DIBELS 6th Edition

Oral Reading Fluency

Cost

Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs

Service and Support

Purpose and Other Implementation Information

Usage and Reporting

Initial Cost:

All materials required for administration are available for free download at https://dibels.uoregon.edu.*

*The DIBELS Data System (DDS) is not required, but is available for online data entry, management and reporting for a cost of $1.00 per student per year.

 

Replacement Cost:

For users of the DDS, the replacement cost is $1 per student per year.

 

Annual license renewal fee subject to change.

 

Included in Cost:

Included with the DDS service is optional tablet-based administration through the HiFi Reading app available for free download at the Apple app store. Training is required for assessors and is available through online DDS training modules. The cost of the training ranges from $40- $79 per person. Additional costs include the cost of printing and the cost of a computer (required) and tablets (optional).

Technology Requirements:

  • Computer or tablet*
  • Internet connection*

*An internet-connected device is required to download the materials. Administering the measure itself does not require technology, unless administrators are using the optional DDS platform.

 

Training Requirements:

  • 1-4 hours of training

 

Qualified Administrators:

  • Paraprofessionals
  • Professionals

 

Accommodations:

The DIBELS directions are designed to be used unmodified with all students. They have been validated with tens of thousands of students to work the way they do. In a very small number of cases though, a small number of accommodations are approved. They are used only in situations where they are necessary to obtain an accurate score for a student. When approved accommodations are used, the examiner should mark an “A” on the front cover of the testing booklet. Scores with accommodations can be used like any other DIBELS scores. Approved accommodations should only be used with students who have a documented need for such supports, not to improve performance for multiple students.

 

DIBELS 6th Edition approved accommodations for ORF are:

  • Enlarged student materials
  • Colored overlays, filters or lighting adjustments
  • Assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices)
  • Marker or ruler for tracking

Where to Obtain:

Website: https://dibels.uoregon.edu

Address: 5292 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403

Phone number: 1-888-497-4290

Email: support@dibels.uoregon.edu

 

Access to Technical Support:

Technical support is available from the DIBELS Data System team at the University of Oregon, who can be reached online (https://dibels.uoregon.edu), by phone (1-888-497-4290), or by email (support@dibels.uoregon.edu). Hours of Operation: 6:00am - 5:30pm PT, Monday through Friday.

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency is a 1-minute fluency measure that assesses both accuracy and fluency of reading connected text.  Students read a set of three passages at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year, and it is their median score from these passages, at each assessment period, that is recorded and compared to the recommended cut points.

 

Benchmark cut points, as well as cut points for intensive intervention, are available at https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/marketplace/dibels/DIBELS-6Ed-Goals.pdf.

Assessment Format:

  • One-to-one

 

Administration Time:

  • 2 minutes per student

 

Scoring Time:

  • 1 minute per student*

*If using tablet-based administration with the HiFi Reading app, scoring is automatic.

 

Scoring Method:

  • Calculated manually*

*If using tablet-based administration with the HiFi Reading app, scoring is automatic.

 

Scores Generated:

  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • Developmental benchmarks

 

Classification Accuracy

Grade123
Criterion 1 FalldashEmpty bubbleHalf-filled bubble
Criterion 1 WinterEmpty bubbleEmpty bubbleFull bubble
Criterion 1 Springdashdashdash
Criterion 2 Falldashdashdash
Criterion 2 Winterdashdashdash
Criterion 2 Springdashdashdash

Primary Sample

 

Criterion 1, Fall

Grade

1

2

3

Criterion

Not Provided

SAT10 Reading

OAKS

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

Not Provided

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

Not Provided

28 words correct

57 words correct

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

Not Provided

0.34

0.23

False Positive Rate

Not Provided

0.19

0.28

False Negative Rate

Not Provided

0.20

0.20

Sensitivity

Not Provided

0.80

0.80

Specificity

Not Provided

0.81

0.72

Positive Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.69

0.46

Negative Predictive Power

Not Provided

0.89

0.92

Overall Classification Rate

Not Provided

0.81

0.74

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

Not Provided

0.89

0.84

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

Not Provided

0.88

0.83

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

Not Provided

0.90

0.85

 

