technical report # 1702 - licencedeals.com · 2017. 10. 16. · 1702). eugene, or, behavioral...
TRANSCRIPT
Technical Report # 1702
An Update to Compiled ORF Norms
Jan Hasbrouck
Gerald Tindal
University of Oregon
Published by
Behavioral Research and Teaching University of Oregon • 175 Education 5262 University of Oregon • Eugene, OR 97403-5262 Phone: 541-346-3535 • Fax: 541-346-5689 http://brt.uoregon.edu
Author Note
Jan Hasbrouck is an educational consultant, and holds a Courtesy Senior Research Associate I appointment in the Behavior Research and Teaching Program in the College of Education at the University of Oregon.
Gerald Tindal is a Castle-McIntosh-Knight Professor in the College of Education at the University of Oregon and the Director of Behavioral Research and Teaching Program.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the many people who provided valuable feedback on the creation of these new compiled ORF norms including Candyce Ihnot, Karen McKenna, and Karen Hunter from Read Naturally, Inc.; Michelle Hosp, University of Massachusetts Amherst; Doris Baker and Scott Baker, Southern Methodist University; and Deborah Glaser, author and consultant.
Copyright © 2017. Behavioral Research and Teaching. All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission.
The University of Oregon is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. This document is available in alternative formats upon request.
Hasbrouck, J. & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical Report No. 1702). Eugene, OR, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
Abstract
Thispaperdescribestheoriginsofthewidelyusedcurriculum-basedmeasureoforalreading
fluency(ORF)andhowthecreationanduseofORFnormshasevolvedovertime.Normsfor
ORFcanbeusedtohelpeducatorsmakedecisionsaboutwhichstudentsmightneed
interventioninreadingandtohelpmonitorstudents’progressonceinstructionhasbegun.ORF
normswereoriginallydevelopedattheschoolordistrictlevelsusingonlylocaldataobtained
fromspecificcurriculummaterialsorassessments.Two previous compilations of norms not
linked to any specific school, district, curriculum, or assessment have been published in the
professional literature.Usingdatafromthreewidely-usedcommerciallyavailableORF
assessments(DIBELS,DIBELSNext,andeasyCBM),anewsetofcompiledORFnormsforgrade
1-6arepresentedherealongwithananalysisofhowtheydifferfromthenormscreatedin
2006.
AnUpdatetoCompiledORFNorms
Oralreadingfluency(ORF)isoneofseveralcurriculum-basedmeasures(CBM)originally
developedintheearly1980sbyateamofresearchersattheUniversityofMinnesota(Deno,
1982;Tindal,2013).CBMmeasuresweredesignedtoserveasusefultoolsforteachersin
specialandgeneraleducation,allowingthemtomakeaccurateandtimelydata-driven
decisionsabouttheirstudents’progressinfunctionalliteracyandnumeracyskills.AlltheCBM
measuresweredesignedtobeinexpensive,timeefficient,easytoadminister,reliable,andable
tobeusedfrequentlyinmultipleforms(Deno,2003).Mostimportantly,CBMswerebasedon
standard,validassessmentsthat(a)measuresomethingimportant(b)presenttasksofequal
difficulty,(c)aretiedtothegeneralcurriculum,and(d)showprogressovertime(Deno&
Mirkin,1977).TeacherswerethentrainedtouseCBMsindecidingwhetherandwhento
modifyastudent’sinstructionalprogram(Deno,1985)andtoevaluatetheoveralleffectiveness
oftheinstructionalprogram(Tindal,2017).
OralReadingFluency(ORF)
OfthevariousCBMmeasuresavailableinreading,ORFislikelythemostwidelyused.
ORFinvolveshavingstudentsreadaloudfromanunpracticedpassageforoneminute.An
examinernotesanyerrorsmade(wordsreadorpronouncedincorrectly,omitted,readoutof
order,orwordspronouncedforthestudentbytheexamineraftera3-secondpause)andthen
calculatesthetotalofwordsreadcorrectlyperminute(WCPM).ThisWCPMscorehas30years
ofvalidationresearchconductedoverthreedecades,indicatingitisarobustindicatorofoverall
readingdevelopmentthroughouttheprimarygrades(Bakeretal.,2008;Fuchs,Fuchs,Hosp,&
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 1
Jenkins,2001;Tindal,2013;Wayman,Wallace,Wiley,Ticha,&Espin,2007;Wanzek,Roberts,
Linan-Thompson,Vaughn,Woodruff,&Murray,2010).
