DIBELS 6th Edition
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

Summary

DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) is a standardized, individually administered test of phonological awareness. The PSF measure assesses a student’s ability to segment three- and four-phoneme words into their individual phonemes fluently. The PSF measure has been found to be a good predictor of later reading achievement (Kaminski & Good, 1996). The PSF task is administered by the examiner reading aloud words of three to five phonemes. Then, the student is asked to say the individual phonemes for each word. For example, the examiner says, “sat,” and the student says, “/s/ /a/ /t/” to receive three possible points for the word. After the student responds, the examiner presents the next word, and the number of correct phonemes produced in one minute determines the final score. The PSF measure takes about 2 minutes to administer and has over 20 alternate forms for monitoring progress. Cut points for intensive intervention are addressed in this application. 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

Where to Obtain:
University of Oregon
support@dibels.uoregon.edu
5292 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403
1-888-497-4290
https://dibels.uoregon.edu
Initial Cost:
Free
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.
Included in Cost:
Describe basic pricing plan and/or cost structure of the tool, including, as applicable: cost per student per year, start-up or other one-time costs, reoccurring costs, training cost, and what is included in the published tool. Also, provide information on what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access.) 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. 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).
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 as any another of 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 PSF are: • Assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices)
Training Requirements:
1-4 hrs of training
Qualified Administrators:
Yes, there are minimum qualifications.
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:
  • One-to-one
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
  • 1 minutes per student
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • Developmental benchmarks
  • Error analysis
Administration Time:
  • 2 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Manually (by hand)
  • Automatically (computer-scored)
Technology Requirements:
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 as any another of 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 PSF are: • Assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices)

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) is a standardized, individually administered test of phonological awareness. The PSF measure assesses a student’s ability to segment three- and four-phoneme words into their individual phonemes fluently. The PSF measure has been found to be a good predictor of later reading achievement (Kaminski & Good, 1996). The PSF task is administered by the examiner reading aloud words of three to five phonemes. Then, the student is asked to say the individual phonemes for each word. For example, the examiner says, “sat,” and the student says, “/s/ /a/ /t/” to receive three possible points for the word. After the student responds, the examiner presents the next word, and the number of correct phonemes produced in one minute determines the final score. The PSF measure takes about 2 minutes to administer and has over 20 alternate forms for monitoring progress. Cut points for intensive intervention are addressed in this application. 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
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
selected Kindergarten
not 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:
not selected RAN
selected Memory
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
student
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
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.
Describe basic pricing plan and/or cost structure of the tool, including, as applicable: cost per student per year, start-up or other one-time costs, reoccurring costs, training cost, and what is included in the published tool. Also, provide information on what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access.) 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. 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).
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
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 as any another of 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 PSF are: • Assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices)

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?
not selected Direct observation
not selected Rating scale
not selected Checklist
not 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:

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:
If a student has not given any sound segments correctly in the first 5 words, discontinue the task and put a score of zero (0).


Are norms available?
Yes
Are benchmarks available?
Yes
If yes, how many benchmarks per year?
Two (beginning and middle of year). Beginning- and middle-of-year benchmarks are included for review in this submission.
If yes, for which months are benchmarks available?
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. If DIBELS PSF is administered outside of that one month time frame, it should not be entered as the benchmark score for the student.
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 hrs of training
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
Yes, there are minimum qualifications.
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?
No
If No, please describe training costs:
Online training for administration and scoring of DIBELS 6th edition is available at https://dibels.uoregon.edu/training/. The cost of the training ranges from $40 - $79 per person and includes all DIBELS 6th Edition subtests. Cost depends on whether a group discount is applied, and whether the trainee is a DIBELS Data System customer.
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)
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
not selected Developmental cut points
not selected Equated
not selected Probability
not selected Lexile score
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.
Grade-based, empirically determined cut points for risk and benchmark goals, based on ROC analyses predicting performance at the 20th and 40th percentile on the SAT-10 Total Reading.
Can you provide evidence in support of multiple decision rules?
Yes
If yes, please describe.
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.
The raw score consists of the number of different, correct, sound segments produces from verbally presented words in one minute. There is no cluster/composite score
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 PSF is a standardized, individually administered test of phonological awareness requiring students to say the sounds in words. This measure is typically administered from the middle to the end of kindergarten and can be used as a progress monitoring tool for students at-risk for later reading difficulties through first grade. During this task the examiner says a word and asks the student to say all the sounds in the word. This task is entirely auditory and requires no student materials. For example, if the examiner says “cat” a correct response would be “/k/ /a/ /t/”. Students are given credit for partially segmented words. The examiner continues to present words in a specified order for one minute. The student’s score consists of the number of different, correct sound segments correctly produced in one minute.