Criterion 1, Winter

Grade

1

2

3

Criterion

SAT10 Reading

SAT10 Reading

OAKS

Cut points: Percentile rank on criterion measure

20th percentile

20th percentile

20th percentile

Cut points: Performance score (numeric) on criterion measure

13 words correct

55 words correct

76 words correct

Cut points: Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure

Not Provided

Not Provided

Not Provided

Base rate in the sample for children requiring intensive intervention

0.39

0.35

0.24

False Positive Rate

0.10

0.15

0.29

False Negative Rate

0.23

0.19

0.19

Sensitivity

0.77

0.81

0.81

Specificity

0.90

0.85

0.71

Positive Predictive Power

0.82

0.74

0.47

Negative Predictive Power

0.86

0.89

0.92

Overall Classification Rate

0.85

0.84

0.73

Area Under the Curve (AUC)

0.92

0.91

0.85

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

0.91

0.90

0.84

AUC 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound

0.93

0.92

0.86

 

Reliability

Grade123
RatingFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubble
  1. Justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool: We evaluated alternate form reliability, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency to assess the reliability of DIBELS 6th edition ORF measure. Additionally, we examined delayed alternate form reliability as a supplementary reliability evidence by calculating correlations between two or more alternate form of the same test administered at different time points (e.g., different seasons).

Alternate-form reliability: Alternate-form reliability indicates the extent to which test results generalize to different item samples. Students are tested with two different (i.e., alternate) but equivalent forms of the test within a relatively short interval of time, and scores from these two forms are correlated. The use of alternate form reliability is justified because it uses different but equivalent forms, thereby preventing practice effects inherent in test-retest reliability where the same form is administered twice. In addition, it is important to establish that different forms are equivalent given the use of different forms for progress-monitoring across the year.

Test-retest reliability: Test-retest reliability is evaluated by administering the same test (i.e., set of items) to the same individuals twice within a short interval and correlating scores from the two test administrations. We included test-retest reliability in cases where the only source of alternate form reliability was delayed alternate form. In those instances, test-retest reliability provides some measure of reliability without the confound of the (expected) student growth between administrations.

Internal consistency: Internal consistency is the extent to which a group of items measure the same construct, as evidenced by how well they vary together, or intercorrelate. We included internal consistency to examine how reliable the items on a test are in terms of measuring the same construct of ORF.

 

  1. Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted: Study a test-retest reliability: Participants were students at 34 Oregon Reading First Schools across 16 school districts. The study included 17 schools in large urban areas, eight in midsize cities, and nine in rural areas. Subjects were four cohorts of students in Grades 1-3, with each cohort representing 2,400 students. 10% of the students received special education services and 32% were English language learners.

Study b alternate form reliability: The analytic sample for the alternate form reliability were 182 first-, 217 second-, and 204 third-grade students from one school district in a northwest state. The first-grade sample included 44.7% female, 51.1% white, 32.8% Hispanic, 2.2% African-American, 22% American Indian/Alaska Native, 6.6% Asian, 0.7 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 5.4% two or more races, 9.8% of students receiving special education services, and 23.5% English language learners. The second-grade sample included 46% female, 54.8% white, 32.8% Hispanic, 2.4% African-American, 20.9% American Indian/Alaska Native, 6.1% Asian, 0.4 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 5.4% two or more races, 12.3% of students receiving special education services, and 20.7% English language learners. The third-grade sample included 44.6% female, 52.2% white, 31.8% Hispanic, 1.9% African-American, 20.2% American Indian/Alaska Native, 7.7% Asian, 0.7 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 4.9% two or more races, 9.5% of students receiving special education services, and 18.3% English language learners.

Study d internal consistency: Participants were 666 second-grade students from a subset of nine of 51 schools taking part in the Oregon Reading First (RFO) program; these nine schools were located in six school districts throughout Oregon. For our analyses, we used student data from the academic years 2006-2007 and included any student with at least one passage score at the fall or spring benchmark assessments. Student characteristics are 10% received special education services, 21% percent were English learners, and 50% were female with gender missing for 3% of students. The racial/ethnic composition was 43% White, 30% Hispanic, 14% Black, and 10% other non-White ethnic groups with race/ethnicity missing for 4% of students.

 

  1. Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability: Test-retest reliability: Students were re-administered the same test in the three weeks following the end-of-year benchmark assessment. Test-retest reliability was estimated as the correlation coefficient between the test and retest.

Alternate form reliability: Students were administered three different forms for the middle of year ORF test. Alternate-form reliability of a single form was estimated by the correlation between the score recorded on the other forms. The median of correlation coefficients between three forms is reported. Delayed alternate form reliability was estimated by correlating ORF scores measured at different measurement points across year—beginning-, middle-, and end of year. The median of correlation coefficients between the three benchmark assessments is reported.

