DIBELS 6th Edition
Letter Naming Fluency

Summary

DIBELS 6th Edition Letter Naming Fluency (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. 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:
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 LNF are: • Enlarged student materials • Colored overlays, filters or lighting adjustments • Assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices) • Marker or ruler for tracking
Training Requirements:
1-4 hours of training
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:
  • One-to-one
Scoring Time:
  • Scoring is automatic OR
  • 1 minutes per student
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • Developmental benchmarks
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 LNF are: • Enlarged student materials • Colored overlays, filters or lighting adjustments • Assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices) • Marker or ruler for tracking

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
DIBELS 6th Edition Letter Naming Fluency (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. 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).
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
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.
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 LNF are: • Enlarged student materials • Colored overlays, filters or lighting adjustments • Assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices) • 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?
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:
No letters correct in the first row


Are norms available?
Yes
Are benchmarks available?
Yes
If yes, how many benchmarks per year?
Three benchmarks for kindergarten (beginning, middle and end of year) and one for first grade (beginning 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 LNF 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 hours of training
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?
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
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.
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.
A composite score is not available.
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 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. 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 Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Classification Accuracy for Criterion 1 Winter Unconvincing evidence Data unavailable
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 Stanford Achievement Test: 10th Edition (SAT-10) Stanford Achievement Test: 10th Edition (SAT-10)
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 6 correct letters 33 correct letters
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) 0.77 0.82
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.76 0.81
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.78 0.83
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 2003-06
Sample Size
Geographic Representation Pacific (OR) 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

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 27 correct letters
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) 0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.83
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.85
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
Grade 1
Rating Convincing evidence 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 and test-retest reliability to assess the reliability of DIBELS 6th Edition LNF subtest. Alternate form reliability: Alternate-form reliability indicates the extent to which test results generalize to different item samples. Students are tested with two or more different (i.e., alternate) but equivalent forms of the test within some relatively short interval of time, and scores from these 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. Test-retest reliability: Test-retest reliability is evaluated by administering a same test to same individuals twice within a short interval and correlating scores from the two test administrations. Test-retest reliability provides some measure of reliability without the confound of the (expected) student growth between administration. It also ensures representativeness and stability of a test over time
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.
Study a: 1- week test-retest reliability: The data were collected on a total of 633 students. Of the sample, about 51% female, 75% white, 14% Black, and 7% Hispanic, with 4% Asian or Native American. About 29% were eligible for free or reduced lunch; 20% Title 1 students; and 6% were in special education programs. There were 4 English as a second language/limited English proficiency (ESL/LEP) students, 10 gifted/talented students, and 1 disabled student. Study b: 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. Study c: Alternate form reliability: Participants were from kindergarten, first, second, and third grade classrooms in two elementary schools in separate school districts in Lane County, Oregon. The sample from School 1 consisted of 88% of white, non-Hispanic, 7% of Hispanic, 3% of Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% of Black, non-Hispanic, and 1% of Native American. Of the School 1 sample, 41% were eligible for free and reduced lunch. The sample from School 2 consisted of 94% of white, non-Hispanic, 4% of Hispanic, 1% of Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% of Black, non-Hispanic, and less than 1% of Native American. Of the School 2 sample, 42% were eligible for free and reduced lunch.
*Describe 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.

*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:
(a) McBride, J. R., Ysseldyke, J., Milone, M. & Stickney, E. (2010). Technical adequacy and cost benefit of four measures of early literacy. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 189-204. DOI: 10.1177/0829573510363796 (b) 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. Reliability Type Grade n Coefficient 95% CI: Lower 95% CI: Upper 1-month alternate form (c) Kindergarten 71-215 0.89 0.82-0.86* 0.91-0.93* 1-month alternate form (c) First Grade 80-231 0.86 0.79-0.82* 0.89-0.91* (c) Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Shinn, M., Bratten, J., Shinn, M., Laimon, D., Smith, S., & Flindt, N. (2004). Technical Adequacy of DIBELS: Results of the Early Childhood Research Institute on measuring growth and development (Technical Report, No. 7). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. * Indicates the ranges of confidence interval depending on the sample size
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H., III. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25(2), 215-227
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 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.
easyCBM Letter Sounds 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. TOWRE sight word efficiency (SWE) is a measure of accuracy and fluency in reading phonetically regular and irregular words from the TOWRE (Torgesen et al., 1999). The number of words spoken correctly within 45 seconds is counted, and this constitutes the final score for sight word efficiency. This subtest’s concurrent validity with the WRMT-R Word Identification subtest is .92. Alternate form reliability for the Sight Word Efficiency subtest is .97 and test-retest reliability is .96 (Torgesen et al., 1999). Stanford Achievement Test-10 (SAT-10) Reading Comprehension is a published norm-referenced test designed to assess reading comprehension. Students are required to read text passages and then answer questions. Note that because letter naming 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 evenly 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.
Kindergarten concurrent validity: The sample included 1,511 kindergarteners from a school district in a northwest state. 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. Kindergarten predictive validity: The sample included 218 kindergarteners from a large, rural primary school in northern Georgia. The demographic data were available for 159, of whom 66% were boys, 62% Caucasian, 30% African American, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 6% mixed ethnicities. 43% of the participants for whom demographic data were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Grade 1 concurrent validity: The sample included 1,592 first grade students from a school district in a northwest state. Of the sample, 50% were males, 51% white, 22% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 7% Asian, 2% African American, and 1% Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. The sample had 33% of Hispanic ethnicity. 24% of the students in the sample had LEP status, and 9% of the students were eligible for special education. Grade 1 predictive validity: The sample in the study consisted of 27,813 first grade students from 321 schools in Florida. Only students with complete data on both outcome measures (ORF and SAT-10) were included in the study. The graph below shows the sample demographics
*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:
Reliability Type Grade Criterion n Coefficient 95% CI: Lower 95% CI: Upper Predictive Kindergarten Spring G1 CBM-R 50-59 0.72 0.55-0.57* 0.82-0.83* (a) Center on Teaching and Learning (2017). Unpublished data [HSD Project]. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. (b) Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Shinn, M., Bratten, J., Shinn, M., Laimon, D., Smith, S., & Flindt, N. (2004). Technical Adequacy of DIBELS: Results of the Early Childhood Research Institute on measuring growth and development (Technical Report, No. 7). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. (c) 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. (d) 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. (e) Powell-Smith, K. A. & Cummings, K. (2007). What’s PSF got to do with it?. Retrieved from https://dibels.org/papers/PSF_PCRC_013107.pdf * Indicates the ranges of confidence interval depending on the sample size
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
Yes
Provide citations for additional published studies.
Cummings, K. D., Kaminski, R. A., Good, R. H. & O’Neil, M. (2011). Assessing phonemic awareness in preschool and kindergarten: Development and initial validation of First Sound Fluency. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(2) 94–106 Goffreda, C. T., DiPerna, J. C., & Pedersen, J. A. (2009). Preventive screening for early readers: Predictive validity of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Psychology in the Schools, 46(6), 539-552. Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H., III. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25(2), 215-227. 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.
Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.
Overall, the validity of DIBELS 6th LNF measure is well supported by criterion measures. From kindergarten to first grade, DIBELS 6th LNF measure scores are moderately to strongly correlated with the easyCBM Letter Sounds, TOWRE–SWE, SAT-10 Total Reading, First Grade DRA Instructional Reading Level, and First Grade CBM–R, with validity coefficients ranging from r = .55 – .78.
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
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.

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.