Upload
kenya-organ
View
222
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS™)
Roland H. Good IIIUniversity of Oregon
Ruth A. Kaminski
Pacific Institutes for Research
NASP WorkshopDallas, TX, March 31, 2004
http://dibels.uoregon.edu
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 2
Advances in DIBELS™ Overview Introduction
Core Components of Beginning Reading Review of DIBELS ™ Measures
Use of DIBELS™ within an Outcomes Driven Model Assessing individual students and making
instructional recommendations Providing individual consultation to teachers Providing systems-wide consultation to schools
and districts
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 3
Beginning Reading Core Components#1. Phonemic Awareness: The ability to hear and manipulate
sound in words.#2. Phonics: The ability to associate sounds with letters and
use these sounds to read words.#3. Fluency : The effortless, automatic ability to read words
in isolation (orthographic reading) and connected text.#4. Vocabulary Development: The ability to understand
(receptive) and use (expressive) words to acquire and convey meaning.
#5. Reading Comprehension: The complex cognitive process involving the intentional interaction between reader and text to extract meaning.
National Reading Panel. (2000). 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. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Available: http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 4
Reading First:Four Kinds/Purposes of Reading Assessment
Outcome - Assessments that provide a bottom-line evaluation of the effectiveness of the reading program.
Screening - Assessments that are administered to determine which children are at risk for reading difficulty and who will need additional intervention.
Diagnosis - Assessments that help teachers plan instruction by providing in-depth information about students’ skills and instructional needs.
Progress Monitoring - Assessments that determine if students are making adequate progress or need more intervention to achieve grade level reading outcomes.
An effective, comprehensive, reading program includes reading assessments to accomplish four purposes:
Source: Reading First Initiative: Secretary’s Leadership Academy
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 5
Using an Outcomes Driven Model to Provide Decision Rules for Progress Monitoring
Outcomes Driven model: Decision making steps
1. Identifying Need for Support
2. Validating Need for Instructional Support
3. Planning and Implementing Instructional Support
4. Evaluating and Modifying Instructional Support
5. Reviewing Outcomes for Individuals and Systems
Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best Practices in Using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an Outcomes-Driven Model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 6
Using the Outcomes Driven ModelValidate Need
for Support
ReviewOutcomes
EvaluateSupport
ImplementInstructional
Support
PlanInstructional
Support
Provide Instructional SupportBased on IntegratedAssessment - InterventionFeedback Loop
Identify Needfor Support
3 times per year progress monitoring
- Low RiskFrequent progress monitoring - At Risk
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 7
Progress Monitoring Model for Beginning Reading Core Areas
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. 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.
Fall Winter Spring
Third Grade
Big Ideas inBeginningReading
DynamicIndicators ofBig Ideas inBeginningReading
Benchmark GoalTimeline forAssessing BigIdeas K-3
PhonologicalAwareness
AlphabeticPrinciple
Accuracy &Fluency with
Connected Text
High-StakesReadingOutcome
OnRF PSF ORFNWF ORF ORF OSA
Fall Winter Spring
Second Grade
Fall Winter Spring
First Grade
Fall Winter Spring
Kindergarten
3 times per year progress monitoring - Low RiskFrequent progress monitoring - At Risk
ISF
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 8
Progress Monitoring Repeated, formative assessment to evaluate progress
toward important goals for the purpose of modifying instruction or intervention.
Frequency of Progress Monitoring 3 times per year for students at low risk (All Students)
Benchmark 1 per month for students with some risk
Strategic 1 per week for students at risk
Intensive
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 9
Research on Progress Monitoring Progress monitoring has been extensively researched
in Special Education For example:
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
With Reading First, progress monitoring is not just for special education any more.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 10
Effects of Progress Monitoring Fuchs and Fuchs (1986) found the average effect size
associated with progress monitoring was: +0.70 for monitoring progress +0.80 when graphing of progress was added +0.90 when decision rules were added
A student at the 50th percentile would be expected to move to the 82nd percentile (i.e., a score of 100 would move to a score of 114)
Perhaps more important, a student at the 6th percentile would be expected to move to the average range (25th percentile)(i.e., a score of 76 would move to a score of 90)
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 11
Progress Monitoring Tools Meaningful and important goals, waypoints, or
benchmarks representing reading health or wellness. Meaningful and Important Public and Measurable Ambitious
Brief, repeatable, formative assessment of progress toward benchmark goals that is sensitive to intervention. Brief and Efficient Repeatable - weekly or monthly Reliable and Valid indication of risk and growth
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 12
Secretary’s Leadership AcademyAssessment Committee
David Francis, University of Houston Lynn Fuchs, Vanderbilt University Roland Good, University of Oregon Rollanda O’Connor, University of Pittsburgh Deborah Simmons, University of Oregon Gerald Tindal, University of Oregon Joseph Torgesen, Florida State University
Team Leader Edward J. Kame’enui, University of Oregon
Kameenui, E. J., Francis, D., Fuchs, L. Good, R. O’Connor, R. Simmons, D., Tindal, G., Torgesen, J. (2002). Secretary’s Leadership Academy, Reading First Initiative, Assessment Committee Presentation. US Dept. of Education: Washington, DC.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 13
idea.uoregon.edu/assessment
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 14
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 15
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 16
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 17
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 18
Progress Monitoring Model for Beginning Reading Core Areas
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. 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.
Fall Winter Spring
Third Grade
Big Ideas inBeginningReading
DynamicIndicators ofBig Ideas inBeginningReading
Benchmark GoalTimeline forAssessing BigIdeas K-3
PhonologicalAwareness
AlphabeticPrinciple
Accuracy &Fluency with
Connected Text
High-StakesReadingOutcome
OnRF PSF ORFNWF ORF ORF OSA
Fall Winter Spring
Second Grade
Fall Winter Spring
First Grade
Fall Winter Spring
Kindergarten
3 times per year progress monitoring - Low RiskFrequent progress monitoring - At Risk
ISF
DIBELS™ Assess the Big IdeasBig Idea of Literacy DIBELS/CBM Measure
Phonological Awareness Initial Sound Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
Alphabetic Principle Nonsense Word Fluency
Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text
Oral Reading Fluency
Comprehension At least through grade 3: A combination of Oral Reading Fluency & Retell Fluency
Vocabulary – Oral Language Word Use Fluency
Indicator of Risk Letter Naming Fluency
KindergartenPreschool
Initial Sound Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
Letter Nam ing F luency
Nonsense-word Fluency
CBM Reading G1
First Grade Second GradeEndBeg Mid EndBeg Mid EndBeg Mid EndBeg Mid
DIBELS™ Initial Sound FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.Directions for Administration and Scoring*
Initial Sound Fluency is intended for most children from the last year of preschool through the middle of kindergarten. It may be appropriate for monitoring the progress of older children with very low skills in phonological awareness.
The benchmark goal is 25 to 35 in the middle of kindergarten. Below 10 in the middle of kindergarten is indicates need for intensive instructional support.
BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Phonemic Awareness
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 21
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy SkillsUniversity of Oregon
Initial Sound Fluency -Sample
DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency
This is a mouse, flowers, pillow, letters (point to each picture while saying its name).
Mouse begins with the sound /m/ (point to the mouse). Listen: /m/, mouse. Which one begins with the sounds /fl/?
Phoneme Segmentation FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.
Directions for Administration and Scoring*
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency works well for most children from winter of kindergarten through spring of first grade. It may be appropriate for monitoring the progress of older children with low phonological awareness skills.
The benchmark goal is 35 to 45 correct phonemes per minute in the spring of kindergarten and fall of first grade. Students scoring below 10 in the spring of kindergarten and fall of first grade may need intensive instructional support to achieve benchmark goals.