Internal consistency: The reliability of the ORF fall to spring gain score, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) measurement model that included the three fall ORF passage scores to define latent fall ORF ability and the three spring ORF passages to define latent spring ORF ability to estimate the reliability was used. The covariance between the two fall median scores is an estimate of the fall true score variance, the covariance between the two spring median scores is an estimate of the spring true score variance and the four covariances between the two fall median scores and two spring median scores are each an estimate of the covariance between fall and spring true scores. The average of the four covariances as the best single estimate of the fall-spring true score covariance. The true gain score variance was computed as fall true score variance plus spring true score variance minus two times the covariance of fall and spring true scores. For the observed gain score variance, the observed fall and spring variances in the same formula in place of the true score variances were used. Reliability coefficient was computed as the ratio of the true gain score variance to the observed gain score variance.

 

  1. Reliability of performance level score (e.g., model-based, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability).

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

3-week test-retest

1

320

0.98

0.98

0.98

Alternate form

1

182

0.97

0.96

0.98

Alternate form (three passages)

1

86

0.96

0.94

0.97

Delayed alternate form

1

1545

0.91

0.90

0.92

Alternate form

2

217

0.95

0.94

0.96

Internal consistency

2

666

0.94

0.93

0.97

Delayed alternate form

2

1470

 0.92

0.91

0.93

Alternate form

2

209

0.92

0.90

0.91

Alternate form

2

134

0.87

0.82

0.95

Delayed alternate form

3

1607

0.93

0.92

0.94

Alternate form

3

204

0.91

0.88

0.93

2-week test-retest

3

64

0.93

0.88

0.96

 

 

Disaggregated Reliability

The following disaggregated reliability data are provided for context and did not factor into the Reliability rating.

Type of Reliability

Subgroup

Age or Grade

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your manual cites other published studies on reliability, provide these citations: Fien, H., Park, Y., Baker, S. K., Smith, J. L. M., Stoolmiller, M., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2010). An examination of the relation of Nonsense Word Fluency initial status and gains to reading outcomes for beginning readers. School Psychology Review, 39, 631-653.

Good, R. H., & Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on Curriculum-Based Measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement (pp. 61-88). New York: Guilford.

Roberts, G., Good, R., & Corcoran, S. (2005). Story retell: A fluency-based indicator of reading comprehension. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(3), 304-317.

Stoolmiller, M., Biancarosa, G., & Fien, H. (2013). Measurement properties of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency in grade 2: Implications for equating studies. Assessment for Effective Intervention,38(2), 76-90.

Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Deno, S. L. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Research Rep. 109). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities

Validity

Grade123
RatingFull bubbleFull bubbleFull bubble
  1. Description of each criterion measure used and explanation as to why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool: easyCBM Passage Reading Fluency (PRF): The easyCBM PRF has been developed for grades K-8 and assess grade level oral reading fluency. These assessments can be used as screening measures to establish benchmarks and for progress monitoring. The easyCBM PRF is individually administered. Participants are provided with a test form with approximately 250 words long, narrative fiction on a single piece of paper. Students read aloud the story for 1 minute, and word read incorrectly was counted as an error. Scores are the number of correct words per minute. The easyCBM PRF serves an appropriate criterion measure for validity analysis of DIBELS ORF measure because it measures theoretically related construct (i.e., oral reading fluency) and it has good technical adequacy. The median of alternate form reliability in grades 1 and 3 range, r = .94-.97 and construct validity in grades 1 through 3 range, CFI = .97-.99 and RMSEA = .02-.14.

Stanford Achievement Test—10th Edition. The SAT-10 is a group-administered, norm-referenced test of overall reading proficiency (SAT10; Harcourt Assessment, 2004, 2007 Normative Update). The SAT-10 Reading subtests is administered at the end of year and assess the essential reading skills including phonemic awareness, decoding, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension. The measure is not timed, although guidelines with flexible time recommendations are given. The SAT-10 was primarily developed to measure student reading achievement in kindergarten through grade 12. In grade 1, the SAT-10 reading test includes word study reading, word reading, sentence reading and reading comprehension. In grades 2-3, SAT-10 reading is comprised of word reading, reading vocabulary, and reading comprehension.