InterpretingORFScores
ORFisusedfortwoprimarypurposes:Screeningandprogressmonitoring.WhenORFis
usedtoscreenstudents,thedrivingquestionsare,first:“Howdoesthisstudent’sperformance
comparetohis/herpeers?”andthen:“Isthisstudentat-riskofreadingfailure?”Toanswer
thesequestions,thedecision-makersrelyonORFnormsthatidentifyperformancebenchmarks
atthebeginning(fall),middle(winter),andend(spring)oftheyear.Anindividualstudent’s
WCPMscorecanbecomparedtothesebenchmarksanddeterminedtobeeithersignificantly
abovebenchmark,abovebenchmark,attheexpectedbenchmark,belowbenchmark,or
significantlybelowbenchmark.Thosestudentsbeloworsignificantlybelowbenchmarkareat
possibleriskofreadingdifficulties.Theyaregoodcandidatesforfurtherdiagnosticassessments
tohelpteachersdeterminetheirskillstrengthsorweaknesses,andplanappropriatelytargeted
instructionandintervention(Hasbrouck,2010).
WhenusingORFforprogressmonitoringthequestionstobeansweredare:“Isthis
studentmakingexpectedprogress?”and“Istheinstructionorinterventionbeingprovided
improvingthisstudent’sskills?”.WhenORFassessmentsareusedtoanswerthesequestions,
theymustbeadministeredfrequently(weekly,bimonthly,etc.),theresultsareplacedona
graphforeaseofanalysis,andagoaldetermined.Thestudent’sgoalcanbebasedon
establishedperformancebenchmarksorinformationonexpectedratesofprogress.Overa
periodofweeks,thestudent’sgraphcanshowsignificantormoderateprogress,expected
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 2
progress,orprogressthatisbeloworsignificantlybelowexpectedlevels.Basedonthese
outcomes,teacherscandecidewhetherto(a)makesmallormajorchangestothestudent’s
instruction,(b)continuewiththecurrentinstructionalplan,or(c)changethestudent’sgoal
(Hosp,Hosp,&Howell,2007).
CreatingORFNorms
OriginalguidelinesforcreatingORFnorms.IntheearlyyearsofCBM,thenormsand
benchmarksneededtointerpretstudents’scoreswerecreatedattheschoolordistrictlevel.
Theperformanceofasignificantproportion(orsometimesall)ofthestudentsinthatschoolor
districtwereassessed,andpercentilerankingsofstudents’scorescreated.Thestudents’rate
ofgrowthacrossaschoolyearwasdeterminedfromthesedata.
Anobviousconcernaboutusingthisstrategytocreatenormsariseswhentheacademic
skillsofthestudentpopulationinaschoolordistrictislowerthanwhatwouldbeconsidered
average,typical,oroptimal.Iftheperformanceoflow-skilledstudentsisusedtoestablish
benchmarksordeterminegoalsforprogress,ananticipatedoutcomecouldbethatteachers
mightnotinstructstudentswithsufficientrigororintensitytoimprovetheirskillstoa
meaningfullevelbutratherjustenoughtomeetthelowbenchmark.Studentsat-riskfor
academicfailuremaybeidentifiedaslowriskwhentheirperformanceiscomparedtonormsof
otherlowperformingstudents.
CreatingcompiledORFnorms:1992.Asanalternativetolocallycreatednorms,Jan
HasbrouckandGeraldTindalestablishedasetofORFnormscreatedbycompilingschooland
districtnormsfromseveraldifferentsites(1992).SeeTable1.
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 3
Table1.CompiledORFNorms1992*
Grade Percentile FallWCPM WinterWCPM SpringWCPM
2
75 82 106 124
50 53 78 94
25 23 46 65
3
75 107 123 142
50 79 93 114
25 65 70 87
4
75 125 133 143
50 99 112 118
25 72 89 92
5
75 126 143 151
50 105 118 128
25 77 93 100
*From:Hasbrouck,J.E.&Tindal,G.(Spring,1992).Curriculum-basedoralreadingfluencynormsforstudentsingrades2-5.