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End
Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade
BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Phonemic Awareness
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 23
DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
bad that mine coat meet wild woke fat side jet land beach
/b/ /a/ /d/ /TH/ /a/ /t/ /m/ /ie/ /n/ /k/ /oa/ /t/ /m/ /ea/ /t/ /w/ /ie/ /l/ /d/ /w/ /oa/ /k/ /f/ /a/ /t/ /s/ /ie/ /d/ /j/ /e/ /t/ /l/ /a/ /n/ /d/ /b/ /ea/ /ch/
lock pick noise spin ran dawn sign wait yell of wheel globe
/l/ /o/ /k/ /p/ /i/ /k/ /n/ /oi/ /z/ /s/ /p/ /i/ /n/ /r/ /a/ /n/ /d/ /o/ /n/ /s/ /ie/ /n/ /w/ /ai/ /t/ /y/ /e/ /l/ /o/ /v/ /w/ /ea/ /l/ /g/ /l/ /oa/ /b/
Total
______/6 ______/6 ______/6 ______/7 ______/6 ______/7 ______/6 ______/6 ______/6 ______/5 ______/7 ______/7 ______/75
I am going to say a word. After I say it, you tell me all the sounds in the word. So, if I say, “sam,” you would say /s/ /a/ /m/. Let’s try one. (one second pause). Tell me the sounds in “mop”
Ok. Here is your first word.
DIBELS™ Nonsense Word FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.
Directions for Administration and Scoring*
Nonsense Word Fluency is intended for most children from spring of kindergarten through spring of first grade. It may be appropriate for monitoring the progress of older children with low skills in alphabetic principle.
The benchmark goal for Nonsense Word Fluency is 50 correct letter sounds per minute by mid first grade. Students scoring below 30 in mid first grade may need intensive instructional support to achieve first grade reading goals.
Nonsense Word Fluency
Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End
Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade
BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Alphabetic Principle
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 25
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency
Here are some more make-believe words (point to the student
probe). Start here (point to the first
word) and go across the page (point across the page). When I say, “begin”, read the words the best you can. Point to each letter and tell me the sound or read the whole word. Read the words the best you can. Put your finger on the first word. Ready, begin.
kik woj sig faj yis kaj fek av zin zez lan nul zem og nom yuf pos vok viv feg bub dij sij vus tos wuv nij pik nok mot nif vec al boj nen suv yig dit tum joj yaj zof um vim vel tig mak sog wot sav
DIBELS™ Oral Reading FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.Directions for Administration and Scoring*
DIBELS™ Oral Reading Fluency is intended for most children from mid first grade through third grade. The benchmark goals are 40 in spring of kindergarten, 90 in spring of second grade, and 110 in the spring of third grade. Students may need intensive instructional support if they score below 10 in spring of first grade, 50 in spring of second grade, and below 70 in spring of third grade.
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End
Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade
BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 27
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPlease read this (point)
out loud. If you get stuck, I will tell you the word so you can keep reading. When I say, “stop” I may ask you to tell me about what you read, so do your best reading. Start here (point to the first word of the passage). Begin.
The Robin’s Nest
There was a robin’s nest outside our kitchen window. The
nest was in a tall bush. The mother robin sat in the nest all day
long. One day when I was watching, the mother bird flew
away. I saw the eggs she was sitting on. There were four blue
eggs.
I watched and watched. The eggs moved. I watched some
more. The eggs started to crack. Finally, the eggs hatched. I
saw four baby birds. The baby birds opened their beaks wide.
I heard them peeping. Soon the mother bird came back. Then
the mother robin put worms in their mouths.
Every day I watched the baby birds and their mother.
Pretty soon the babies were so fat there was no room for the
mother. Then one morning the nest was gone from the bush.
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency First Grade Benchmark 2 © 2001 Dynamic Measurement Group Revised: 03/28/02
DIBELS™ Retell FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.
Directions for Administration and Scoring*
DIBELS™ Retell Fluency is intended for most children from mid first grade through third grade who are reading at least 40 words per minute. It has been developed to provide a comprehension check for the DORF Assessment.
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End
Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade
BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Comprehension
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 29
DIBELS Retell Fluency
Please tell me all about what you just read. Try to tell me everything you can. Begin. Start your stopwatch after you say “begin”.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 30
Validity of ORF with RTF for Reading Comprehension Desirable standards: r = .60 to .80 First grade: ORF with consistent retell correlates with
Woodcock Johnson Broad Reading Cluster r = .81 (average of 2 probes) But, ORF with inconsistent retell correlates r
= .42 Third grade: A single probe ORF and RTF correlates
with Oregon State Assessment -- Reading and Literature Subtest: r = .73
RTF by itself generally correlates in the .20s, .30s, .40s and .50s with a variety of measures of comprehension.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 31
Inconsistent Retell in First Grade
Students reading more than 40 words correct per minute, typical retell is about 50% of ORF score.
Consistent retell is greater than or equal to 25% of ORF score.
An inconsistent retell is less than 25% of the ORF score.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Oral Reading Fluency
Re
tell
Flu
en
cy
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 32
ORF with inconsistent Retell has lower validity with Reading Outcomes
ORF with consistent retell r = .81
ORF with inconsistent retell r = .42
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
VIP Oral Reading Fluency
WJ
Bro
ad R
ead
ing
Clu
ster
SS
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 33
Inconsistent Retell in Third Grade
Students reading more than 40 words correct per minute, typical retell is about 50% of ORF score.
Consistent retell is greater than or equal to 25% of ORF score.
An inconsistent retell is less than 25% of the ORF score.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240Oral Reading Fluency
Ret
ell
Flu
ency
DIBELS™ Word Use FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.Directions for Administration and Scoring*
Letter Naming Fluency
Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End
Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade
Word Use Fluency
Word Use Fluency (WUF) is intended for most children from fall of kindergarten through third grade. A benchmark goal is not provided for WUF because additional research is needed to establish its linkage to other big ideas of early literacy. Tentatively, students in the lowest 20 percent of a school district using local norms should be considered at risk for poor language and reading outcomes and those between the 20th and 40th percentile should be considered at some risk.
BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Vocabulary and Oral Language
35Dallas, TXMarch 31, 2004
Probe 1
pool 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 _______
tried 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 _______
worry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 _______
happened 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 _______
DIBELS™ Word Use Fluency
Format: Examiner orally presents word and asks child to tell a sentence using the word. “Listen to me use this word in a sentence. Jump. I like to
jump rope. Your turn to use a word in a sentence. Pool.”
Street: Don’t go in the street (5)
Today: Today have a fun day (5)
Against: You’re against me (3)
Snow: I like to play in the snow (7)
Bats: Bats are scary (3)
Bottom: Sit on your bottom (4)
Anyone: Anyone can go to my party (6)
Dress: Dress yourself. I’m not gonna dress you.(7)
Middle: Careful that’s middle (0)
Total = 40
Word Use Fluency
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 37
WUF Distributions
Grade Level
Third grade
Second grade
First grade
Kindergarten
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
WUF Fall Benchmark
WUF Winter Benchmark
WUF Spring Benchmark
K 1st 2nd 3rd
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 38
Statewide WUF DistributionsKindergarten 02-03/03-04
= 2002-2003= 2003 -2004
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 39
Statewide WUF DistributionsFirst Grade 02-03/03-04
= 2002-2003= 2003 -2004
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 40
Statewide WUF DistributionsSecond Grade 02-03/03-04
= 2002-2003= 2003 -2004
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 41
Statewide WUF DistributionsThird Grade 02-03/03-04
= 2002-2003= 2003 -2004
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 42
Word Use FluencySummary
1-month Alternate forms reliability = .59 - .65 1-week Alternate forms reliability = .65 -.71 (4-5 probes for r = .90) Criterion-Related Validity
PPVT = .31 - .55 TOLD = .44 - .55 EVT = .22 - .57 WJ-LC = .36 - .47 WRMT Reading Comprehension = .28 - .41 Language Sample DWR = .44 - .72
Sensitive to growth over time in K-1 (mean slope of 3.12 words per minute per month)
Easy and practical to administer No Benchmark goals established -- Use local norms
DIBELS™ Letter Naming FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.
Directions for Administration and Scoring*
Letter Naming Fluency works well for most children from fall of kindergarten through fall of first grade.
Students are considered at risk for difficulty achieving early literacy benchmark goals if they perform in the lowest 20% of students in their district. That is, below the 20th percentile using local district norms. Students are considered at some risk if they perform between the 20th and 40th percentile using local norms. Students are considered at low risk if they perform above the 40th percentile using local norms.
