DIBELS 8th Edition
Letter Naming Fluency

Summary

Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) is a standardized, individually administered test that provides a measure of risk for reading achievement. LNF is based on research by Marston and Magnusson (1988) and is administered to students in the fall of kindergarten through the spring of first grade. In LNF, students are presented with a page of 100 upper- and lowercase letters stratified by letter frequency and asked to name as many letters as they can in 1 minute. If a student does not know a letter name, the examiner provides the letter name and marks the letter name incorrect.

Where to Obtain:
University of Oregon, Center on Teaching and Learning
support@dibels.uoregon.edu
5292 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403
1-888-497-4290
https://dibels.uoregon.edu
Initial Cost:
Free
Replacement Cost:
Free
Included in Cost:
All materials required for administration are available for free download at https://dibels.uoregon.edu. Printed materials are also available at https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market for a cost of $53 to $91 for a classroom set of benchmark screening materials. 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. A multi-year discount is currently available. The DDS is free-of-charge to schools in Oregon. For the most current pricing information see: https://dibels.uoregon.edu/help/pricing. Additional costs are associated with printing, and computer and internet access if also using the DIBELS Data System. Starting in the 2019-20 school year, tablet-based administration will be available from Amplify (https://www.amplify.com).
DIBELS 8th Edition approved assessment accommodations involve minor changes to assessment procedures that are unlikely to change the meaning of the results and have been approved either by DIBELS developers or assessment professionals. They should be used only when: • An accurate score is unlikely to be obtained without the accommodation; and/or • Specified in a student’s 504 plan or Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The accommodations approved for DIBELS 8th Edition are: quiet setting for testing; breaks in between measures; assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices, glasses); enlarged student materials; colored overlays, filters, or lighting adjustments; and marker or ruler for tracking.
Training Requirements:
1-4 hours
Qualified Administrators:
Paraprofessional
Access to Technical Support:
Technical support is available from the DIBELS Data System at the University of Oregon, https://dibels.uoregon.edu (phone: 1-888-497-4290, email: support@dibels.uoregon.edu, hours of operation: 6:00am to 5:30pm Pacific Time, Monday through Friday).
Assessment Format:
  • Direct observation
  • Performance measure
  • One-to-one
Scoring Time:
  • 1 minutes per student
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • Developmental benchmarks
  • Developmental cut points
Administration Time:
  • 2 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Manually (by hand)
Technology Requirements:
Accommodations:
DIBELS 8th Edition approved assessment accommodations involve minor changes to assessment procedures that are unlikely to change the meaning of the results and have been approved either by DIBELS developers or assessment professionals. They should be used only when: • An accurate score is unlikely to be obtained without the accommodation; and/or • Specified in a student’s 504 plan or Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The accommodations approved for DIBELS 8th Edition are: quiet setting for testing; breaks in between measures; assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices, glasses); enlarged student materials; colored overlays, filters, or lighting adjustments; and marker or ruler for tracking.

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) is a standardized, individually administered test that provides a measure of risk for reading achievement. LNF is based on research by Marston and Magnusson (1988) and is administered to students in the fall of kindergarten through the spring of first grade. In LNF, students are presented with a page of 100 upper- and lowercase letters stratified by letter frequency and asked to name as many letters as they can in 1 minute. If a student does not know a letter name, the examiner provides the letter name and marks the letter name incorrect.
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).
not selected 0-4 years old
not selected 5 years old
not selected 6 years old
not selected 7 years old
not selected 8 years old
not selected 9 years old
not selected 10 years old
not selected 11 years old
not selected 12 years old
not selected 13 years old
not selected 14 years old
not selected 15 years old
not selected 16 years old
not selected 17 years old
not selected 18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.
not selected Students in general education
not selected Students with disabilities
not selected English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?

Reading
Phonological processing:
selected RAN
not selected Memory
not selected Awareness
not selected Letter sound correspondence
not selected Phonics
not selected Structural analysis

Word ID
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Nonword
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Spelling
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Passage
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed

Reading comprehension:
not selected Multiple choice questions
not selected Cloze
not selected Constructed Response
not selected Retell
not selected Maze
not selected Sentence verification
not selected Other (please describe):


Listening comprehension:
not selected Multiple choice questions
not selected Cloze
not selected Constructed Response
not selected Retell
not selected Maze
not selected Sentence verification
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Expressive
not selected Receptive

Mathematics
Global Indicator of Math Competence
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Early Numeracy
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Mathematics Concepts
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Mathematics Computation
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Mathematic Application
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Fractions/Decimals
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Algebra
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

Geometry
not selected Accuracy
not selected Speed
not selected Multiple Choice
not selected Constructed Response

not selected Other (please describe):

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:
BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?