The SAT-10 Reading test serves as an appropriate criterion measure for validity analysis of DIBELS ORF measure because it has been widely used across states as an established measure of reading. In particular, external to DIBELS progress monitoring system, the SAT-10 reading was normed on a nationally representative sample, which supports the generalizability of the scores. An alpha reliability coefficient for total SAT-10 reading scores was .87. Validity coefficient with the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test ranged r = .61-.75. The SAT-10 Reading test is also aligned with International Reading Association (IRA)/National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) standards, state standards, and the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). Note that because oral reading fluency is known to correlate successively less well with comprehension over the course of the elementary grades because of the increasing complexity and diversity of reading materials and expectations, ORF validity correlations with a measure like SAT-10 are expected to be somewhat weaker in upper elementary grades than in lower elementary grades. However, they are still expected to be strong relative to Cohen’s rule of thumb for interpreting correlations (i.e., over .50).

 

  1. Description of the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted: Grades 1 through 3 concurrent validity: The analytic sample was comprised of 197 first-, 259 second-, and 202 third-grade students from one school district in a northwest state. The first-grade sample included 44.7% female, 51.1% white, 32.8% Hispanic, 2.2% African-American, 22% American Indian/Alaska Native, 6.6% Asian, 0.7 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 5.4% two or more races, 9.8% of students receiving special education services, and 23.5% English language learners. The second-grade sample included 46% female, 54.8% white, 32.8% Hispanic, 2.4% African-American, 20.9% American Indian/Alaska Native, 6.1% Asian, 0.4 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 5.4% two or more races, 12.3% of students receiving special education services, and 20.7% English language learners. The third-grade sample included 44.6% female, 52.2% white, 31.8% Hispanic, 1.9% African-American, 20.2% American Indian/Alaska Native, 7.7% Asian, 0.7 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 4.9% two or more races, 9.5% of students receiving special education services, and 18.3% English language learners.

Grade 1 through 2 predictive validity: The analytic sample included 4,973 first-grade and 4,826 second-grade students at 34 Oregon Reading First Schools across 16 school districts. The study included 17 schools in large urban areas, eight in midsize cities, and nine in rural areas. Approximately 10% of the students received special education services and 32% were English language learners.

Grade 3 predictive validity: The analytic sample comprised of calibration sample (n = 16,539) and cross-validation sample (n = 16,908). Students in both samples enrolled in Florida Reading First Schools during 2004-2005 school year. Two samples on average included 48.7% female, 36% white, 36.2% African American, 22.4% Latino, 3.5% Multiracial, 1.5% Asian, and less than 1% as Native American, 75% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 17% of students receiving special education services, and 20% English language learners.

 

 

  1. Description of the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity: Concurrent validity: Concurrent validity was evaluated by examining the strength of correlation between the screening measure and the criterion measures administered at approximately the same time of the year.

Predictive validity: Predictive validity was evaluated by examining the strength of correlation between the screening measure and the student future performance on the criterion measures.

Discriminant validity: Discriminant validity was evaluated by examining the strength of correlation between the screening measure and the criterion measures designed to measure theoretically different concepts.

 

 

  1. Validity for the performance level score (e.g., concurrent, predictive, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