Letter Naming Fluency
Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End
Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade
BIG IDEA of Early Reading: NONE; indicator of risk
LNF Probes Each probe is a random
sort of 2 lower case and 2 upper case alphabets.
Lines help students to keep their place.
Serial naming and fluency aspects of the task are important.
Probe 1
c c N u Q M u h S i
n b e N F f o a K k
g p k p a H C e G D
b w F i h O x j I K
x t Y q L d f T g v
T V Q o w P J t B X
Z v U P R l V C l W
R J m O z D G y U Y
Z y A m X z H S M E
q n j s W r d s B I
r A E L c c N u Q MTotal: ____/110
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 45
Using DIBELS™ Within an Outcomes Driven Model to Provide Decision Rules for Progress Monitoring
Outcomes Driven model: Decision making steps
1. Identifying Need for Support
2. Validating Need for Instructional Support
3. Planning and Implementing Instructional Support
4. Evaluating and Modifying Instructional Support
5. Reviewing Outcomes for Individuals and Systems
Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best Practices in Using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an Outcomes-Driven Model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 46
Three Levels of Assessment
Benchmark Assessment Assess all children 3 - 4 times/year (e.g., Fall, Winter, Spring)
How is the program (e.g.,classroom, school, curriculum, instruction) doing overall?
Are there children who may need additional support to achieve outcomes?
Which children may need additional support to achieve outcomes? Strategic Monitoring
Assess at risk children more frequently (e.g., monthly) Is current program sufficient to keep progress on track or are additional
supports/intervention needed? Continuous or Intensive Care Monitoring
Assess students needing more intensive, effective intervention weekly Are instructional supports/strategies effective or is a change in
intervention needed?
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 47
Benchmark Assessment - First GradeDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy SkillsTM 6th Ed.
University of Oregon First Grade Benchmark Assessment
Name: Teacher:
School: District:
Benchmark 1
Beginning/Fall Benchmark 2
Middle/Winter Benchmark 3 End/Spring
Date
Letter Naming Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency
Nonsense Word Fluency
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency2
(middle score) (middle score)
Retell Fluency (Optional)
(middle score) (middle score)
Word Use Fluency
(Optional)
(Optional) (Optional) (Optional)
© 2002 Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. Revised: 07/02/02 Page 1
Benchmark assessment – screening all children to identify need for support to achieve goals in Core Components of literacy: phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy and fluency with connected text, Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension for all children.
Beginning: September, October, or November
Middle: December, January, or February
End: March, April, May, or June
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 48
1. Identifying Need for SupportKey Decision for Screening Assessment: Which children may need additional instructional support to attain
important reading outcomes?
Data used to inform the decision: Compare individual student’s performance to benchmark goals or
local normative context to evaluate need for additional instructional support. Benchmark Goals: A deficit in a foundation skill is a strong
indicator that instructional support will be needed to attain later benchmark goals.
Local normative context: First, choose a percentile cutoff. 20th percentile seems a good place to start, but a district could choose 15th percentile or 25th percentile or other cutoff depending on resources.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 49
http://DIBELS.uoregon.edu
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 50
Beginning of Kindergarten
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 51
Identify Students who Need Support to Reach NEXT Benchmark Goal
In September of Kindergarten, Melissa has a deficit on initial sounds. She may need additional instructional support to achieve kindergarten benchmark goals in Phonemic Awareness.
Tevin is on track with to achieve Phonemic Awareness goals with effective core curriculum and instruction.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 52
Longitudinal Outcomes for DIBELS Benchmark Assessment
Odds of achieving subsequent early literacy goals for DIBELS Benchmark Assessments at the beginning, middle, and end of kindergarten, first, second, and third grades (12 screening points across K - 3) are available at
dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf Students are at risk if the odds are against achieving
subsequent early literacy goals. The purpose of screening is to provide additional
instructional support -- strategic or intensive -- sufficient to thwart the prediction of difficulty achieving reading outcomes.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 53
Sample Odds of Achieving Early Literacy Goals for Different Patterns of DIBELS Performance
Table 4 Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment
Percent Meeting Later Goals
Initial Sound Fluency
Letter Naming Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency Pctile End K PSF
Mid 1 NWF
End 1 ORF Avg. Incidence Instructional Support Recommendation
Deficit At Risk At Risk 3 18 14 19 17 More Common Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Deficit At Risk Some Risk 7 34 13 21 23 Unusual Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Emerging At Risk At Risk 9 28 20 28 25 More Common Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Emerging At Risk Some Risk 11 41 17 22 27 More Common Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Deficit Some Risk At Risk 13 24 28 48 33 More Common Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Deficit At Risk Low Risk 15 60 21 25 35 Unusual Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Deficit Some Risk Some Risk 16 37 30 40 36 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Established At Risk At Risk 17 45 32 31 36 Extremely Rare Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging Some Risk At Risk 18 37 30 49 38 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Deficit Low Risk At Risk 20 30 37 58 42 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Established Some Risk At Risk 21 42 38 49 43 Extremely Rare Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging Some Risk Some Risk 22 47 36 51 45 More Common Strategic - Additional Intervention Established At Risk Some Risk 24 52 38 47 45 Extremely Rare Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging At Risk Low Risk 26 75 29 36 47 More Common Strategic - Additional Intervention Deficit Low Risk Some Risk 28 43 42 68 51 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Deficit Some Risk Low Risk 29 66 41 55 54 Extremely Rare Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging Low Risk At Risk 31 42 50 70 54 More Common Strategic - Additional Intervention Established Some Risk Some Risk 33 55 44 64 54 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Established At Risk Low Risk 34 82 34 47 54 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging Low Risk Some Risk 38 53 53 80 62 More Common Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging Some Risk Low Risk 44 82 47 59 63 More Common Strategic - Additional Intervention Established Low Risk At Risk 47 51 58 89 66 Extremely Rare Benchmark - At grade level Established Low Risk Some Risk 49 58 62 87 69 More Common Benchmark - At grade level Deficit Low Risk Low Risk 52 74 60 75 70 Unusual Benchmark - At grade level Established Some Risk Low Risk 54 88 56 69 71 More Common Benchmark - At grade level Emerging Low Risk Low Risk 64 88 68 83 80 More Common Benchmark - At grade level Established Low Risk Low Risk 86 93 80 93 89 More Common Benchmark - At grade level
Note. Percent meeting goal is the conditional percent of children who meet the end of first grade goal of 40 or more on DIBELS ORF. Based on n of approximately 32000 students, 638 schools, and 255 school districts.
dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 54
Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment
Initial Sound Fluency
Letter Naming Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency Pctile
Deficit At Risk At Risk 3 Deficit At Risk Some Risk 7 Emerging At Risk At Risk 9 Emerging At Risk Some Risk 11 Deficit Some Risk At Risk 13
[Table Continues]
Established Some Risk Low Risk 54 Emerging Low Risk Low Risk 64 Established Low Risk Low Risk 86
Pattern of performance based on the DIBELS Benchmark Assessment
[Tab
le C
onti
nues
] Percentile Rank for the pattern of performance. For example, a child with established ISF, some risk on LNF, and low risk on PSF is at the 54th percentile compared to other children in the middle of kindergarten. He or she achieved as well or better than 54% of children in participating schools on DIBELS.
dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 55
Percent Meeting Later Goals
Initial Sound Fluency
Letter Naming Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency End K
PSF Mid 1 NWF
End 1 ORF Avg.
Deficit At Risk At Risk 18 14 19 17 Deficit At Risk Some Risk 34 13 21 23 Emerging At Risk At Risk 28 20 28 25 Emerging At Risk Some Risk 41 17 22 27 Deficit Some Risk At Risk 24 28 48 33
[Table Continues]
Established Some Risk Low Risk 88 56 69 71 Emerging Low Risk Low Risk 88 68 83 80 Established Low Risk Low Risk 93 80 93 89
Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment (continued)
Odds of achieving specific early literacy goal. For example, 69% of students with Established, Some Risk, Low Risk pattern in the middle of kindergarten achieved the end of first grade DIBELSOral Reading Fluency goal of 40 or more words read correct per minute.
