DIBELS 8th Edition
Maze

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:

Maze is a standardized, group-administered measure of reading comprehension. Maze is administered to students in the fall of second grade through the spring of eighth grade. In Maze, the examiner presents students with a passage that has every seventh word removed and replaced with three options. In third through eighth grade, the first and last sentence are left intact, and in second grade, the first two sentences and last sentence are left intact. The final score is the number of maze words selected correctly within 3 minutes minus one-half of the number of errors. Skipped items are treated as errors, but items not reached are not counted as errors.

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

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?

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:

Small or large group administration is supported.

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:

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?

Individual
Small group   If small group, n=
Large group   If large group, n=30
Computer-administered
Other

If other, please specify:

What is the administration time?

Time in minutes

5

per (student/group/other unit)

group

Additional scoring time:

Time in minutes

2

per (student/group/other unit)

student

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?

No discontinue rules provided
Basals
Ceilings
Other

If other, please specify:

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

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 on 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?

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.

DIBELS 8th Edition Maze 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 difficulty in learning to read. The other is a benchmark cut point that indicates if students are likely to be on track. 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.

Maze forms include approximately 40-70 items, depending on grade level. Scorers mark and sum the incorrect items. Count the number of correct items and subtract half the number of incorrect items from the number of items correct. The resulting score is the Maze adjusted 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.

Maze is a standardized, group-administered measure of reading comprehension. Maze is administered to students in the fall of second grade through the spring of eighth grade. In Maze, the examiner presents students with a passage that has every seventh word removed and replaced with three options. The final score is the number of maze words selected correctly within 3 minutes minus one-half of the number of errors. Skipped items are treated as errors, but items not reached are not counted as errors. To make DIBELS maze measures more informative, several innovations were undertaken. First, as with ORF, maze passages are written by experienced and aspiring authors. Second, more work has gone into the selection of distractors. Third, formatting of Maze was revised to make reading the passages easier on the eye, reflecting research that suggests that overly long lines can cause disfluency and interfere with comprehension in reading for young readers (e.g., Dyson & Haselgrove, 2001; Katzir et al., 2013). Finally, all passages were reviewed by a panel of parents and former teachers for grade-level appropriateness and for adherence to principles of diversity and inclusion. Maze passages were developed in the same manner as ORF passages but went through a few additional steps of development. Passages were lengthened to reach typical lengths found in other CBMs and in previous DIBELS editions to allow for enough items for appropriate measurement of readers with better fluency and comprehension. Following common rules, the first and last sentences of every passage were left intact, except in Grade 2 where the second sentence was also left intact to allow for better establishment of a situation model for the passage (Kintsch, 1998). Beginning with the third word of the second sentence (or third sentence in Grade 2), every seventh word was deleted with a few caveats. If the seventh word was a proper noun or number, then the eighth word was deleted. If the seventh word was highly specialized (e.g., an uncommon scientific term for a given grade), it would not be deleted unless it had occurred previously in the passage. Also, hyphenated words were treated as one word. The deleted word became one of the answer choices, and two distractors were written for each deleted word. Each distractor was written by a different DIBELS 8th Edition researcher according to a number of rules informed by research. Distractors could not begin with the same letter as the correct word (Conoyer et al., 2017). Distractors were also kept to within two letters in length of the correct answer, although this rule was relaxed in the upper grades (i.e., Grade 5 and beyond). When the deleted word was a noun, verb, or adjective, distractors had to be grammatically correct. For instance, if the word to be chosen followed “an”, then the distractors had to begin with a vowel. When the deleted word was a contraction, all distractors also had to be contractions and tense agreement was deemed unimportant. Different forms of the same word were never used as distractors (e.g., “be”, “is”, and “are”). For all other parts of speech, grammatical correctness was not a requirement because it was found to result in repetitive distractors. For example, when the deleted word was an article, requiring grammatical correctness resulted in the answer choices always being “a”, “an”, and “the.” It was deemed undesirable to have answer choices repeat too frequently. Finally, in Grade 5 and up, one of the distractors was required to have semantic similarity to the correct word. That is, it could make sense in a given sentence but not in the story as a whole. Once distractors were written, they were reviewed by another DIBELS 8th Edition researcher, who would make corrections when rules were violated. If the reviewer found a particular item to be inordinately difficult, the item was brought to a subset of researchers for discussion and potential revision. Finally, the answer choices were reordered so that they were always listed alphabetically. Benchmark passages were selected from the resulting pool using rules that balanced readability, text complexity, and Lexile ratings. In order to balance these factors, readability grade levels were permitted to go above grade level in all but second grade.