Technical Standards

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

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

Classification Accuracy - Criterion 1 Winter

Evidence Kindergarten
Criterion measure Stanford Achievement Test: 10th Edition (SAT-10)
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 28 correct sound segments
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) 0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.78
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.80
Statistics Kindergarten
Base Rate
Overall Classification Rate
Sensitivity
Specificity
False Positive Rate
False Negative Rate
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
Sample Kindergarten
Date 2003-06
Sample Size
Geographic Representation Pacific (OR)
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
Rating Unconvincing 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.
We evaluated alternate form reliability to assess the reliability of DIBELS 6th Edition PSF subtest. 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 some 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 need to use different forms for progress-monitoring across year
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
Study a: Alternate form reliability: Participants included 86 kindergarten students from a midsized city in Northwestern Massachusetts. Of the total sample, 93% were Caucasian, 2% African American, 2% Hispanic, and 2% Asian and consisted of 44 girls and 42 boys.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
Study a: Alternate form reliability: All measures were administered in early March of the school year, and three alternate form probes were administered for DIBELS PSF. The maximum amount of time that elapsed between administrations was 3 school days.

*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:
No
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)?
No

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:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Validity

Grade Kindergarten
Rating 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.
easyCBM Letter Sounds Score (LSS) is a individually administered screening measure to be used for establishing benchmarks and monitoring progress. It takes 1 minute to administer. The median of alternate form reliability is .85, and the median of test-retest reliability is .66. The measure’s predictive validity with SAT-10 is .68, and the concurrent validity with SAT-10 is .72. The TerraNova, second edition (CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1997) is a group-administered achievement test. The measure was nationally standardized on a stratified sample of 114,312 students (Grades 1-12) from 778 school districts during the fall of 1999 and another 149,798 students (Grades K-12) in the spring of 2000. Stratification variables included geographic region, urbanicity, socioeconomic status, and special needs. The TerraNova demonstrates acceptable internal consistency, with Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 coefficients for all subtests and total scores ranging from the middle .80s to .90s. Note that because phoneme segmenting is a very specific and rapidly developing skill, validity correlations with a general outcome measure, such as the SAT-10, at the end of the year are expected to be somewhat weaker than for skills that develop more consistently over time. However, they are still expected to be strong relative to Cohen’s rule of thumb for interpreting correlations (i.e., over .50).
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
Concurrent validity: The sample included 1,511 kindergarteners from a school district. Of the sample, 48% were males, 50% white, 21% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 7% Asian, 2% African American, and 2% Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. The sample had 35% of Hispanic ethnicity. 27% of the students in the sample had LEP status, and 8% of the students were eligible for special education. Predictive validity: The study included a stratified, random sample of 330 kindergarten children, of whom 49% were males, with an average age of 66 months (SD = 3.8). In the sample, 55% were African American, 17% Caucasian, 17% Hispanic, 9% Asian, and 2% other. Thirty-one percent of these children qualified for free or reduced lunch.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
Concurrent validity: Correlations were examined for the strength of the associations between the predictor, (i.e., DIBELS PSF administered in winter of kindergarten), with the criterion measure, (i.e., easyCBM Letter Sounds Score administered in winter of kindergarten). Predictive validity: Correlations were examined for the strength of the associations between the predictor, (i.e., kindergarten DIBELS PSF), with the criterion measure, (i.e., easyCBM Letter Sounds Score as first grade outcome).

*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:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Hintze, J. M., Ryan, A. L., & Stoner, G. (2003). Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. School Psychology Review, 32, 541-556. Rouse, H. R., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). Validity of the Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills as an indicator of early literacy for urban kindergarten children. School Psychology Review, 35, 341-355. Burke, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., Kwok, O., & Parker, R. (2009). Predictive validity of early literacy indicators from the middle of kindergarten to second grade. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 209-226. Burke, M. D., Crowder, W., Hagan-Burke, S., & Zou, Y. (2009). A comparison of two path models for predicting reading fluency. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 84-95.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Overall, the validity of DIBELS 6th PSF measure is well supported by criterion measures. In kindergarten, DIBELS 6th PSF scores are moderately to strongly correlated with the easyCBM Letter Sounds Fluency, easyCBM Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, and Woodcock Johnson Total Reading, with validity coefficients ranging from r = .60 – .74.
Do you have validity data that are disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, or other subgroups (e.g., English language learners, students with disabilities)?
No

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:
No
Provide citations for additional published studies.

Bias Analysis

Grade Kindergarten
Rating 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.

Disclaimer

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.