© 2006 bakerson and gothberg dibels michelle bakerson, m.a. and june gothberg western michigan...

© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

DIBELSDIBELS

Michelle Bakerson, M.A. and June Gothberg

Western Michigan University

A Look at Reliability and ValidityA Look at Reliability and Validity


DDynamicynamicIIndicators ofndicators ofBBasicasicEEarlyarlyLLiteracyiteracySSkillskills


Background InformationBackground Information DIBELS came into being through 15 years of research from the

University of Oregon.

Report of the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) and the National Research Council (1998) highlighted the importance of instruction and assessment in five domains of reading and related skills*

-Phonemic awareness-Phonics-Fluency-Vocabulary-Comprehension

*these are used as requirements for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA).


Reading TrajectoriesReading Trajectories

Reading trajectories are established early.


Readers stay on their trajectoryReaders stay on their trajectory

Readers on a low trajectory tend to stay on that trajectory.

Students on a low trajectory tend to fall further and further behind.


This is why DIBELS is neededThis is why DIBELS is needed

The later children are identified as needing support, the more difficult it is to catch up!

It measures earlier than first grade


Background InformationBackground Information

The DIBELS was developed by Dr. Roland Good III and Dr. Ruth Kaminski. It measures the five critical areas of literacy indicated by the National Reading Panel (2000) and the National Research Council (1998).

Adapted from Sopris West 2005


Purposes of DIBELSPurposes of DIBELS

Screening-to locate the at-risk children, to track children’s progress

Progress Monitoring-to evaluate the results of carefully planned and delivered intervention at frequent intervals

Information obtained used to plan instruction


Subtests and What they MeasureSubtests and What they Measure

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency– Child’s skill in breaking words into individual phonemes– Administration – 1 minute

Initial Sounds Fluency– Emerging phonological awareness– Administration - Approximately 3 minutes

Nonsense Word Fluency– Sound-symbol knowledge by measuring phonic decoding

skills– Timed task - 1 minute


Subtests, cont.Subtests, cont. Word Use Fluency

– Vocabulary assessment – Newest test

Oral Reading Fluency– Oral passage reading rate and accuracy is measured– Timed task – 1 minute

Letter Naming Fluency– Speed of letter naming– Timed task - 1 minute

Oral Reading Retelling Fluency– Fluency in retelling main ideas– One minute task


Subtest BenchmarksSubtest Benchmarks

Adapted from Sopris West 2005


Advantages of the DIBELS Advantages of the DIBELS Efficient and economical Simple to score Scoring results are immediate Utility for Screening,

Progress monitoring and Diagnostic Tool

Effects intervention Technically adequate Adequate reliability

– Sensitive to growth and change over time on normative groups

– Replicable Predictive validity established

PDA edition from wirelessgeneration.com


Disadvantages of the DIBELSDisadvantages of the DIBELS

Normative Data– Not representative

of the population

No utility for Outcome purposes


Reliability and ValidityReliability and Validity

Validity and Reliability with standard tests – Three sub-tests

• Letter Naming Fluency• Initial Sound Fluency• Phonemic Segmentation Fluency

CTOPPReliability – Alternative FormValidity – Criterion Related


Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)

Median of three alternate form probes:

Alternative-form reliability - .93 Concurrent Validity with the Woodcock-Johnson

Psycho-Educational Battery (WJPEB) readiness score - .70 in kindergarten

Predictive validity of LNF in spring of kindergarten with (WJPEB) in spring of first grade is .65 Kindergarten, .71 with first grade oral reading fluency (ORF) using Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM).


Initial Sound Fluency (ISF)Initial Sound Fluency (ISF)

There are 20 alternate formsAlternate reliability is .72Concurrent validity of ISF with the

readiness cluster score of the WJPEB is .36, and correlation was the same one year later.

Predictive validity of ISF with CBM ORF in spring of first grade is .45


Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)

There are 20 alternate forms Alternate form reliability is .88 for kindergarten Concurrent, criterion-related validity with the

readiness cluster of the WJPEB was .54 in the spring of kindergarten

Concurrent validity estimates range from .43 to .65 on other standard measures.