TeachingExceptionalChildren,24(3),41-44.
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 4
Inthisoriginalstudy,scoresfromapproximately45,000studentsingrades2to5wereobtained
fromschoolsthatcollectedtheORFdatausingpassagesfromtheircurrentorrecentcore
readingprograms,followingstandardizedCBMprocedures(seeHosp,Hosp,Howell,2007).
CreatingcompiledORFnorms:2006.In2006,HasbrouckandTindalagainpublisheda
setofcompiledORFnorms,thistimefromamuchlargersampleofapproximately250,000
studentsandexpandedtoincludescoresfromthemiddleofgradeonethroughtheendof
gradeeight.SeeTable2.Bythistime,mostschoolsanddistrictswereusingcommercially
availableCBMassessmentsincludingDIBELS®andAIMSweb®,ratherthanmaterialscreatedby
thedistrictsthemselves.The2006normsincludedORFscoresfromavarietyofsources,
primarilycommerciallyavailableassessments.
Table2.CompiledORFNorms2006
Grade Percentile FallWCPM WinterWCPM SpringWCPM
1
90 NA 81 11175 NA 47 8250 NA 23 5325 NA 12 2810 NA 6 15
2
90 106 125 14275 79 100 11750 51 72 8925 25 42 6110 11 18 31
3
90 128 146 16275 99 120 13750 71 92 10725 44 62 78710 21 36 48
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 5
Grade Percentile FallWCPM WinterWCPM SpringWCPM
4
90 145 166 18075 119 139 15250 94 112 12325 68 87 9810 45 61 72
5
90 166 182 19475 139 156 16850 110 127 13925 85 99 10910 61 74 83
6
90 177 195 20475 153 167 17750 127 140 15025 98 111 12210 68 82 93
7
90 180 192 20275 156 165 17750 128 136 15025 102 109 12310 79 88 98
8
90 185 199 19975 161 173 17750 133 146 15125 106 115 12410 77 84 97
CreatingcompiledORFnorms:2017.Now,25yearssincethefirststudywaspublished,
thecompiledORFnormshaveagainbeenupdated.Onechangethathadoccurredinthisperiod
wasthemeasuresbeingusedbyschoolstoassesstheirstudents’ORF.Severalpublishershave
createdstandardizedORFassessmentsandcompiledtheirownnormstobeusedwiththose
commerciallyavailablematerials.Many,ifnotmost,ofthepublishersofORFassessmentsalso
managethedatacollectedbytheschools.So,ratherthanseekingdatafromschoolsordistricts
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 6
forthisupdate,weinsteadsoughtaccesstopublisheddatadirectlyfromseveralvendorsof
commerciallyavailableORFmeasures.Insomecases,publishershaddirectaccesstothe
students’scores,whileotherscollaboratedwithasecond-partydatasupportservicetoaccess
andanalyzethescores.
WecontactedseveralpublishersofORFassessmentssothatabroadrangeofscores
couldbeincludedinthisupdatedcompilation.However,incontrasttoourprevious
experiencesinthefirsttwostudies,accesstostudentdatawassignificantlyrestrictedforthis
study.Infact,Pearson,Inc.,publisheroftheAIMSweb®CBMassessment,refusedtoprovide
accesstoanyoftheirdata“duetothechangesinstudentdataprivacylawsnationwide”(D.
Baird,personalcommunication,December13,2016).Thiswasdespiteourhavingcompleted
multipleresearchrequestandpermissionformsattherequestofthecompany,andour
assurancetothem,supportedbytheUniversityofOregon’sInternalReviewBoard’sapproval
ofourstudy,thatalldatawouldbehandledsecurelyandwithanonymity.Thisrefusalofaccess
wasunfortunatebutnotuncommon.Limitedaccesstostudentdatahasbecomeanoteworthy
problemtoeducationalresearchers(Sparks,2017).