BEHAVIOR ONLY: Please identify which broad domain(s)/construct(s) are measured by your tool and define each sub-domain or sub-construct.

Acquisition and Cost Information

Where to obtain:
Email Address
support@dibels.uoregon.edu
Address
5292 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403
Phone Number
1-888-497-4290
Website
https://dibels.uoregon.edu
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost
Duration of license
Additional cost information:
Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the tool. Provide information on what is included in the published tool, as well as what is not included but required for implementation.
All materials required for administration are available for free download at https://dibels.uoregon.edu. Printed materials are also available at https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market for a cost of $53 to $91 for a classroom set of benchmark screening materials. 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. A multi-year discount is currently available. The DDS is free-of-charge to schools in Oregon. For the most current pricing information see: https://dibels.uoregon.edu/help/pricing. Additional costs are associated with printing, and computer and internet access if also using the DIBELS Data System. Starting in the 2019-20 school year, tablet-based administration will be available from Amplify (https://www.amplify.com).
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
DIBELS 8th Edition approved assessment accommodations involve minor changes to assessment procedures that are unlikely to change the meaning of the results and have been approved either by DIBELS developers or assessment professionals. They should be used only when: • An accurate score is unlikely to be obtained without the accommodation; and/or • Specified in a student’s 504 plan or Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The accommodations approved for DIBELS 8th Edition are: quiet setting for testing; breaks in between measures; assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices, glasses); enlarged student materials; colored overlays, filters, or lighting adjustments; and marker or ruler for tracking.

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?
not selected General education teacher
not selected Special education teacher
not selected Parent
not selected Child
not selected External observer
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

What is the administration setting?
selected Direct observation
not selected Rating scale
not selected Checklist
selected Performance measure
not selected Questionnaire
not selected Direct: Computerized
selected One-to-one
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Does the tool require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your tool? (Select all that apply)
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:
Administering the measure does not require technology, but if users choose to use the DIBELS Data System for management and reporting of data, an internet connected computer is required. Additionally, if schools choose to administer the DIBELS 8th Edition measures using a tablet, they should contact Amplify for technology requirements.

What is the administration context?
selected Individual
not selected Small group   If small group, n=
not selected Large group   If large group, n=
not selected Computer-administered
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

What is the administration time?
Time in minutes
2
per (student/group/other unit)
student

Additional scoring time:
Time in minutes
1
per (student/group/other unit)
student

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
not selected No discontinue rules provided
not selected Basals
not selected Ceilings
selected Other
If other, please specify:
No correct letter sounds in the first row.


Are norms available?
Yes
Are benchmarks available?
Yes
If yes, how many benchmarks per year?
3
If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?
Benchmarks are available for the beginning, middle and end of the school year. Beginning months are typically September, October and November; middle months are December, January, and February; and end months are typically March, April, May and June. Regardless of when the benchmark occurs, we recommend that all students are tested within a one-month window.
BEHAVIOR ONLY: Can students be rated concurrently by one administrator?
If yes, how many students can be rated concurrently?

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?
Yes
Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:
1-4 hours
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
Paraprofessional
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
Yes
If No, please describe training costs:
Information about online training is available through the DIBELS Data System (https://dibels.uoregon.edu/training). Online training is free-of-charge for ‘early adopters’ (i.e., schools or districts that sign up for the next school year by a specified date in spring.) For people not associated with the ‘early adopter’ program the charge is $40 to $79 per person, depending on the number of people purchasing the training, and whether an individual is associated with a DDS account.
Can users obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes
If Yes, please describe how users can obtain support:
Technical support is available from the DIBELS Data System at the University of Oregon, https://dibels.uoregon.edu (phone: 1-888-497-4290, email: support@dibels.uoregon.edu, hours of operation: 6:00am to 5:30pm Pacific Time, Monday through Friday).

