catts

H. W.

(2011). The use of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict risk for reading disabilities in kindergarten children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407863

Burns

M. K.

Haegele

Peterson-Brown

(2014). Screening for early reading skills: Using data to guide resources and instruction. In Kettler

R. J.

Glover

T. A.

Albers

C. A.

Feeney-Kettler

K. A.

(Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings: Evidence-based decision making for schools (pp. 171–197). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14316-007

Catts

H. W.

Petscher

Schatschneider

Bridges

M. S.

Mendoza

(2009). Floor effects associated with universal screening and their impact on the early identification of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326219

Center for Public Education. (2015). Learning to read, reading to learn: Why third-grade is a pivotal year for mastering literacy. https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs-public/reports/NSBA_CPE_Early_Literacy_Layout_2015.pdf?pYhLHZ6Ya_uETATcGHqsYf7sJOXBzfp7

10.

Clemens

N. H.

Lee

Liu

Boucher

Al Otaiba

Simmons

(2023). The relations of kindergarten early literacy skill trajectories on common progress monitoring measures to subsequent word reading skills for students at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(8), 1045–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000814

11.

Cohen

(1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783

12.

Coyne

M. D.

Oldham

Dougherty

S. M.

Leonard

Koriakin

Gage

N. A.

Burns

Gillis

(2018). Evaluating the effects of supplemental reading intervention within an MTSS or RTI reading reform initiative using a regression discontinuity design. Exceptional Children, 84(4), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918772791

13.

Cummings

K. D.

Kaminski

R. A.

Good

R. H.

III O’Neil

(2011). Assessing phonemic awareness in preschool and kindergarten: Development and initial validation of first sound fluency. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508410392209

14.

Dynamic Measurement Group. (2008). DIBELS 6th edition technical adequacy information (Tech. Report No. 6). Author.

15.

Filderman

M. J.

Toste

J. R.

Didion

L. A.

Peng

Clemens

N. H.

(2018). Data-based decision making in reading interventions: A synthesis and meta-analysis of the effects for struggling readers. The Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918790001

16.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Hamlett

C. L.

(2007). Using curriculum-based measurement to inform reading instruction. Reading and Writing, 20, 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9051-4

17.

Goffreda

C. T.

DiPerna

J. C.

(2010). An empirical review of psychometric evidence for the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087766

18.

Good

R. H.

Kaminski

R. A.

Cummings

Dufour-Martel

Peterson

Powell-Smith

Stollar

Wallin

(2011, January 21). DIBELS next assessment manual. Dynamic Measurement Group. https://dys-add.com/resources/DiblesNext/DIBELSNext_AssessmentManual.pdf

19.

Good

R. H.

Liamon

Kaminski

R. A.

Smith

(2002). Initial sound fluency. In Good

R. H.

Kaminski

R. A.

(Eds.), Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.; pp. 10–16). Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. http://dibels.uoregon.edu/

20.

Gulledge

C. M.

Smith

D. G.

Ziedas

Muh

S. J.

Moutzouros

Makhni

E. C.

(2019). Floor and ceiling effects, time to completion, and question burden of PROMIS CAT domains among shoulder and knee patients undergoing nonoperative and operative treatment. JB JS Open Access, 4(4), e0015. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.19.00015

21.

Habibzadeh

Yadollahie

(2016). On determining the most appropriate test cut-off value: The case of tests with continuous results. Biochemia Medica, 26(3), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.034

22.

Hintze

J. M.

Ryan

A. L.

Stoner

(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(4), 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086220

23.

January

S. A.

Klingbeil

D. A.

(2020). Universal screening in grades K-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of early reading curriculum-based measures. Journal of School Psychology, 82, 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.08.007

24.

Johnson

E. S.

Jenkins

J. R.

Petscher

(2010). Improving the accuracy of a direct route screening progress. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508409348375

25.

Kaminski

R. A.

Good

R. H.

(1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In Shinn

M. R.

(Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 113–142). Guilford Press.

26.

Kirby

J. R.

Parrila

R. K.

Pfeiffer

S. L.

(2001, June). Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading development [Paper presentation]. Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boulder, CO, United States.

27.

Lane

H. B.

Pullen

P. C.

Eisele

M. R.

Jordan

(2002). Preventing reading failure: Phonological awareness assessment and instruction. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 46(3), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880209603354

28.

Lehr

F. R.

(2000). The sequence of speech–Sound acquisition in the Letter People program. Abrams & Company.

29.

Mellard

D. F.

McKnight

Woods

(2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(4), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00292.x

30.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2023). Academic screening tools chart rating rubrics.

31.

National Reading Panel (U.S.). (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. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

32.

Powell-Smith

K. A.

Good

R. H.

Latimer

R. J.

Dewey

E. N.

Wallin

Kaminski

R. A.

(2012). DIBELS next: Findings from the benchmark goals study (Technical Report No. #11). Dynamic Measurement Group.

33.

Roehrig

A. D.

Duggar

S. W.

Moats

Glover

Mincey

(2008). When teachers work to use progress monitoring data to inform literacy instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 29(6), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507314021

34.

Rouse

H. L.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

(2006). Validity of the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills as an indicator of early literacy for urban kindergarten children. School Psychology Review, 35(3), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2006.12087971

35.

Sander

E. K.

(1972). When are speech sounds learned? The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.3701.55

36.

Schatschneider

Francis

D. J.

Foorman

B. R.

Fletcher

J. M.

Mehta

(1999). The dimensionality of phonological awareness: An application of item response theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 439–449.

37.

Shanahan

(2014). Educational policy and literacy instruction: Worlds apart? The Reading Teacher, 68(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1269

38.

D. L.

Jorm

A. F.

Maclean

Matthews

(1984). Sources of individual differences in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1309–1324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1309

39.

Silberglitt

Hintze

(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(4), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300402

40.

Stahl

S. A.

Murray

B. A.

(1994). Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.221

41.

Stecker

P. M.

Lembke

E. S.

Foegen

(2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision making. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.52.2.48-58

42.

Swain

K. D.

Hagaman

J. L.

(2020). Elementary special education teachers’ use of CBM data: A 20-year follow-up. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2019.1678009

43.

University of Oregon. (2018). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills-8.

44.

University of Oregon. (2021). 8th edition of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Administration and scoring guide, 2021 edition. https://dibels.uoregon.edu

45.

University of Oregon. (2023). 8th edition of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Administration and scoring guide, 2023 edition. University of Oregon. https://dibels.uoregon.edu

46.

University of Oregon, Center on Teaching and Learning. (2012). 2012 - 2013 DIBELS data system update part II: DIBELS next benchmark goals (Technical Brief No. 1203). https://dibels.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/DDS2012TechnicalBriefPart2.pdf

47.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress. (2022) Reading assessment.

48.

Wagner

R. K.

Torgesen

J. K.

Rashotte

C. A.

Pearson

N. A.

(2013). Comprehensive test of phonological processing-2. Pearson.

49.

Yopp

H. K.

(1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/747800

50.

Zhang

Hudson

X. R.

Joshi

R. M.

Zamora

Gomez-Velazquez

F. R.

Gonzalez-Garrido

A. A.

(2021). Spelling acquisition in Spanish: Using error analyses to examine individual differences in phonological and orthographic processing. Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(1), 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1754834