Ontheotherhand,weweregivenaccesstoORFdatafromboththeCBMreading
(FastBridgeLearning,LLC)andBenchmarkAssessorLive®(ReadNaturally,Inc.)assessments,
butdidnotincludethosedatainourcompilednorms.TheORFscoresfromCBMreading®were
significantlydifferentfromthescoresfromtheotherassessmentsweanalyzed,perhapsdueto
thewayinwhichtheirpassageswereconstructed.Wedidn’tincludetheBenchmarkAssessor
Live®databecausethoseORFscoresaremostcommonlycollectedonlyfromstudents
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 7
alreadyidentifiedasat-risk,vulnerablereaders,ratherthanfromwholeclassroomsthatinclude
studentsfromallabilityandskilllevels.
ThesenewupdatedORFnormswereultimately compiledfromthreeassessments:
DIBELS6thedition©(usingdatafrom2009-2010),andDIBELSNext©(usingdatafrom
2010-2011),bothpublishedbyDynamicMeasurementGroupandavailablefromtheUODIBELS
DataSystemwithintheUniversityofOregonCenteronTeachingandLearningintheCollegeof
Education.WealsoincludedscoresfromtheeasyCBM©ORFassessment,publishedby
HoughtonMifflinHarcourtRiverside,alsoavailablefromtheUODIBELSDataSystemand
easyCBM.com.TheeasyCBM©datawerefromthe2013-2014schoolyear.
ThesenewORFdatafileswerecompiledfromtechnicaldocumentsestablishingasetof
normsspecifictoeachindividualassessment.Thethreesetsofassessment-specificnorms,
ratherthanrawscoresfromthosethreeassessments,werethenaveragedtocompilethisnew
setofORFnorms.Thedetailsofthemethodologyusedtoconstructthethreesetsofnorms
usedinthisstudywereavailableinseparatetechnicalreports:DIBELS®6thEditionin
Cummings,Otterstedt,Kennedy,Baker,andKame’enui(2011);DIBELSNext®inCummings,
Kennedy,Otterstedt,Baker,andKame’enui(2011);andeasyCBMinSaven,Tindal,Irvin,Farley,
andAlonzo(2014).Allthree reportshavebeenpublishedbytheCollegeofEducationatthe
UniversityofOregon.
Table3displaysthenumberofscoresusedforeachofthethreeassessmentsintheir
calculationoftest-specificnorms.NotethatthenumberofscoresfromboththeDIBELS6th
edition®andDIBELSNext®datarepresentedallthestudentsfromwhomORFdatawere
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 8
collectedduringthattestingperiod.TheeasyCBMdevelopersusedastratifiedrandom
samplingacrossgeographicregion,gender,andethnicityofthestudents.Thissamplingplan
resultedinnormsthataremoreaccuratethanifeveryscoreisused(Saven,Tindal,Irvin,Farley,
&Alonzo,2014).ThetotalnumberofORFscoresusedinthisupdatedstudywas6,663,423.
Table3:Numberofscoresusedforthenormsforthreeassessments
Note:D6=DIBELS®6thEdition;DN=DIBELSNext®;EZ=easyCBM®
CompiledORFNorms2017
LikethetwoprevioussetsofnormscompiledbyHasbrouckandTindal(1992,2006),all
threeoftheassessmentsbeginwithscoresfrompassagereadingORFassessmentsinthe
middleofthegradeoneyear.Unlikethe2006normshowever,theseupdatednormsdonot
includescoresforgrades7or8.Onlyoneofthethreeassessmentsincludedinthiscompilation,
easyCBM®,hasORFassessmentsforstudentinthosegrades.Therefore,thenormsforgrades7
and8werenotincludedbecausetheywouldhaveonlyrepresentedscoresforstudentswho
hadtakentheeasyCBM®assessment.SeeTable4.