Concurrent

1

Middle of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

197

0.97

0.96

0.98

Concurrent

1

End of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

197

0.96

0.95

0.97

Concurrent

1

Middle of year EasyCBM Word Reading Fluency

197

0.93

0.91

0.95

Concurrent

1

TOWRE - SWE

213

0.92

0.90

0.94

Predictive

1

End of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

191

0.91

0.88

0.93

Concurrent

1

TOWRE - SWE

162

0.89

0.85

0.92

Concurrent

1

End of 1st SAT-10

4973

0.82

0.81

0.83

Concurrent

1

TOWRE - PDE

162

0 .81

0.75

0.86

Concurrent

1

ITBS Read. Total

2588

0 .75

0.73

0.77

Concurrent

1

ITBS Comp

2588

 0.07

0.72

0.76

Predictive

1

End of 1st SAT-10

4973

 0.72

0.71

0.73

Concurrent

1

TOWRE - PDE

213

 0.77

0.71

0.82

Concurrent

1

ITBS Language

2588

 0.71

0.69

0.73

Concurrent

1

End of 1st SAT-10

181

0.76

0.69

0.82

Predictive

1

End of 1st ITBS Reading Total

2588

 0.69

0.67

0.71

Predictive

1

End of 1st ITBS Comprehension

2588

0.69

0.67

0.71

Concurrent

1

ITBS Word Analysis

2588

0.69

0.67

0.71

Predictive

1

End of 2nd SAT-10

2417

0.68

0.66

0.70

Predictive

1

End of First NWF

938

0.69

0.66

0.72

Concurrent

1

Broad Reading Cluster

86

0.76

0.65

0.84

Concurrent

1

Broad Reading Cluster

86

0.74

0.63

0.82

Predictive

1

End of 1st ITBS Language

2588

0.63

0.61

0.65

Concurrent

1

DIBELS RTF

213

0.69

0.61

0.75

Predictive

1

End of 1st SAT-10

180

0.69

0.61

0.76

Predictive

1

End of 1st Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation

1027

0.63

0.60

0.66

Concurrent

2

Beginning of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

259

0.96

0.95

0.97

Concurrent

2

Middle of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

217

0.95

0.94

0.96

Concurrent

2

End of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

210

0.95

0.94

0.96

Discriminant

2

End of 2nd ITBS Listening

2437

0.33

0.30

0.36

Predictive

2

Middle of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

213

0.91

0.88

0.93

Predictive

2

End of EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

205

0.86

0.82

0.89

Concurrent

2

SAT-10

4826

 0.80

0.79

0.81

Predictive

2

End of 2nd SAT-10

4826

 0.76

0.75

0.77

Concurrent

2

Beginning of year EasyCBM Word Reading Fluency

259

0.80

0.75

0.84

Predictive

2

Middle of year EasyCBM Word Reading Fluency

213

0.80

0.75

0.84

Concurrent

2

ITBS Read. Total

2437

0.75

0.73

0.77

Concurrent

2

ITBS Vocabulary

2437

 0.75

0.73

0.77

Concurrent

2

ITBS Comp.

2437

0.75

0.73

0.77

Predictive

2

End of 2nd ITBS Reading Total

2437

 0.72

0.70

0.74

Predictive

2

End of 2nd ITBS Comprehension

2437

 0.72

0.70

0.74

Concurrent

2

Spring Grade 2 CAT Reading Comprehension Test

275

 0.73

0.67

0.78

Predictive

2

Spring Grade 3 OSA Reading Test

194

 0.72

0.65

0.78

Concurrent

2

ITBS Language

2437

 0.64

0.62

0.66

Predictive

2

End of 2nd SAT-10

204

0.70

0.62

0.76

Predictive

2

End of 3rd SAT-10

2367

 0.63

0.61

0.65

Predictive

2

End 2nd ITBS Voc

2437

 0.63

0.61

0.65

Concurrent

2

End of 2nd SAT-10

205

0.69

0.61

0.76

Concurrent

2

ITBS Word An.

2437

 0.62

0.60

0.64

Predictive

2

END of 2nd ITBS Language

2437

 0.62

0.60

0.64

Concurrent

2

WRMT-R (PC)

162

 0.69

0.60

0.76

Concurrent

3

End of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

202

0.95

0.94

0.96

Concurrent

3

Beginning of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

175

0.95

0.93

0.96

Predictive

3

End of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

196

0.93

0.91

0.95

Discriminant

3

End of 2nd ITBS Listening

2527

 0.37

0.34

0.40

Predictive

3

End of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

194

0.91

0.88

0.93

Concurrent

3

FCAT-NRT Reading

1102

0.74

0.71

0.77

Concurrent

3

Middle of year EasyCBM Passage Reading Fluency

225

0.75

0.69

0.80

Concurrent

3

Spring Grade 3 OSA Reading Test

172

0.76

0.69

0.82

Predictive

3

SAT-10

16539

0.69

0.68

 0.70

Concurrent

3

Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards

241

0.74

0.68

0.79

Concurrent

3

CSAP Reading

52

 0.80

0.68

0.88

Predictive

3

FCAT-SSS

16539

 0.68

0.67

0.69

Concurrent

3

FCAT-SSS Reading

1102

0.70

0.67

0.73

Predictive

3

End of 2nd ITBS Language

2527

0.68

0.66

0.70

Concurrent

3

ITBS Language

2527

0.68

0.66

0.70

Predictive

3

End of 3rd SAT-10

4696

0.67

0.65

0.69

Concurrent

3

SAT-10

4696

0.67

0.65

0.69

Predictive

3

End of 3rd OAKS ELA

1567

0.68

0.65

0.71

Predictive

3

End of 2nd ITBS Reading Total

2527

0.66

0.64

0.68

Concurrent

3

End of 3rd OAKS ELA

1587

0.67

0.64

0.70

Concurrent

3

4Sight

401

0.69

0.64

0.74

Concurrent

3

ITBS Read. Total

2527

0.65

0.63

0.67

Predictive

3

End of 3rd CO State Assess. Prog. Read.