[Tab
le C
onti
nu
es] Average Percent
achieving subsequent early literacy goals. For example, a student with a Deficit, Some Risk, At Risk pattern on DIBELS has 33% odds of achieving later literacy goals on average.
dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 56
Initial Sound Fluency
Letter Naming Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency Incidence
Deficit At Risk At Risk More Common Deficit At Risk Some Risk Unusual Emerging At Risk At Risk More Common Emerging At Risk Some Risk More Common Deficit Some Risk At Risk More Common
[Table Continues]
Established Some Risk Low Risk More Common Emerging Low Risk Low Risk More Common Established Low Risk Low Risk More Common
Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment (continued)
Extremely rare patterns may indicate a need to retest. For example, it would be extremely rare for a student to have Established ISF, Low Risk on LNF, and At Risk status on PSF. Their PSF score may not be accurately estimating their phonemic awareness skill.
[Tab
le C
onti
nu
es]
Incidence or how often a pattern of performance occurs. For example, among students with a Deficit on ISF and Some Risk on LNF, achieving in the At Risk range on PSF would be a more common pattern, but achieving in the Some Risk range would be an unusual pattern.
dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 57
Initial Sound Fluency
Letter Naming Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency Instructional Support Recommendation
Deficit At Risk At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Deficit At Risk Some Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Emerging At Risk At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention
[Table Continues]
Emerging Some Risk Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention Established At Risk Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging At Risk Low Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention
[Table Continues]
Established Some Risk Low Risk Benchmark - At grade level Emerging Low Risk Low Risk Benchmark - At grade level Established Low Risk Low Risk Benchmark - At grade level
Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment (continued)
Instructional Support Recommendation. For students with odds in favor of achieving subsequent literacy goals, benchmark instruction is recommended. For students with odds against achieving subsequent literacy goals, intensive support is recommended. For about 50 – 50 odds, strategic support is recommended.
[Tab
le C
onti
nu
es]
dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 58
Decision Utility of DIBELS Pattern of performance on DIBELS measures determines
overall risk status and instructional recommendation. In fall of first grade, for example,
LNF >= 37, DIBELS PSF >= 35, DIBELS NWF >= 24Instructional Recommendation: Benchmark - At grade level. Effective core curriculum and instruction recommended, Odds of reading 40 or more words correct per minute at the end of
first grade: 84% Odds of reading less than 20 words correct per minute at the end of
first grade: 2% LNF < 25, DIBELS PSF < 10, DIBELS NWF < 13
Instructional Rec: Intensive - Needs substantial intervention: Odds of reading 40 or more words correct per minute at the end of
first grade: 18% (unless given intensive intervention) Odds of reading less than 20 words correct per minute at the end of
first grade: 48% (unless given intensive intervention) Value of knowing the instructional recommendation and the goal early
enough to change the outcome: Priceless.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 59
Sample Cutoffs for Low Risk, Some Risk, At Risk for Kinder DIBELS Performance
DIBELS 3 Benchmark Goals and Indicators of Risk Kindergarten
Beginning of Year
Month 1 - 3
Middle of Year
Month 4 - 6
End of Year
Month 7 - 10 DIBELS Measure Scores Status Scores Status Scores Status
DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency
ISF < 4
4 <= ISF < 8
ISF >= 8
At risk
Some risk
Low risk
ISF < 10
10 <= ISF < 25
ISF >= 25
Deficit
Emerging
Established
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency
LNF < 2
2 <= LNF < 8
LNF >= 8
At risk
Some risk
Low risk
LNF < 15
15 <= LNF < 27
LNF >= 27
At risk
Some risk
Low risk
LNF < 29
29 <= LNF < 40
LNF >= 40
At risk
Some risk
Low risk
DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
PSF < 7
7 <= PSF < 18
PSF >= 18
At risk
Some risk
Low risk
PSF < 10
10 <= PSF < 35
PSF >= 35
Deficit
Emerging
Established
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency
NWF < 5
5 <= NWF < 13
NWF >= 13
At risk
Some risk
Low risk
NWF < 15
15 <= NWF < 25
NWF >= 25
At risk
Some risk
Low risk
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 60
Middle of Kindergarten
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 61
End of Kindergarten
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 62
Identify Need for Support: Using Local Norms
X
X
X
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 63
2. Validate Need for SupportKey Decision: Are we reasonably confident the student needs instructional
support? Rule out easy reasons for poor performance:
Bad day, confused on directions or task, ill, shy, or similar. More reliable information is needed to validate need for
support than for screening decisions. Data used to inform the decision: Repeated assessments on different days under different
conditions Compare individual student’s performance to local normative
context or expected performance to evaluate discrepancy.
64Dallas, TXMarch 31, 2004
Identify Need: Which children may need additional support?Teacher’s list of children in class and DIBELS™ scores: January of K
In January of Kindergarten: Sandra, Matrix, Brandon, and Danielle have a deficit on Initial Sound Fluency. They may
need additional instructional support to attain kindergarten benchmarks. Joseph and Tiffany are on track with established skills on ISF. Halley and Latisha have emerging skills and should be monitored strategically
Student Scor
e
Per
cent
ile
Initial Sound Skill
Status Scor
e
Per
cent
ile
All Sounds Skill Status Sc
ore
Per
cent
ile
Risk StatusInstructional Recommendations Based
Primarily on PSF
T., Sandra 9 4 Deficit 1 7 Deficit 8 13 At risk Intensive support indicated.R., Matrix 7 2 Deficit 1 7 Deficit 11 19 At risk Intensive support indicated.W., Halley 14 12 Emerging 2 9 Deficit 29 46 Low risk Strategic support.M., Latisha 19 22 Emerging 3 11 Deficit 35 59 Low risk Strategic support.A., Brandon 9 4 Deficit 3 11 Deficit 24 35 Some risk Intensive support indicated.R., Tiffany 42 86 Established 13 31 Emerging 48 85 Low risk Benchmark.M., Danielle 5 1 Deficit 14 33 Emerging 21 28 Some risk Strategic support.M., Joseph 38 75 Established 15 35 Emerging 37 66 Low risk Benchmark.
Onset Recognition Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Letter Naming Fluency
Initial Sound Fluency
At riskAt riskSome riskSome riskSome riskLow riskLow riskLow risk
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 65
When brief, 1-minute probes are used, it is important to consider error as one possible cause of poor performance. A pattern of low performance across 3 - 4 probes is much more reliable.
Aggregating multiple, brief assessments increases reliability
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of Probes
Rel
iab
ilit
y o
f A
gg
reg
ate
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 66
Validating Need for Support Verify need for instructional support by retesting with
alternate forms until we are reasonably confident.
10
20
30
40
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
M archScores
AprilScores
MayScores
JuneScores
60
50
Ph
on
eme
Seg
men
tati
on
Flu
ency
Mid-year cutoff at risk
BrandonSandra
Matrix
Danielle
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 67
3. Planning and Implementing Instructional SupportKey Decisions for Diagnostic Assessment: What are the Goals of instruction?
Where are we? Where do we need to be? By when? What course do we need to follow to get there?
What skills should we teach to get there? Focus on the beginning reading core areas: Phonological
Awareness, Alphabetic Principle, Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text
Specific skills based on error analysis or additional diagnostic assessment (e.g., CTOPP).
What kind of instructional support is needed? Intensive Instructional Support Strategic Instructional Support Benchmark Instruction
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 68
Exploring Support - Aimline for Brandon The aimline connects where we are to where we need to be by when, and shows the course to follow to get there.
10
20
30
40
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
M archScores
AprilScores
MayScores
JuneScores
60
50
Ph
on
eme
Seg
men
tati
on
Flu
ency
Aimline
End-year cutoff at risk
End-year Benchmark Goal
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 69
Planning Support - Aimline for Sandra The aimline connects where we are to where we need to be by when, and shows the course to follow to get there.