Grade Fall Winter Spring
D6 DN EZ D6 DN EZ D6 DN EZ1 660,404 4,612 500 651,275 4,495 5002 637,017 4,231 500 615,480 4,311 500 608,782 4,176 5003 523,144 3,855 500 502,368 3,889 500 496,638 3,777 5004 346,306 3,772 500 325,664 3,840 500 323,097 3,648 5005 288,493 2,409 500 264,345 2,435 500 264,536 2,393 5006 113,298 1,456 500 100,537 1,485 500 100,430 1,484 500
TOTAL 1,908,258 2,389,848 2,365,317
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 9
Figure4.CompiledORFNorms2017
Grade %ile FallWCPM*
WinterWCPM*
SpringWCPM*
1
90 97 11675 59 9150 29 6025 16 3410 9 18
2
90 111 131 14875 84 109 12450 50 84 10025 36 59 7210 23 35 43
3
90 134 161 16675 104 137 13950 83 97 11225 59 79 9110 40 62 63
4
90 153 168 18475 125 143 16050 94 120 13325 75 95 10510 60 71 83
5
90 179 183 19575 153 160 16950 121 133 14625 87 109 11910 64 84 102
6
90 185 195 20475 159 166 17350 132 145 14625 112 116 12210 89 91 91
*WCPM=wordscorrectperminute
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 10
ChangesinScoresfrom2006-2017
Table5comparestheORFscoresfrom2006to2017.Changesarereportedas
differenceinscorevaluesfromfivepercentilesranges(PR)for90th,75th,50th,25th,10thand
acrossthethreeassessmentperiodsforeachgrade.InfourPR-gradelevels,theWCPMscore
wasthesamein2006and2017:the50thpercentileofgrade4intheFall(94WCPM);the90th
percentilesforWinter(195WCPM)andSpring(204WCPM)ingrade6;andthe25thpercentile
intheSpringofgrade6(122WCPM).Ingrades1to5,the2017scoreswereallhigherthanthe
2006scores,exceptinonePR-gradelevel:the50thpercentilescoresforFallingrade2thescore
decreasedbyoneWCPMfrom51in2006to50in2017.Inthesefirstfivegradelevels,the
largestincreasewas26WCPMingrade3inthewinterforthe10thpercentile,changingfrom36
WCPMin2006to62WCPMin2017.
Differentpatternsofchangeemergedinthepercentilescoresreportedforgrade6.
Mostofthescoresreportedingrade6(8of15)increased(from5to21WCPM),butinfourPR-
levelsthescoresdecreasedin2017by1to4WCPMandthreeofthescoresremainedthe
same.Acrossallthreeassessmentperiodsthescoresforgrade6increasedonaverageby4
WCPMwhichwasthesmallestofallthegradelevelgains.OnaverageacrossallPRlevels,grade
oneincreasedby7WCPM,grade2by9,grade3by12,grade4by6,andgrade5by8.Across
allthesixgrades,theoverallincreaseinWCPMwas5.InthefivePR-levelsthescoresgainedan
averageof4WCPMinthe90thpercentile,5WCPMinthe75thand50thpercentiles,7WCPMin
the25thpercentileand9WCPMinthe25thpercentilesscores.Theseaveragegainsarewithin
theexpectedrangeofperformanceof5WCPMforlowergradesand9WCPMforupper
elementarygrades(Christ&Silberglitt,2007).AveragesareacrossallPRs.SeeTable6.