Scoring

How are scores calculated?
selected Manually (by hand)
not selected Automatically (computer-scored)
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Do you provide basis for calculating performance level scores?
Yes
What is the basis for calculating performance level and percentile scores?
not selected Age norms
selected Grade norms
not selected Classwide norms
not selected Schoolwide norms
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?
selected Raw score
not selected Standard score
selected Percentile score
not selected Grade equivalents
not selected IRT-based score
not selected Age equivalents
not selected Stanines
not selected Normal curve equivalents
selected Developmental benchmarks
selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
not selected Lexile score
not selected Error analysis
not selected Composite scores
not selected Subscale/subtest scores
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Does your tool include decision rules?
Yes
If yes, please describe.
DIBELS 8th Edition LNF provides two cut points to help educators determine where to allocate resources and how much intervention students may need. One cut point indicates that students are likely at risk for future difficulty in learning to read. The other is a benchmark cut point that indicates if students are likely to be on track in learning to read. Students between the two cut points are considered to be somewhere between “at-risk” and “on track”.
Can you provide evidence in support of multiple decision rules?
Yes
If yes, please describe.
This application addresses the “at-risk” cut point. Information about benchmark cut points is available on the DIBELS Data System website https://dibels.uoregon.edu.
Please describe the scoring structure. Provide relevant details such as the scoring format, the number of items overall, the number of items per subscale, what the cluster/composite score comprises, and how raw scores are calculated.
Describe the tool’s approach to screening, samples (if applicable), and/or test format, including steps taken to ensure that it is appropriate for use with culturally and linguistically diverse populations and students with disabilities.
DIBELS 8th Edition LNF is a standardized, individually administered measure of a student’s accuracy and fluency with naming a series of upper- and lower-case letters of the alphabet. The measure is designed as an indicator of later reading risk for students in kindergarten and first grade. The measure is timed for one-minute. Letters omitted, substituted, and hesitations of more than three seconds are scored as errors. Letters self-corrected within three seconds are scored as accurate. The number of correct letters named in 1-minute is the letter naming fluency rate. In DIBELS 8th Edition, LNF accounts for how frequently letters appear in both upper- and lower-case forms. To better control differences in difficulty between forms, consistent rules are used in both kindergarten and first grade regarding when less frequent letters can appear on the forms. Each form in both grades begins with a sampling of the 20 most frequently seen letters (Jones & Mewhort, 2004), thereby preventing students from getting frustrated by forms that begin with rarer letters, such as X or q. The kindergarten version of LNF also only assesses the 40 most commonly seen upper- and lower-case letters, while the first-grade version assesses 49 upper and lower case letters. LNF excludes three letters on all forms: upper- and lower-case W and lower-case L. Although these are obviously important letters for students to know, they introduce real problems in a fluency assessment. W is the only letter with a multi-syllabic name: three syllables to be exact. As a result, any time W appears, it takes three times as long to name as other letters, which negatively affects a student’s LNF score. The lower-case L (l) was eliminated because it is easily confused with both the upper-case I and the number 1. Not only does this visual similarity pose problems for students, but it has also historically created scoring problems for the adult administering the assessment. By avoiding these letters, each included item (or letter) is equally challenging, other than in terms of its frequency in printed language. There are specific scoring rules regarding articulation and dialect to mitigate linguistic bias. Students are not penalized for differences in speech production that are the result of dialect, first-language, or articulation. There are specific scoring rules regarding articulation and dialect to mitigate linguistic bias. Students are not penalized for differences in speech production that are the result of dialect, first-language, or articulation.

Technical Standards

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade Kindergarten
Grade 1
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Fall Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Winter Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Spring Data unavailable Data unavailable
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Fall Data unavailable Data unavailable
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Winter Data unavailable Data unavailable
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 2 Spring Data unavailable Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 1 Fall

Evidence Kindergarten Grade 1
Criterion measure DIBELS Next Composite Score Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 15 41
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.85 0.71
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.79 0.61
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.91 0.82
Statistics Kindergarten Grade 1
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Kindergarten Grade 1
Date Spring 2019 Spring 2019
Sample Size
Geographic Representation East North Central (OH)
Middle Atlantic (PA)
West North Central (MO)
West South Central (AR, TX)
East North Central (OH)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (OR, WA)
South Atlantic (GA)
West North Central (MO)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 1 Winter

