DIBELS 6th Edition
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

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).

Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
Kindergarten
First grade
Second grade
Third grade
Fourth grade
Fifth grade
Sixth grade
Seventh grade
Eighth grade
Ninth grade
Tenth grade
Eleventh grade
Twelfth grade

The tool is intended for use with the following age(s).

0-4 years old
5 years old
6 years old
7 years old
8 years old
9 years old
10 years old
11 years old
12 years old
13 years old
14 years old
15 years old
16 years old
17 years old
18 years old

The tool is intended for use with the following student populations.

Students in general education
Students with disabilities
English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?

Reading

Phonological processing:

RAN
Memory
Awareness
Letter sound correspondence
Phonics
Structural analysis

Word ID

Accuracy
Speed

Nonword

Accuracy
Speed

Spelling

Accuracy
Speed

Passage

Accuracy
Speed

Reading comprehension:

Multiple choice questions
Cloze
Constructed Response
Retell
Maze
Sentence verification
Other (please describe):

Listening comprehension:

Multiple choice questions
Cloze
Constructed Response
Retell
Maze
Sentence verification
Vocabulary
Expressive
Receptive

Mathematics

Global Indicator of Math Competence

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Early Numeracy

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Concepts

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematics Computation

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Mathematic Application

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Fractions/Decimals

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Algebra

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Geometry

Accuracy
Speed
Multiple Choice
Constructed Response

Other (please describe):

Please describe specific domain, skills or subtests:

BEHAVIOR ONLY: Which category of behaviors does your tool target?

Internalizing
Externalizing
Internalizing and Externalizing

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

Administration

BEHAVIOR ONLY: What type of administrator is your tool designed for?

General education teacher
Special education teacher
Parent
Child
External observer
Other

If other, please specify:

What is the administration setting?

Direct observation
Rating scale
Checklist
Performance measure
Questionnaire
Direct: Computerized
One-to-one
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)

Computer or tablet
Internet connection
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?

Individual
Small group   If small group, n=
Large group   If large group, n=
Computer-administered
Other

If other, please specify:

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
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.

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?

Manually (by hand)
Automatically (computer-scored)
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?

Age norms
Grade norms
Classwide norms
Schoolwide norms
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents

What types of performance level scores are available?

Raw score
Standard score
Percentile score
Grade equivalents
IRT-based score
Age equivalents
Stanines
Normal curve equivalents
Developmental benchmarks
Developmental cut points
Equated
Probability
Lexile score
Error analysis
Composite scores
Subscale/subtest scores
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.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade	Kindergarten
Classification Accuracy Fall
Classification Accuracy Winter
Classification Accuracy Spring

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data unavailable

^dDisaggregated data available

Stanford Achievement Test: 10th Edition (SAT-10)

Classification Accuracy

Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.

The Stanford Achievement Test – 10th Edition (SAT-10; Harcourt Educational Measurement, 2002) was administered to students in kindergarten. The SAT-10 is a group-administered, norm-referenced test of overall reading proficiency. The SAT-10 is not timed, although guidelines with flexible time recommendations are given. Correlations between the total reading score and the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test ranged from .61 to .74. The normative sample is representative of the U.S. student population. The 20th percentile on the SAT-10 was used as our criterion for our cut point for intensive need.

Describe when screening and criterion measures were administered and provide a justification for why the method(s) you chose (concurrent and/or predictive) is/are appropriate for your tool.

Describe how the classification analyses were performed and cut-points determined. Describe how the cut points align with students at-risk. Please indicate which groups were contrasted in your analyses (e.g., low risk students versus high risk students, low risk students versus moderate risk students).

We used a two-stage process for determining cut-points for intensive need. First, we plotted Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves at each time point and grade and the associated end-of-year criterion measure and determined the area under the curve (A). Prior to conducting our analyses, we decided to calculate cut points only for those measures and time points where the AUC met or exceeded .75. An AUC of less than .75 suggests that the measure may not represent accuracy beyond teacher judgment, and we believe that providing cut-points for measures with an AUC value less than .75 would imply greater confidence in the measures than is warranted. Second, we conducted a diagnostic analysis of each measure at each time point (i.e., season. For each analysis, we examined two statistics: sensitivity and specificity. We chose to focus on sensitivity and specificity (rather than PPV and NPV) because they remain stable indicators regardless of the prevalence of reading difficulties in the population (Pepe, 2003). Further, we emphasized sensitivity in our analyses because of its practical application in a prevention model in education. Specifically, we want to be confident that students receive the instructional support they require as early as possible. All cut-points were determined using an optimal decision threshold associated with sensitivity at or above .80. This criterion roughly corresponds to the statement that, we will miss an opportunity to provide additional support to only 20% of students who are likely to score below the 20th percentile on the SAT10.

Were the children in the study/studies involved in an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment?

Yes

If yes, please describe the intervention, what children received the intervention, and how they were chosen.

All students were part of the Oregon Reading First study. Each participating school provided at least 90 minutes of daily, scientifically based reading instruction for all kindergarten through third-grade students with a minimum of 30 minutes of daily small-group, teacher-directed reading instruction.

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?

No

If yes,

Describe the criterion (outcome) measure(s) including the degree to which it/they is/are independent from the screening measure.

Describe when screening and criterion measures were administered and provide a justification for why the method(s) you chose (concurrent and/or predictive) is/are appropriate for your tool.

Describe how the cross-validation analyses were performed and cut-points determined. Describe how the cut points align with students at-risk. Please indicate which groups were contrasted in your analyses (e.g., low risk students versus high risk students, low risk students versus moderate risk students).

Were the children in the study/studies involved in an intervention in addition to typical classroom instruction between the screening measure and outcome assessment?

If yes, please describe the intervention, what children received the intervention, and how they were chosen.

Classification Accuracy - Winter

Reliability

Grade	Kindergarten
Rating

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data 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).

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.

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

Legend

Convincing evidence

Partially convincing evidence

Unconvincing evidence

Data 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.

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.

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

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.