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 11
Table5.Comparisonofnormsfor2006and2017
%iles Grade1 F W S Grade2 F W S90 2017 97 116 2017 111 131 14890 2006 81 111 2006 106 125 142 Difference 16 5 Difference 5 6 675 2017 59 91 2017 84 109 12475 2006 47 82 2006 79 100 117 Difference 12 9 Difference 5 9 750 2017 29 60 2017 50 84 10050 2006 23 53 2006 51 72 89 Difference 6 7 Difference -1 12 1125 2017 16 34 2017 36 59 7225 2006 12 28 2006 25 42 61 Difference 4 6 Difference 11 17 1110 2017 9 18 2017 23 35 4310 2006 6 15 2006 11 18 31 Difference 3 3 Difference 12 17 12
%iles Grade3 F W S Grade4 F W S90 2017 134 161 166 2017 153 168 18490 2006 128 146 162 2006 145 166 180 Difference 6 15 4 Difference 8 2 475 2017 104 137 139 2017 125 143 16075 2006 99 120 137 2006 119 139 152 Difference 5 17 2 6 4 850 2017 83 97 112 2017 94 120 13350 2006 71 92 107 2006 94 112 123 Difference 12 5 5 Difference 0 8 1025 2017 59 79 91 2017 75 95 10525 2006 44 62 78 2006 68 87 98 Difference 15 17 13 7 8 710 2017 40 62 63 2017 60 71 8310 2006 21 36 48 2006 45 61 72 Difference 19 26 15 Difference 15 10 11
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 12
%iles Grade5 F W S Grade6 F W S90 2017 179 183 195 2017 185 195 20490 2006 166 182 194 2006 177 195 204 Difference 13 1 1 Difference 8 0 075 2017 153 160 169 2017 159 166 17375 2006 139 156 168 2006 153 167 177 Difference 14 4 1 Difference 6 -1 -450 2017 121 133 146 2017 132 145 14650 2006 110 127 139 2006 127 140 150 Difference 11 6 7 Difference 5 5 -425 2017 87 109 119 2017 112 116 12225 2006 85 99 109 2006 98 111 122 Difference 2 10 10 Difference 14 5 010 2017 64 84 102 2017 89 91 9110 2006 61 74 83 2006 68 82 93 Difference 3 10 19 Difference 21 9 -2
Table6.AveragedifferencesinOPFacrossPRsforeachgradelevel
Difference Grade Fall Winter Spring Ave*1 41 30 72 32 61 47 93 57 80 39 124 28 30 36 65 43 31 38 86 54 18 -10 4
*AverageacrossallPRvalues.
Summary
Thecurriculum-basedmeasureoforalreadingfluency(ORF)hasbeenproventobea
reliable,useful,andpracticalmeasuretohelpdeterminewhichstudentsmightneedtobe
providedwithadditionalassistancetolearntoreadproficiently.SincethedevelopmentofCBM
measuresintheearly1980smanyadaptationsandchangeshaveappearedinthewaythese
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 13
variousmeasureshavebeendevelopedandused.Originallyschoolswereencouragedto
developtheirownassessmentsfromthelocalinstructionalmaterials.Normsandperformance
benchmarkswerealsocreatedlocally.Now,35yearslater,severalcommercialpublishershave
createdCBMassessmentmaterialsforschoolstopurchaseandmostofthosepublishershave
createdtheirownnormsandbenchmarksforusewiththeirspecificassessment.
Beginningin1992andthenagainin2006,HasbrouckandTindalcollaboratedtocreatea
setofnormscompiledfromavarietyofsources.Thesecompilednormswerepublishedto
preventalow-performingschoolordistrictfromsettingbenchmarkgoalsfortheirstudentsata
levelthatwaslowerthanitshouldbe.Compilednormsalsohavebeenusedbyeducators
interestedinassessingstudents’ORFperformanceoutsideofaspecificassessmentproduct.
Thisupdatedreportcontainsnormscompiledfromthreewidely-usedandcommercially
availableORFassessments,andrepresentsafarlargernumberofscoresthaneitherofthe
previousassessments.Andwhilethesecurrentscoresonlyprovidenormsthroughgrade6,itis
hopedthatthissetofthreestudies,conductedoveraperiodof25years,canalsogive
educatorsaperspectiveonthestabilityofORFscoresacrossmaterialsandgradesandnearly
threedecadesofreadinginstructioninschoolsintheUnitedStates.
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 14
References
Christ,T.J.,&Silberglitt,B.(2007).Curriculum-basedmeasurementoforalreadingfluency:The
standarderrorofmeasurement.SchoolPsychologyReview,36,130–146.
Cummings,K.D.,Kennedy,P.C.,Otterstedt,J.,Baker,S.K.,&Kame’enui,E.J.(2011).DIBELS
DataSystem:2010-2011PercentileRanksforDIBELSNextBenchmarkAssessments
(TechnicalReport1101).Eugene,OR:UniversityofOregonCenteronTeachingand
Learning.
Cummings,K.D.,Otterstedt,J.,Kennedy,P.C.,Baker,S.K.,&Kame’enui,E.J.(2011).DIBELS
DataSystem:2009-2010PercentileRanksforDIBELS6thEditionBenchmarkAssessments
(TechnicalReport1102).Eugene,OR:UniversityofOregonCenteronTeachingand
Learning.