Evidence Kindergarten Grade 1
Criterion measure DIBELS Next Composite Score Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 30 53
Classification Data - True Positive (a)
Classification Data - False Positive (b)
Classification Data - False Negative (c)
Classification Data - True Negative (d)
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.81 0.73
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.74 0.63
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.89 0.82
Statistics Kindergarten Grade 1
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Kindergarten Grade 1
Date Spring 2019 Spring 2019
Sample Size
Geographic Representation East North Central (OH)
Middle Atlantic (PA)
West North Central (MO)
West South Central (AR, TX)
East North Central (OH)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (OR, WA)
South Atlantic (GA)
West North Central (MO)
Male
Female
Other
Gender Unknown
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
Race / Ethnicity Unknown
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Reliability

Grade Kindergarten
Grade 1
Rating Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
To assess the reliability of DIBELS 8th Edition, we evaluated multiple forms of reliability, including test-retest reliability, concurrent alternate form reliability, and delayed alternate form reliability. We include delayed alternate form reliability as a supplementary source of reliability evidence by reporting correlations between two or more alternate form of the same test administered at different time points (e.g., different seasons). Test-retest reliability: Test-retest reliability was evaluated by administering the same test (i.e., set of items) to the same individuals two times 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. Alternate-form reliability: Alternate-form reliability indicates the extent to which test results generalize to different item samples. To assess alternate-form reliability, students were administered multiple forms of each subtest, and scores from these two forms were correlated. Concurrent alternate-form reliability of a single (i.e., benchmark) form was estimated by the correlation between the score on that form and the score on an alternate (i.e., progress monitoring) form. Delayed alternate form reliability was estimated by correlating scores measured at different benchmark administrations across year—beginning-, middle-, and end of year. 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.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
Sample 1, 2017-18 DIBELS 8th Edition was administered to 4,453 students in grades K – 8 in twenty-nine schools. Participating students came from throughout the country: all four census regions were represented. 48.1% of the participating students were female, 50.9% were male. 18.1% of students were Hispanic. The sample included 0.6% Asian students, 14.3% Black/African American students, 0.4% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 3.9% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 64.3% white, 3.2% two or more races, and 13.3% unknown or not reported. 6.3% of students were English Learners, and 13.9% were eligible for Special Education services. 57.4% of the students were eligible for the free or reduced lunch program. Sample 2, 2018-19 Twenty-one schools administered DIBELS 8th Edition to 5,259 students in grades K - 8. The schools were located in the Pacific, East North Central, West North Central, Mountain, and South Atlantic census divisions. Schools represent towns, large cities, suburbs and rural areas. The sample of students was 50.6% male and 48.9% female; 1.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native; 2.5% Asian, 17.2% Black, 20.9% Hispanic, 4.1% two or more races, 0.4% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 53.0% White. 13.9% of students had disabilities, 59.6% were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 7.3% were English learners.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
Test-retest reliability: Students were re-administered the same version of test (i.e., same item pool) at multiple benchmark assessments. Test-retest reliability was estimated as the correlation coefficient between the test and retest. Alternate form reliability: Students were administered multiple forms of each subtest, and scores from these two forms were correlated. Concurrent alternate-form reliability of a single (i.e., benchmark) form was estimated by the correlation between the score on that form and the score on an alternate (i.e., progress monitoring) form. Delayed alternate form reliability was estimated by correlating scores measured at different benchmark administrations across year—beginning-, middle-, and end of year.

*In the table(s) below, report the results of the reliability analyses described above (e.g., internal consistency or inter-rater reliability coefficients).

Type of Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Do you have reliability data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated reliability data.