10
20
30
40
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
M archScores
AprilScores
MayScores
JuneScores
60
50
Ph
on
eme
Seg
men
tati
on
Flu
ency
Aimline
End-year Benchmark Goal
End-year cutoff at risk
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 70
Instructional Goals for Core Components of Beginning ReadingBenchmark Goals to be On Grade Level Step 1: Phonological Awareness with 25 - 35 on DIBELS Initial Sound
Fluency by mid kindergarten (and 18 on PSF) Step 2: Phonemic Awareness with 35 - 45 on DIBELS Phoneme
Segmentation Fluency by end of kindergarten (and 25 on NWF) Step 3: Alphabetic principle 50 - 60 on DIBELS Nonsense Word
Fluency by mid first grade (and 20 on DORF) Step 4: Fluency with 40 - 50 on DIBELS Oral reading fluency by end
of first grade. Step 5: Fluency with 90 + on DIBELS Oral reading fluency by end of
second grade Step 6: Fluency with 110 + on DIBELS Oral reading fluency by end
of third grade
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 71
Instructional Steps from Kindergarten to Successful Reading Outcomes
The outcome of each step depends on (a) students beginning skills, (b) effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction, and (c) effectiveness of system of additional instructional support.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 72
Planning Support: What skills should we teach?
Focus on the Big Ideas: Initial Sounds Fluency and Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency - Phonemic Awareness Nonsense Word Fluency - Alphabetic Principle Oral Reading Fluency - Accuracy and Fluency with
Connected Text Retell Fluency - Comprehension Word Use Fluency - Vocabulary
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 73
What specific skills to teach? For specific skill level use:
Error analysis of DIBELS performance Knowledge of child performance in class Curriculum-linked assessment, e.g., mastery
measures Use supplementary assessment as needed What can the child do/not do?
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 74
Phonemic Awareness Is the child accurate but not fluent? Build
fluency. Does the child have errors? What is the
error rate? Few (5-10%), some (10-33%), many (33-
90%), all? What is the pattern of errors?
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 75
ISF Response Patterns Produces multiple random errors Substitutes name of letter for initial sound Repeats word when prompted for sound Recognizes but does not produce initial sounds consistently Recognizes and produces initial sounds confidently Difficulty with consonant sounds Difficulty with vowel sounds Pronunciation differences due to dialect or second language Frequent articulation difficulties, consider referral to language
specialist Difficulty remembering picture names Frequent self corrections
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 76
PSF Response Patterns Stage 1: repeats entire word Stage 2: produces initial sound or sounds only Stage 3: produces onset and rhyme Stage 4: produces initial and final sounds correctly; errors on middle sounds Stage 5: produces initial, middle and final sounds correctly; does not segment blends Stage 6: correctly segments all phonemes including phonemes in blends Produces consonant sounds correctly; misses vowel sounds Omits final sounds Pronunciation differences due to dialect or second language Frequent articulation difficulties, consider referral to language specialist Frequent phoneme additions Frequent phoneme omissions Frequent self corrections
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 77
Sequence of Phonological Awareness Skills - K1. Sound and Word Discrimination
* Tells whether words or sounds are the same or different (cat/cat = same; cat/car=different).* Identifies which word is different (e.g., sun, fun, sun).* Tells the difference between single speech sounds (e.g., Which one is different? s, s, k).
2. Rhyming * Identifies whether words rhyme (e.g., cat/mat; ring/sing). * Produces a word that rhymes with another (e.g., "A word that rhymes with rose is nose. Tell me another word that rhymes with rose.)
3. Blending* Orally blends syllables (mon-key) or onset-rimes (m-ilk) into a whole word. * Orally blends 2-3 separately spoken phonemes into one-syllable words (e.g., m-e: me; u-p: up; f-u-n: fun).
4. Segmentation * Claps or counts the words in a 3-5 word sentence (e.g., Sue can jump far). * Claps or counts the syllables in 1-, 2-, and 3-syllable words. * Says each syllable in 2- and 3-syllable words (di-no-saur). * Identifies the first sound in a one-syllable word (e.g., /m/ in man). * Segments individual sounds in 2- and 3-phoneme, one-syllable words (e.g., run: /r/ /u/ /n/; feet: /f/ /ee/ /t/).
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 78
Alphabetic Principle
Nonsense Word Fluency Is the child accurate but not fluent? Build
fluency. Does the child have errors? What is the
error rate? Does the child have errors? What is the
pattern of errors?
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 79
NWF Response Patterns Stage 1: Has isolated letter-sound correspondences but lacks a systematic strategy for attacking
unknown words. Stage 2: Produces correct consonant sounds; incorrect vowel sounds. Stage 3: Produces most sounds correctly sound-by-sound, but does not recode into complete word. Stage 4: Produces sounds correctly sound-by-sound and then recodes into complete word (e.g.,
/m/ /o/ /t/ “mot”) Stage 5: Fluently applies systematic trategy for attacking unknown words (i.e., reads mot as “mot”) Substitutes real words for nonsense words Produces sounds correctly sound-by-sound; recodes sounds out of order (e.g.,/b…i…s…/ “sib”) Consistent error for a specific consonant/vowel sound requiring review Pronunciation differences due to dialect or second language Frequent articulation difficulties, consider referral to language specialist Frequent sound additions Frequent sound omissions Frequent self corrections
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 80
Critical Alphabetic Principle Skills
Letter-Sound Correspondences Example: (Teacher points to letter m on board). "The sound of this
letter is /mmmmm/. Tell me the sound of this letter.” Sounding Out Words
Example: (Teacher points to the word map on the board, touches under each sound as the students sound it out, and slashes finger under the word as students say it fast.) "Sound it out." (/mmmmmmmmaaaaaaap/) "Say it fast." (map)
Reading Words Reading Words in connected text
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 81
Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text Oral Reading Fluency
Is the child accurate but not fluent? Build fluency. Does the child have errors? What is the pattern of errors?
Correctly decodes easy, phonetically correct words, misses long and/or irregular words
Consistently makes errors on words with specific blends, digraphs, etc.
Only reads simple and common words correctly consistently (e.g., “the” “and”)
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 82
Vocabulary WUF Response Patterns
Stereotypical response pattern, e.g., “I like to ____” Word use is sparse and employs minimum utterances Word use is fluent and confident employing elaborated
sentences Response often unrelated to target word Student appears shy and reticent to talk Student uses similar sounding word, may have difficulty
hearing target word Student frequently asks for the word to be repeated, may
have difficulty hearing target word
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 83
What Curriculum and/or program?Good News - Bad News - Good News
Good News: All but small number of children can learn to read.
Bad News: No Magical Curriculum or program that is effective for all students.
Good News: The Magic is in the system of support that matches each child with the support that is effective for her/him.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 84
Planning Support: What curriculum/program to use?
Three levels of instructional support Benchmark -- Core Curriculum Strategic -- Supplemental Curriculum Intensive -- Intervention Curriculum
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 85
Benchmark Instruction - Core Comprehensive Reading Programs
Purpose: to provide complete instruction in the core components of reading
Examples: Open Court Reading, SRA/McGraw Hill Houghton Mifflin Reading Mastery
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 86
Strategic Support - Supplemental Reading Programs
Purpose: to provide additional instruction in one or more areas of reading for students who require strategic instructional support to reach benchmark goals.
Examples: phonemic awareness programs
Phonemic Awareness in Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
fluency building programsRead Naturally, Read Naturally, Inc.Read Well, Sopris West
comprehension strategy programsSoar to Success, Houghton Mifflin Co.Collaborative Strategic Reading
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 87
Intensive Support - Intervention Reading Programs Purpose: to provide additional instruction to
students who have skill deficits and need intensive support to reach benchmark goals.
Examples: Corrective Reading, SRA/McGraw-Hill Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention
(Optimize), Scott Foresman Phonological Awareness Training for
Reading, AGS Publishing
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 88
Instructional Strategies Grouping
Small group instruction Flexible instructional grouping
Effective Instruction Focused and systematic Explicit
Direct explanation Modeling
High student engagement Lots of opportunities to respond Lots of Guided Practice with immediate feedback
Scaffolding to support learning Integration of skills Review
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 89
4. Evaluating and Modifying Instructional Support
Key Decision for Progress Monitoring Assessment: Is the intervention effective in improving the child’s early
literacy skills?