Baker,S.K.,Smolkowski,K.,Katz,R.,Fien,H.,Seeley,J.R.,Kame’enui,E.J.,&Beck,C.T.(2008).
Readingfluencyasapredictorofreadingproficiencyinlow-performinghighpoverty
schools.SchoolPsychologyReview,37,18–37.
Deno,S.L.(1985).Curriculum-basedmeasurement:Theemergingalternative.Exceptional
Children,52(3),219-232.
Deno,S.L.,&Mirkin,P.K.(1977).DataBasedProgramModification:AManual.reston,VA:
CouncilforExceptionalChildren.
Deno,S.L.,Mirkin,P.K.,&Chiang,B.(1982).Identifyingvalidmeasuresofreading.Exceptional
Children,49,36-43.
Deno,S.(2003).Developmentsincurriculum-basedmeasurement.TheJournalofSpecial
Education,37,184-192.doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/buroscurriculum/3.
Fuchs,L.,Fuchs,D.,Hosp,M.,&Jenkins,J.(2001).Oralreadingfluencyasanindicatorof
readingcompetence:Atheoretical,empirical,andhistoricalanalysis.ScientificStudiesof
Reading,5(3),239–256.
German,G.(2012).Implementingdata-basedprogrammodificationbigideas.InC.A.Epsin,K.
L.McMaster,S.Rose,andM.M.Wayman(Eds.),AMeasureofSuccess:TheInfluenceof
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 15
Curriculum-basedMeasurementonEducation(pp.79-87).Minneapolis:Universityof
MinnesotaPress.
Hasbrouck,J.(2010).EducatorsasPhysicians:UsingRTIDataforEffectiveDecision-Making.
Austin,TX:GibsonHasbrouck&Associates.www.gha-pd.com
Hasbrouck,J.E.&Tindal,G.(Spring,1992).Curriculum-basedoralreadingfluencynormsfor
studentsingrades2-5.TeachingExceptionalChildren,24(3),41-44.
Hasbrouck,J.,&Tindal,G.A.(2006).Oralreadingfluencynorms:Avaluableassessmenttoolfor
readingteachers.TheReadingTeacher.59(7),636–644.
Hosp,M.K.,Hosp,J.L.,&Howell,K.W.(2007).TheABCsofCBM:APracticalGuideto
Curriculum-basedMeasurement.NY:GuilfordPress.
Saven,J.L.,Tindal,G.,Irvin,P.S.,Farley,D.,&Alonzo,J.(2014).easyCBM2014Norms.
(TechnicalReport1409).Eugene,OR:UniversityofOregonBehavioralResearchand
Teaching.
Sparks,S.D.(August11,2017).Arestudent-privacylawsgettinginthewayofeducation
research?Retrievedfromhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/08/11/are-
student-privacy-laws-getting-in-the-way.html?cmp=eml-contshr-shr-desk
Tindal,G.(2013).Curriculum-basedmeasurement:Abriefhistoryofnearlyeverythingfromthe
1970stothepresent.ISRNEducation,2013,1–29.doi:10.1155/2013/958530
Tindal,G.(2017).OralReadingFluency:Outcomesfrom30YearsofResearch.(TechnicalReport
1701).Eugene,OR:UniversityofOregonCenterBehavioralResearchandTeaching.
Wayman,M.M.,Wallace,T.,Wiley,H.I.,Ticha,R.,&Espin,C.A.(2007).Literaturesynthesison
curriculum-basedmeasurementinreading.TheJournalofSpecialEducation,41,85–
120.
Wanzek,J.,Roberts,G.,Linan-Thompson,S.,Vaughn,S.,Woodruff,A.L.,&Murray,C.S.(2010).
DifferencesintheRelationshipofOralReadingFluencyandHigh-StakesMeasuresof
ReadingComprehension.AssessmentforEffectiveIntervention:OfficialJournalofthe
CouncilforEducationalDiagnosticServices,35(2),67–77.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1534508409339917
Update to Compiled ORF Norms 16