Predictive validity of spring kindergarten with spring first grade WJPWB is .68 and with ORF is .62


The Comprehensive Test of The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)Phonological Processing (CTOPP)Standardized measure of early

literacyNorm-referenced testHas reliability and validity to

accurately measure phonological processing


COTPPCOTPP

Coefficient alphas for sub-tests– .74 to .93 (5 and 6 year olds)

Composite scores internal reliability coefficients (age 5)– .95, .84, and .87– Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory and

Rapid Naming respectively Age 6

– .96, .81, and .89 Test-retest reliability

– .74 to .97 for sub-tests– .79, .92 and .70 for composites

Moderate to strong correlations between DIBELS and COTPP


Intercorrelations for Scores on the Intercorrelations for Scores on the DIBELS and CTOPPDIBELS and CTOPP

Measure ELI RCN BCW SM RON MD NRW PACom PMCom RNCom

LNF .45 .59 .38 .53 .59 .43 .44 .53 .52 .58

ISF .52 .21 .51 .51 .24 .34 .44 .60 .46 .20

PSF .47 .08 .63 .25 .14 .32 .33 .53 .39 .09

Note: LNF=letter naming fluency, ISF=initial sound fluency, and PSF=phoneme segmentation fluency; ELI=Elision, RCN=rapid color naming, BLW=blending words, SM=sound matching, RON=rapid object naming, MD=memory for digits, NWR=nonsense words repetition, PACom=phonological awareness composite, PMCom=phonological memory composite, and RNCom=rapid naming composite.


Reliability of DIBELSReliability of DIBELS

Measure Alternate Form Reliability

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency 1 probe: .88

3 probes: .96

Initial Sound Fluency 1 probe: .92

3 probes: .98

Nonsense Word Fluency 1 probe: .65

5 probes: .90

Word Use Fluency 1 probe: .90

Oral Reading Fluency .68 - .72

Letter Naming Fluency 1 probe: .93

3 probes: .98

Adapted from Whalen, A. 2006


Validity of DIBELSValidity of DIBELS

Measure Criterion-Related Validity

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency .73 - .91

Initial Sound Fluency .84

Nonsense Word Fluency .42 - .71

Word Use Fluency .70-.80

Oral Reading Fluency .73-.81

Letter Naming Fluency .72 - .98

Adapted from Whalen, A. 2006


ConclusionConclusion

“Ideally, an assessment system must be designed to measure the skills that research has found to be representative of phonological awareness, predictive of early reading success, and aligned with effective beginning reading instruction” (Hintze, Ryan, & Stoner).

DIBELS measures the construct of early literacy and is an instrument with moderate validity and reliability.

DIBELS is useful for districts, schools and class-wide screening purposes to identify early intervention for individual students.


Bibliographic SourcesBibliographic Sources

Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.

Blachman, B. A. (1991). Phonological awareness: Implications for pre-reading and early reading instruction. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Ed.), Phonological processes in literacy (pp. 29-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read – A causal connection, Nature, 30,, 419-421.

Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Review, 81, 313-321.

Diamond Canyon Schools (2005). DIBELS, Labels, AIMS, Terra Nova, what does it all mean? Retrieved March 22, 2006 from http://diamondcanyon.dvusd.org/Parent_Nights/parent_night_dibels_nov1.ppt#268,11,Slide 11.

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (2006). Retrieved March 22, 2006 from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/

Eck, J. (2002). Assessment overview: Foundations of DIBELS. Colorado Reading First.

Ehri, L. C. (1987). Learning to read and spell words. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 5-31. Francis, D.J., Santi, K.L., & Barr, C. (2005). Form effects on the estimation of students’ progress in oral reading fluency using CBM. CRESST.

Retrieved March 24, 2006 from http://www.tlc2.uh.edu/times/Presentations/2005/CRESST2005.pdf.

Good, R. H. & Kaminski, R. A. (2005). DIBELS: A reliable and valid reading assessment grades K-6 overview [Electronic version]. Sopris West. Retrieved March 24, 2006 from http://www.dibelsassessment.com/Z188PO_8-04.pdf.


More Bibliographic SourcesMore Bibliographic Sources Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., ReMillard, A., Ebmeyer, C., & VanLoo, D. (2001). Using DIBELS in an outcomes driven model. Early

Childhood Research Institute. University of Oregon, College of Education. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ibr/ibr_present/2002/ch3_2.pdf.

Hintze, J.M., Ryan, A.L., & Stoner, G. Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the DIBELS/CTOPP 23 scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

National Research Council (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R. 1, 107th Cong. (2001).

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & DIBELS/CTOPP 24 Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for

distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED,Inc.

Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.

Whalen, A. (2006). Universal screening and progress monitoring. Oregon Department of Education. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from http://www.ode.state.or.us/initiatives/idea/monitoringpresent.pdf.


Thank you for your time.Thank you for your time.

© 2006 bakerson and gothberg dibels michelle bakerson, m.a. and june gothberg western michigan...

Documents

minute slide

gothberg reliability

validity slide

gothberg subtests

gothberg readers

gothberg reading trajectories

gothberg advantages

gothberg disadvantages