Type of Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of reliability analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade Kindergarten
Grade 1
Rating Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.
In kindergarten, the criterion measure was the DIBELS Next Composite score administered in the spring. The DIBELS Next Composite score in the spring of kindergarten combines scores on Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, and Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds. Although it assesses similar constructs, DIBELS Next was developed separately from DIBELS 8th Edition using different development specifications and is not part of the same measurement system. In first grade, the criterion measure was the Iowa Assessment, administered in spring. The Iowa Assessment is a published, group-administered, multiple-choice, norm-referenced measure of reading achievement. It is completely independent of DIBELS 8th Edition measures. The Iowa Assessment of Reading provided two criterion measures: Total Reading score and Word Analysis score. The Iowa Assessment is a commonly accepted measure of reading achievement. It is a published, group-administered, multiple-choice, norm-referenced test of reading. The Word Analysis measure focuses on decoding skills, while the Total Reading measure assesses reading achievement more broadly. Iowa assessments are completely independent of DIBELS 8th Edition measures. The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing – 2nd Edition was used as an additional criterion measure in both kindergarten and first grade. It is a published, individually-administered assessment of phonological awareness and rapid naming ability. The Rapid Symbolic Naming Composite and Rapid Non-symbolic Naming Composites measure individual’s efficiency in retrieving and processing phonological information from long-term memory. This criterion measure was selected to validate LNF’s use for identifying rapid naming deficits.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
Sample 1, 2017-18 DIBELS 8th Edition was administered to 4,453 students in grades K – 8 in twenty-nine schools. Participating students came from throughout the country: all four census regions were represented. 48.1% of the participating students were female, 50.9% were male. 18.1% of students were Hispanic. The sample included 0.6% Asian students, 14.3% Black/African American students, 0.4% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 3.9% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 64.3% white, 3.2% two or more races, and 13.3% unknown or not reported. 6.3% of students were English Learners, and 13.9% were eligible for Special Education services. 57.4% of the students were eligible for the free or reduced lunch program. Sample 2, 2018-19 Twenty-one schools administered DIBELS 8th Edition to 5,259 students in grades K - 8. The schools were located in the Pacific, East North Central, West North Central, Mountain, and South Atlantic census divisions. Schools represent towns, large cities, suburbs and rural areas. The sample of students was 50.6% male and 48.9% female; 1.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native; 2.5% Asian, 17.2% Black, 20.9% Hispanic, 4.1% two or more races, 0.4% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 53.0% White. 13.9% of students had disabilities, 59.6% were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 7.3% were English learners. Sample 3, 2018-19 Six public schools in five school districts administered DIBELS 8th Edition to 1,275 students in grades K - 3. The schools were located in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. The sample of students was 52.0% male and 47.3% female; 0.1% American Indian or Alaskan Native; 0.5% Black, 25.1% Hispanic, 1.2% two or more races, and 72.2% White. 7.2% of students were eligible for Special Education, 49.3% were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 1.1% were English learners.
*Describe 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.

*In the table below, report the results of the validity analyses described above (e.g., concurrent or predictive validity, 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 Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Overall, the validity of LNF for DIBELS 8th Edition is well supported by a range of concurrent and predictive validity correlations across multiple criterion measures. For example, DIBELS 8th Edition LNF scores in kindergarten and first grade are moderately to relatively strongly correlated with a range of DIBELS Next (e.g., LNF, NWF, ORF) and Iowa Total Reading measures. Concurrent and predictive validity coefficients for DIBELS Next LNF are moderately correlated and range from r = .75-.87 in kindergarten, and r = .72 in grade 1. Concurrent and predictive validity coefficients for DIBELS Next NWF are correlated well and range from r = .71-.72 in kindergarten, and r = .49 in grade 1. Concurrent and predictive validity coefficients for DIBELS Next ORF are moderately correlated and range from r = .61-.71 in grade 1. Predictive validity coefficients for Iowa Total Reading are moderately correlated, ranging from r = .42-.43 in kindergarten and r = .27-57 in grade 1. Lower correlations are indicative of greater lengths of time between administrations (and thus, more opportunity for student growth) and/or weaker alignment between constructs being measured. Of particular interest are the moderate to strong correlations between CTOPP-2 rapid naming composite scores and LNF. As might be expected, relations are strongest with the symbolic naming composite, which incorporates a letter naming subtest (r = .31 for the beginning of kindergarten respectively and r = .59 for the beginning of first grade respectively). Relations are weaker for non-symbolic composite scores, but still moderate to strong in magnitude. These results suggest that LNF can operate as a reasonable screener for processing speed, particularly in grade 1.
Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?

If yes, fill in data for each subgroup with disaggregated validity data.

Type of Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Grade Kindergarten
Grade 1
Rating No No
Have you conducted additional analyses related to the extent to which your tool is or is not biased against subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners)? Examples might include Differential Item Functioning (DIF) or invariance testing in multiple-group confirmatory factor models.
No
If yes,
a. Describe the method used to determine the presence or absence of bias:
b. Describe the subgroups for which bias analyses were conducted:
c. Describe the results of the bias analyses conducted, including data and interpretative statements. Include magnitude of effect (if available) if bias has been identified.

Data Collection Practices

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.