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Classification Accuracy Fall
Classification Accuracy Winter
Classification Accuracy Spring

Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score

Classification Accuracy

Select time of year

Fall

Winter

Spring

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

The criterion outcome measure was the Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score. 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.

Do the classification accuracy analyses examine concurrent and/or predictive classification?

Concurrent
Predictive

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.

Screening measures were administered in the fall, winter, and spring of the 2018-19 school year. The Iowa Assessment was administered in the spring of 2019. All else being equal, concurrent administrations are preferable because they reduce the likelihood of inflated false positives due to intervention delivery on the part of schools. Thus, all spring benchmarks predicted end of year performance on the concurrent spring 2019 administration. Fall and winter benchmarks predicted end of year performance on the spring 2019 Iowa administration because no concurrent administration was available.

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 the DIBELS 8th Edition Maze score. First, we plotted a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve for the selected end-of-year criterion measure at each time point and grade and determined the area under the curve (A). Second, we conducted a diagnostic analysis of each measure at each time point (i.e., season). For each analysis, we focused on 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). We attempted to balance sensitivity and specificity in our analyses because of their complimentary roles in a prevention model in education. Specifically, we want to be confident that as many students as possible receive the level of instructional support they require as early as possible, without overburdening teachers by asking them to deliver intervention to students who do not need additional instruction. Thus, wherever possible, the recommended cut points for DIBELS 8th Edition were determined using an optimal decision threshold that maximized sensitivity among scores with a specificity at or above .8. That is, at each time point, we selected the score with the highest sensitivity among scores with a specificity at or above .80, unless the maximum sensitivity value exceeded .90, in which case the cut point selected was the score that minimized the difference between sensitivity and specificity among scores with specificity at or above .8. For measures and periods with no cut scores that met the minimum threshold for specificity, the cut point represents the score that best balances the goals of providing additional instruction where needed while keeping demands on teachers reasonable.

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

No

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

Cross-Validation

Has a cross-validation study been conducted?

No

If yes,

Select time of year.

Fall

Winter

Spring

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

Do the cross-validation analyses examine concurrent and/or predictive classification?

Concurrent
Predictive

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 - Fall

Evidence	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Criterion measure	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	154	166	176	185	194	202	211
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	2	4.5	10.5	10	12	15	16
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	36	15	25	19	6	7	16
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	22	26	21	30	12	8	3
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	14	6	7	6	1	3	6
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	117	119	129	87	82	75	21
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.88	0.87	0.92	0.80	0.94	0.93	0.84
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.83	0.80	0.88	0.70	0.87	0.87	0.71
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.93	0.93	0.96	0.91	1.00	0.99	0.96

Statistics	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Base Rate	0.26	0.13	0.18	0.18	0.07	0.11	0.48
Overall Classification Rate	0.81	0.81	0.85	0.75	0.87	0.88	0.80
Sensitivity	0.72	0.71	0.78	0.76	0.86	0.70	0.73
Specificity	0.84	0.82	0.86	0.74	0.87	0.90	0.88
False Positive Rate	0.16	0.18	0.14	0.26	0.13	0.10	0.13
False Negative Rate	0.28	0.29	0.22	0.24	0.14	0.30	0.27
Positive Predictive Power	0.62	0.37	0.54	0.39	0.33	0.47	0.84
Negative Predictive Power	0.89	0.95	0.95	0.94	0.99	0.96	0.78