How much instructional support is needed? Enough to get the child on trajectory for Benchmark
Goal.
When is increased support needed? Monitor child’s progress during intervention by
comparing their performance and progress to past performance and their aimline. Three consecutive assessments below the aimline indicates a need to increase instructional support.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 90
Evaluating Support Sandra: Is the intervention working?
10
20
30
40
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
M archScores
AprilScores
MayScores
JuneScores
60
50
Ph
on
eme
Seg
men
tati
on
Flu
ency
Aimline
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 91
Evaluating Support Brandon: Is the intervention working?
Whoops! Time to make a change!
10
20
30
40
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
M archScores
AprilScores
MayScores
JuneScores
60
50
Ph
on
eme
Seg
men
tati
on
Flu
ency
Aimline
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 92
Evaluating Support - Brandon:Is Instructional Support Sufficient Now?
10
20
30
40
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
M archScores
AprilScores
MayScores
JuneScores
60
50
Ph
on
eme
Seg
men
tati
on
Flu
ency
Aimline
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 93
Where are we?What is our goal?What course should we follow?How are we doing?
ActualCourse
DesiredCourse
Our Goal
We are Here
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 94
Progress Monitoring: The Teacher’s MapThe GPS for Educators
10
20
30
40
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
M archScores
AprilScores
MayScores
JuneScores
60
50
Aimline
A change in intervention
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 95
Dynamic Interventions Build in anAssessment InterventionFeedback Loop Good interventions are identified by their outcomes -
not our philosophy, or beliefs, or the quality of their packaging.
Good interventions are individual – an effective intervention for one child may not be effective for another.
Integrating assessment and intervention driven by outcomes is a key aspect of an effective intervention.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 96
Sept.
10
20
30
40
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores
Step 1: Initial Sound Fluency in First Half of Kindergarten
Mid year goal: 25 on ISF
Beginning K Low risk: >= 8 At risk: < 4
Middle K Low risk: >= 25 At risk: < 10
Additional Goal PSF >= 18
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 97
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
10
20
30
40
50
60
JuneScores
MayScores
AprilScores
MarchScores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
Dec.Scores
Step 2: Phoneme Segmentation Fluency in Second Half of Kinder
End K goal: 35 on PSF
Middle K Low risk: >= 18 At risk: < 7
End K PSF Established:
PSF >= 35 Deficit: < 10
Additional Goal NWF >= 25
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 98
Sept.
10
20
30
40
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores
60
70
80
50
Step 3: Nonsense Word Fluency in First Half of First Grade
Middle first goal: 50 on NWF
Beginning first Low risk: >= 24 At risk: < 13
Mid first NWF: Established:
NWF >= 50 Deficit: < 30
Additional Goal: ORF >= 20
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 99
Step 4: Oral Reading Fluency in Second Half of First Grade
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
JuneScores
MayScores
AprilScores
MarchScores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
Dec.Scores
End first goal: 40 on ORF
Middle first ORF: Low risk: >= 20 At risk: < 8
End first ORF: Low risk: >= 40 At risk: < 20
Additional Goal: Retell > ORF/4
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 100
Step 5: Oral Reading Fluency in Second Grade
Wk 1
Wk 2
Wk 3
Wk 4
10
20
30
40
50
60
120
JuneScores
MayScores
AprilScores
MarchScores
Jan.Scores
Nov.Scores
Sep.Scores
100
90
110
80
70
Oct.Scores
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
End second goal: 90 on ORF
Beg second ORF: Low risk: >= 44 At risk: < 26
End second ORF: Low Risk:
>= 90 At Risk: < 70
Additional Goal: Retell > ORF/4
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 101
Step 6: Oral Reading Fluency in Third Grade
End third goal: 110 on ORF
Beg third ORF: Low risk: >= 77 At risk: < 53
End third ORF: Low Risk:
>= 110 At Risk: < 80
Additional Goal: Retell > ORF/4
Wk 1
Wk 2
Wk 3
Wk 4
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
JuneScores
MayScores
AprilScores
MarchScores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
Sept.Scores
Oct.Scores
Nov.Scores
Dec.Scores
*Each tick is 4 points.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 102
Is Progress is Related to Outcomes? The logic of the Evaluating and Modifying Support step relies on
evidence that amount of progress toward goals is related to important reading outcomes.
Is slope of progress on NWF in the Fall of first grade related to first grade reading outcomes? This questions was recently examined by
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., and Compton, D. L. (in press). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word Identification Fluency versus Nonsense Word Fluency. Exceptional Children. Fuchs et al. also examined the validity of spring slope, whole
year slope, and the validity of fall level, all of which will not be addressed here.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 103
Validity of Slope on NWF in Fall of First Grade for Oral Reading Fluency Outcomes Based on 151 “at risk” children, Fuchs et al. correlated slope of
progress in fall of first grade with spring of first grade reading outcomes:
Note. WIF is Word Identification Fluency
Spring Outcome Measure Fall WIF
Slope Fall NWF
Slope
WRMT-R Word Identification .43 .05
WRMT-R Word Attack .27 -.03
CRAB Fluency .54 .16
CRAB Comprehension .49 -.04
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 104
Conclusions: Validity of NWF Slope “coefficients for the nonsense word fluency measure slopes were
disappointingly low, ranging from -.04 to .16. Because nonsense word fluency is recommended for progress monitoring in the fall of first grade within the DIBELS system (Good et al., 2001), these findings raise serious concern. An increasing pattern of scores through the first semester of first grade on DIBELS nonsense word fluency appears to bear little relationship to students’ end-of-year reading status.” (p. 21)
“practitioners can have confidence that increases in word identification fluency over time reflect improved performance on important end-of-year reading outcomes. As our results suggest, the same is not true for DIBELS nonsense word fluency, and findings are particularly compelling because data were collected on the same group of children using the same methods.” (p. 23)
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 105
Concerns and Questions Before accepting these conclusions, some concerns should
be addressed.
1. The simple correlation between slope and reading outcome addresses the wrong question. There is no rational or logical reason why slope by
itself should be related to reading outcomes without considering the students initial skills.
The crucial question is, Given the student’s initial skills, does slope of progress add to the variance explained in reading outcomes?
Nick has NWF slope of +0.70 while Nora has NWF slope of +1.50. Who would you expect to have higher reading outcomes in the spring?
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 106
Answer: It depends on initial skills. Nora has a slope twice that of Nick, but substantially
lower reading outcome because her initial skills are so much lower.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Week
NW
F C
orr
ect
Let
ter
So
un
ds
Nick: slope = +0.70
Nora: slope = +1.50
Spring DORF = 51
Spring DORF = 27
Slope, by itself without considering initial skills is not enough to predict outcomes.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 107
Now Consider Nora and Nell Nora and Nell have similar initial skills – Nell’s
higher slope predicts higher skills in middle of first grade and higher reading outcomes.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Week
NW
F C
orr
ect
Let
ter
So
un
ds
Nick: slope = +0.70
Nora: slope = +1.50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Week
NW
F C
orr
ect
Let
ter
So
un
ds
Nick: slope = +0.70
Nell: slope = +2.56
Nora: slope = +1.50
Spring DORF = 37
Spring DORF = 27
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 108
Given Initial Skills, Does Slope Add to Predictions of Outcomes? Students with complete data from 2002-2003 in the
DIBELS Data System were examined for level of risk, slope of progress, and reading outcomes.
Beginning NWF NWF Slope
Group N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev
At Risk 20739 5.46 4.23 20739 1.54 1.02
Some Risk 20606 18.08 3.13 20606 1.47 0.97
Low Risk 38082 34.62 7.09 38082 1.23 1.16
Hi AP 12288 70.32 22.55 12288 1.24 1.73
Total 91715 29.09 22.12 91715 1.36 1.19
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 109
Fuchs et al. “At Risk” Sample Mean DIBELS NWF score is in the low risk range. An estimated 70% of the sample would be above the
NWF cutoff of 23 for low risk.
Initial Skills Slope
Variable N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev
CBM WIF 151 10.11 9.26 151 0.90 0.90
DIBELS NWF 151 31.29 14.47 151 1.92 2.04
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 110
Utility of Initial NWF Risk Categories Initial skills on NWF are a very strong predictor of
reading outcomes.