52

0.77

0.63

0.86

Predictive

3

End of 2nd ITBS Comprehension

2527

0.64

0.62

0.66

Predictive

3

End of 2nd ITBS Word Analysis

2527

0.64

0.62

0.66

Concurrent

3

PA System of School Assessment

401

0.68

0.62

0.73

Concurrent

3

End of 3rd SAT-10

195

0.70

0.62

0.77

Predictive

3

Middle of third PA System of School Assessment

401

0.67

0.61

0.72

Concurrent

3

ITBS Comp.

2527

0.63

0.61

0.65

Concurrent

3

ITBS Word An.

2527

0.63

0.61

0.65

Predictive

3

Middle of third 4Sight

401

0.66

0.60

0.71

Predictive

 

3

End of 3rd SAT-10

188

0.68

0.60

0.75

 

 

  1. Results for other forms of validity (e.g. factor analysis) not conducive to the table format: Not Provided

 

  1. Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool: Overall, the validity of DIBELS ORF 6th edition measure is well supported by criterion measures. For example, the DIBELS ORF scores from first grade to third grade are strongly correlated with the easyCBM Passage Reading Fluency and SAT-10 scores, with validity coefficient ranged r = .72-.97 in grade 1, r = .76-.96 in grade 2, and r = .69-.95 in grade 3.

 

 

 

Disaggregated Validity

The following disaggregated validity data are provided for context and did not factor into the Validity rating.

Type of Validity

Subgroup

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n

Coefficient

95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound

95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound

None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results for other forms of disaggregated validity (e.g. factor analysis) not conducive to the table format: Not Provided  

 

If your manual cites other published validity studies, provide these citations: Barger, J. (2003). Comparing the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency indicator and the North Carolina end of grade reading assessment (Technical Report). Asheville, NC: North Carolina Teacher Academy.

Buck, J. & Torgeson, 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.

Munger, K. A. & Blachman, B. A. (2013). Taking a "simple view" of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills as a predictor of multiple measures of third-grade reading comprehension, Psychology in the Schools, 50(7), 722-737.

Pressley, M., Hilden, K., & Shankland, R. (2005). An evaluation of end-grade-3 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Speed reading without comprehension, predicting little. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University

Vandermeer, C. D., Lentz, F. E., & Stollar, S. (2005). The relationship between oral reading fluency and Ohio proficiency testing in reading (Technical Report). Ohio: Southwest Ohio Special Education Regional Resource Center.

Sample Representativeness

Grade123
Data
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Local without Cross-Validation
  • Primary Classification Accuracy Sample

     

    Grade

    1

    2

    3

    Criterion

    SAT10 (20th percentile)

    SAT10 (20th percentile)

    OAKS (20th percentile)

    National/Local Representation

    Oregon

    Oregon

    Oregon

    Date

    2003-06

    2003-06

    2003-06

    Sample Size

    4953

    4635

    4828

    Male

    51%

    51%

    51%

    Female

    49%

    49%

    49%

    Gender Unknown

    0%

    0%

    0%

    Free or Reduced-price Lunch Eligible

    69%

    69%

    69%

    White, Non-Hispanic

    57%

    57%

    57%

    Black, Non-Hispanic

    11%

    11%

    11%

    Hispanic

    22%

    22%

    22%

    American Indian/Alaska Native

    5%

    5%

    5%

    Other

    <1%

    <1%

    <1%

    Race/Ethnicity Unknown

    <1%

    <1%

    <1%

    Disability Classification

    7% SPED eligible

    7% SPED eligible

    7% SPED eligible

    First Language

    English

    English

    English

    Language Proficiency Status

    25.6% English learners

    25.6% English learners

    25.6% English learners

     

    Bias Analysis Conducted

    Grade123
    RatingNoNoNo
    1. Description of the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias: Not Provided  

     

    1. Description of the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted: Not Provided  

     

    1. Description of the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements: Not Provided  

     

    Administration Format

    Grade123
    Data
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Individual
  • Administration & Scoring Time

    Grade123
    Data
  • 5 minutes
  • 5 minutes
  • 5 minutes
  • Scoring Format

    Grade123
    Data
  • Manual
  • Automatic
  • Manual
  • Automatic
  • Manual
  • Automatic
  • Types of Decision Rules

    Grade123
    Data
  • Benchmark Goals
  • Benchmark Goals
  • Benchmark Goals
  • Evidence Available for Multiple Decision Rules

    Grade123
    Data
  • Yes
  • Yes
  • Yes