Ending ORF
Group N Mean Std Dev Odds of Achieving Benchmark Goal
At Risk 20739 26.52 21.13 22%
Some Risk 20606 42.81 24.47 47%
Low Risk 38082 62.07 28.74 76%
Hi AP 12288 102.19 34.44 97%
Total 91715 55.08 35.68 60%
0 -12
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 111
Does Slope Add to the Prediction of Reading Outcomes After Risk Level and Initial Skills? Rules for evaluating effects:
1. Significance. With N > 20,000 everything is significant.
2. Percent of variance explained. More than 10% of variance explained is a good indication of a strong effect. Greater percent is stronger.
3. Educationally meaningful effects. Analysis of outcomes to see if the predicted differences would be educationally important to teachers, students, parents.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 112
Does Slope Add to the Prediction of Reading Outcomes After Risk Level and Initial Skills? Sequential model predicting first grade DORF reading
outcomes from (1) risk category, (2) initial NWF skill given risk, and (3) slope given risk and initial skill.
Source DF R2 change
NWF Risk Category 3 0.40
Initial NWF Skill Given Risk 1 0.08
Slope Given Risk, Initial Skill 1 0.11
Total 91714 1.00
Risk category, initial skills, and slope combined explain 59% of reading outcomes.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 113
Variance Explained by Slope for Each Risk Category A separate analysis was conducted for each risk
category.
Percent of Risk Category Variance in Reading Outcomes
Explained
Group NWF Initial
Skills NWF Slope Given
Initial Skills
At Risk 8% 26%
Some Risk 2% 21%
Low Risk 8% 21%
Hi AP 25% 11%
Rate of progress is especially important for students who are at risk for low reading outcomes.
But, is the variance explained by slope (given risk and initial skills) educationally important?
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 114
Variability in Slope for At Risk Students About 68% of student’s trajectories are between the
low slope and the high slope.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36Week
NW
F C
orr
ect
Let
ter-
So
un
ds
Mean NWF - 1sd slope
Mean NWF Mean slope
Mean NWF + 1sd slope
Hi Slope
Lo Slope
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 115
Are Differences in Slope Educationally Meaningful for At Risk Students? Yes. Predicted reading outcomes are substantially
different.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0.52 0.77 1.03 1.28 1.54 1.79 2.05 2.30 2.56
MSlope - 1sd to MSlope + 1sd
Pre
dic
ted
En
d F
irst
DO
RF
Hi Slope
Lo Slop
e
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 116
Conclusions: Validity of DIBELS NWF Slope Initial risk status and initial skills on DIBELS Nonsense
Word Fluency are very important in predicting reading outcomes in first grade, explaining 48% of variance in outcomes.
An increasing pattern of scores through the first semester of first grade on DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency appears to be a very important predictor of reading outcomes for students who are at risk and for each risk category.
We can be confident that increases in DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency reflect improved performance on essential skills that contribute to important end-of-year reading outcomes.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 117
5. Reviewing OutcomesKey Decisions for Outcome/Accountability Assessment: Does the child have the early literacy skills predictive of successful
reading outcomes? Does the school have core curriculum and instruction as well as a system
of effective instructional support so their students achieve literacy outcomes?
Data used to inform the decision: Evaluate individual student’s performance with respect to benchmark
goals that with the odds in favor of achieving subsequent literacy goals. Compare school/district outcomes to goals and outcomes from previous
year. Evaluate core curriculum and system of additional support for each step
to identify strengths and areas for improvement.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 118
Reviewing Outcomes - School Level 1998 – 99 First Grade Reading
CBM Reading
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Correct Words
Fre
qu
en
cy
28% Established Readers57% Emerging Readers15% Non-Readers
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 119
Reviewing Outcomes - School Level 1999 – 00 First Grade Reading
CBM Reading
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Correct Words
Fre
qu
en
cy
57% Established Readers36% Emerging Readers6% Non-Readers
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 120
Heartland Early Literacy Project Across Year First Grade Oral Reading Fluency Outcomes
2001-2002 Beginning: Middle: 4229 End: 4414 2000-2001 Beginning: Middle: 4037 End: 4152 1999-2000 Beginning: Middle: 1595 End: 1879
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 121
Reviewing Outcomes: Effectiveness of Benchmark Instruction (Core Curriculum) For each step toward literacy outcomes, a school with
an effective core curriculum and instruction supports students who are on track (i.e., low risk or benchmark) to achieve the goal.
For students with the odds in favor of achieving literacy goals, it is the job of the core to teach the core components so that all students (100%) achieve the goals.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 122
Reviewing Outcomes: Effectiveness of Strategic and Intensive Intervention For each step toward literacy outcomes, a school with
an effective system of effective interventions supports students who are not on track (i.e., at some risk or at risk of difficulty achieving literacy goals) to achieve the goal.
For students with the odds against achieving literacy goals unless we provide an effective intervention, it is the job of the system of additional support to augment the core curriculum so that all students (100%) achieve the same benchmark goals.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 123
Instructional Steps from Kindergarten to Successful Reading Outcomes
Big Ideas inBeginningReading
DynamicIndicators ofBig Ideas inBeginningReading
Benchmark GoalTimeline forAssessing BigIdeas K-3
Accuracy &Fluency with
Connected Text
High-StakesReadingOutcome
AlphabeticPrinciple
PhonologicalAwareness
ISF PSF NWF ORF ORF ORF HSA
Fall Winter Spring
Kindergarten
Fall Winter Spring
First Grade
Fall Winter Spring
Second Grade Third Grade
InstructionalStep
Step1
Step2
Step3
Step4
Step5
Fall Winter Spring
Step6
The outcome of each step depends on (a) students beginning skills, (b) effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction, and (c) effectiveness of system of additional instructional support.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 124
Step by Step, Core and Intervention
Step Effectiveness
of Core
Effectiveness of Strategic
Support
Effectiveness of Intensive
Support
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Step 3: Phonics and Fluency
Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6: Fluency and Comprehension
AI
AS
AB
Effectiveness of Benchmark (core) for School A
Effectiveness of Strategic support for School A
Effectiveness of Intensive support for School A
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 125
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Core Curriculum and Instruction1. Is the core curriculum and instruction getting at least
95% of Benchmark students to the next early literacy goal? If children are on track, the core should keep them
on track. What would it take to achieve 100%?
2. Is the core curriculum and instruction as effective as other schools in getting Benchmark students to the goal? If typical schools are not getting 100% of Benchmark
students to the goal, then supplementing the core in this area can improve reading outcomes.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 126
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 127
Step 1: Beginning K to Middle K
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Conditional Percent Reaching ISF Goal
Nu
mb
er o
f S
cho
ols
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
A typical (middle) school had 62% of children with a beginning kindergarten benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of kindergarten goal, and 2% of children with intensive support recommendation.
Benchmark Median School
Intensive Median School Note. Graph based
on all schools participating in the DIBELS Data System in the 2001 – 2002 academic year.
Middle kindergarten outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the beginning of kindergarten
AI
AS
AB
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 128
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 129
Step 2: Middle K to End K
0
50
100
150
200
250
Conditional Percent Reaching PSF Goal
Nu
mb
er o
f S
cho
ols
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
A typical (middle) school had 90% of children with a middle kindergarten benchmark recommendation achieve the end of kindergarten goal, and 26% of children with intensive support recommendation.
Benchmark Median School
Intensive Median School
End of kindergarten outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations in the middle of kindergarten
AI
AS
AB
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 130
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 131
Step 3: Beginning First to Middle First
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Conditional Percent Reaching NWF Goal
Nu
mb
er o
f S
cho
ols
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
A typical (middle) school had 68% of children with a beginning first grade benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of first grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation.
Benchmark Median School
Intensive Median School
Middle of first grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations in the beginning of first grade
AI
AS
AB
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 132
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 133
Step 4: Middle First to End First
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal
Nu
mb
er o
f S
cho
ols
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
A typical (middle) school had 96% of children with a middle first grade benchmark recommendation achieve the end of first grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation.
Benchmark Median SchoolIntensive
Median School
End of first grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations in the middle of first grade
AI
AS
AB
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 134
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 135
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal
Nu
mb
er o
f S
cho
ols
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
Step 5a: Beginning Second to Middle Second
A typical (middle) school had 90% of children with a beginning second grade benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of second grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation.
Benchmark Median School
Intensive Median School
Middle of second grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the beginning of second grade
AI
AS
AB
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 136
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 137
End of second grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the middle of second grade
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal
Nu
mb
er o
f S
cho
ols
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
Step 5b: Middle Second to End Second
A typical (middle) school had 92% of children with a middle second grade benchmark recommendation achieve the end of second grade goal, and 4% of children with intensive support recommendation.
Benchmark Median School
Intensive Median School
AI
AS
AB
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 138
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 139
Middle of third grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the beginning of third grade
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal
Nu
mb
er o
f S
cho
ols
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
Step 6a: Beginning Third to Middle Third
A typical (middle) school had 90% of children with a beginning third grade benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of third grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation.
Benchmark Median School
Intensive Median School
AI
AS
AB
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 140
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 141
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal
Nu
mb
er o
f S
cho
ols
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
Step 6b: Middle Third to End Third
A typical (middle) school had 91% of children with a middle third grade benchmark recommendation achieve the end of third grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation.
Benchmark Median School
Intensive Median School
End of third grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the middle of third grade
AI
AS A
B
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 142
Step by Step, Core and Intervention
Step Effectiveness
of Core
Effectiveness of Strategic
Support
Effectiveness of Intensive
Support
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Step 3: Phonics and Fluency
Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension
Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools
Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 143
Outcomes Driven ModelRepeat for Each StepValidate Need
for Support
ReviewOutcomes
EvaluateSupport
ImplementInstructional
Support
PlanInstructional
Support
Provide Instructional SupportBased on IntegratedAssessment - InterventionFeedback Loop
Identify Needfor Support
3 time per year progress monitoring - Low RiskFrequent progress monitoring - At Risk
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 144
Instructional Steps from Kindergarten to Successful Reading Outcomes
Big Ideas inBeginningReading
DynamicIndicators ofBig Ideas inBeginningReading
Benchmark GoalTimeline forAssessing BigIdeas K-3
Accuracy &Fluency with
Connected Text
High-StakesReadingOutcome
AlphabeticPrinciple
PhonologicalAwareness
ISF PSF NWF ORF ORF ORF HSA
Fall Winter Spring
Kindergarten
Fall Winter Spring
First Grade
Fall Winter Spring
Second Grade Third Grade
InstructionalStep
Step1
Step2
Step3
Step4
Step5
Fall Winter Spring
Step6
Step by step to important reading goals and outcomes. Implicit in this logic is a linkage to High Stakes Reading Outcomes.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 145
Third Grade Oral Reading Fluency to Oregon Statewide Assessment Test
Odds of “meets expectation” on OSAT given 3rd grade TORF of 110 : 90 of 91 or 99%.
Odds of “meets expectation” on OSAT given 3rd grade TORF below 70: 4 of 23 or 17%.
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240TORF May Grade 3
OS
AT
To
tal S
co
rer = .7353% of Variance
Meets
Does not meetExpectations
Exceeds
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 146
Linkage of Third-Grade TORF to Illinois State Assessment Test (ISAT)
Odds of “meets standards” on ISAT given Third-Grade TORF of 110 or above: 73 of 74 or 99%.
Odds of “meets standards” on ISAT given Third-Grade TORF of 70 or below: 1 of 8 or 12%.
r = .7963% of Variance
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180TORF, Spring Grade 3
ISA
T, S
pri
ng
Gra
de
3
Meets Standards
Below Standards
Exceeds Standards
Sibley, D., Biwer, D., & Hesch, A. (2001). Unpublished Data. Arlington Heights, IL: Arlington Heights School District 25.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 147
3rd Grade Benchmark in Reading - CBM
Above 110, the odds are strong the student will rank “proficient” on the AK State Benchmark.
Ala
ska
Sta
te B
ench
mar
k in
Rea
din
g
Below Proficient
Below 70, the odds are low the student will rank “proficient” on the AK State Benchmark.
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
BM
1-R
-SC
OR
E
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Words Per Minute: TORF 3.3
Not Proficient
Proficient
Advanced
Proficient
Linner, S. (2001, January). Curriculum Based Assessment in reading used as a predictor for the Alaska Benchmark Test. Paper presented at the Alaska Special Education Conference, Anchorage, AK.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 148
Linkage of Oral Reading Fluency to State Reading Outcome Assessments
Oral Reading Fluency
240220200180160140120100806040200
Re
ad
ing
FC
AT
-SS
S S
core
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Technical Report 1). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research,.
Above 110, the odds are 91% the student will rank “adequate” on the FL State Assessment.
Below 80, the odds are 19% the student will rank “adequate” on the FL State Assessment.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 149
Themes Don’t loose track of the bottom line. Are we getting closer to
important and meaningful outcomes? Monitor Progress on -- and teach -- what is important:
Phonemic Awareness, Alphabetic Principle, Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text
Oral Reading Fluency is an important instructional goal and target of progress monitoring.
Use progress monitoring to make decisions that change outcomes for children.
Progress monitoring should be efficient and purposeful. Start early! Trajectories of reading progress are very difficult
to change.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 151
Step by Step, Core and Intervention
Step Effectiveness
of Core
Effectiveness of Strategic
Support
Effectiveness of Intensive
Support
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Step 3: Phonics and Fluency
Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension
Support Strength Strength
Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools
Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 152
Step by Step, Core and Intervention
Step Effectiveness
of Core
Effectiveness of Strategic
Support
Effectiveness of Intensive
Support
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Step 3: Phonics and Fluency
Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension
Support Strength Strength
SupportStrengthStrength
Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools
Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 153
Step by Step, Core and Intervention
Step Effectiveness
of Core
Effectiveness of Strategic
Support
Effectiveness of Intensive
Support
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Step 3: Phonics and Fluency
Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension
Support Strength Strength
SupportStrengthStrength
TypicalStrengthTypical
Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools
Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 154
Step by Step, Core and Intervention
Step Effectiveness
of Core
Effectiveness of Strategic
Support
Effectiveness of Intensive
Support
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Step 3: Phonics and Fluency
Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension
Support Strength Strength
SupportStrengthStrength
TypicalStrengthTypical
Support TypicalTypical
Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools
Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 155
Step by Step, Core and Intervention
Step Effectiveness
of Core
Effectiveness of Strategic
Support
Effectiveness of Intensive
Support
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Step 3: Phonics and Fluency
Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension
Support Strength Strength
SupportStrengthStrength
TypicalStrengthTypical
Support TypicalTypical
Typical TypicalTypical
Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools
Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 156
Step by Step, Core and Intervention
Step Effectiveness
of Core
Effectiveness of Strategic
Support
Effectiveness of Intensive
Support
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Step 3: Phonics and Fluency
Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension
Support StrengthStrength
Support Strength Strength
SupportStrengthStrength
TypicalStrengthTypical
Support TypicalTypical
Typical TypicalTypical
Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools
Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 157
Step by Step, Core and Intervention
Step Effectiveness
of Core
Effectiveness of Strategic
Support
Effectiveness of Intensive
Support
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Step 3: Phonics and Fluency
Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension
Support StrengthStrength
Strength Typical Strength
Support Strength Strength
SupportStrengthStrength
TypicalStrengthTypical
Support TypicalTypical
Typical TypicalTypical
Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools
Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 158
Step by Step, Core and Intervention
Step Effectiveness
of Core
Effectiveness of Strategic
Support
Effectiveness of Intensive
Support
Step 1: Phonemic Awareness
Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Step 3: Phonics and Fluency
Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension
Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension
Support Typical Typical
Strength Typical Strength
Support Strength Strength
SupportStrengthStrength
TypicalStrengthTypical
Support TypicalTypical
Typical TypicalTypical
Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools
Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.
Support StrengthStrength