Sample	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Date	Fall 2018 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Fall 2018 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Fall 2018 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Fall 2018 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Fall 2018 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Fall 2018 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Fall 2018 screening; Spring 2019 criterion
Sample Size	189	166	182	142	101	93	46
Geographic Representation	East North Central (OH) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA) West North Central (MO)	East North Central (OH) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA) West North Central (MO)	East North Central (OH) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA) West North Central (MO)	Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA) West North Central (MO)	Mountain (AZ) Pacific (WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA) West North Central (MO)	Mountain (AZ) Pacific (WA) South Atlantic (FL) West North Central (MO)	Mountain (AZ) Pacific (WA) West North Central (MO)
Male	33.3%	39.2%	31.9%	43.0%	45.5%	46.2%	47.8%
Female	43.9%	36.1%	47.8%	41.5%	54.5%	51.6%	52.2%
Other
Gender Unknown	22.8%	24.7%	20.3%	15.5%		2.2%
White, Non-Hispanic	28.6%	39.8%	35.7%	46.5%	69.3%	76.3%	76.1%
Black, Non-Hispanic	37.0%	24.7%	26.9%	28.2%	9.9%	7.5%	2.2%
Hispanic	2.6%	2.4%	6.0%	2.1%	6.9%	2.2%
Asian/Pacific Islander	2.6%	3.0%	4.4%	4.9%	7.9%	6.5%
American Indian/Alaska Native	2.1%	2.4%	2.2%	1.4%		1.1%	19.6%
Other	4.2%	3.0%	4.4%	0.7%	4.0%	4.3%	2.2%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	22.8%	24.7%	20.3%	15.5%		2.2%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Winter

Evidence	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Criterion measure	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	154	166	176	185	194	202	211
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	6.0	9.0	12.5	14.0	14.5	17.5	19.0
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	24	16	31	15	5	8	11
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	20	32	20	15	3	6	3
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	6	5	4	6	1	0	9
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	103	115	129	97	24	14	16
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.89	0.87	0.92	0.88	0.96	0.94	0.82
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.83	0.80	0.88	0.80	0.90	0.85	0.68
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.94	0.94	0.97	0.96	1.00	1.00	0.96

Statistics	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Base Rate	0.20	0.13	0.19	0.16	0.18	0.29	0.51
Overall Classification Rate	0.83	0.78	0.87	0.84	0.88	0.79	0.69
Sensitivity	0.80	0.76	0.89	0.71	0.83	1.00	0.55
Specificity	0.84	0.78	0.87	0.87	0.89	0.70	0.84
False Positive Rate	0.16	0.22	0.13	0.13	0.11	0.30	0.16
False Negative Rate	0.20	0.24	0.11	0.29	0.17	0.00	0.45
Positive Predictive Power	0.55	0.33	0.61	0.50	0.63	0.57	0.79
Negative Predictive Power	0.94	0.96	0.97	0.94	0.96	1.00	0.64

Sample	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Date	Winter 2018/2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Winter 2018/2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Winter 2018/2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Winter 2018/2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Winter 2018/2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Winter 2018/2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Winter 2018/2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion
Sample Size	153	168	184	133	33	28	39
Geographic Representation	East North Central (OH) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA) West North Central (MO)	East North Central (OH) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA) West North Central (MO)	East North Central (OH) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA) West North Central (MO)	Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA) West North Central (MO)	Pacific (WA) West North Central (MO)	Pacific (WA) West North Central (MO)	Pacific (WA) West North Central (MO)
Male	32.0%	38.1%	33.2%	42.1%	60.6%	50.0%	43.6%
Female	36.6%	38.1%	46.7%	40.6%	39.4%	50.0%	53.8%
Other
Gender Unknown	31.4%	23.8%	20.1%	17.3%			2.6%
White, Non-Hispanic	35.3%	39.3%	36.4%	49.6%	75.8%	82.1%	74.4%
Black, Non-Hispanic	19.0%	25.0%	27.2%	22.6%
Hispanic	3.3%	3.6%	4.9%	2.3%	15.2%
Asian/Pacific Islander	3.3%	3.0%	4.3%	5.3%
American Indian/Alaska Native	2.6%	2.4%	2.7%	1.5%	3.0%	3.6%	23.1%
Other	5.2%	3.0%	4.3%	0.8%	9.1%	14.3%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	31.4%	23.8%	20.1%	17.3%	9.1%		2.6%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Classification Accuracy - Spring

Evidence	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7
Criterion measure	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score	Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure	20	20	20	20	20	20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure	154	166	176	185	194	202
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure	6.5	11.5	13.5	17.5	20.0	24.0
Classification Data - True Positive (a)	38	19	31	9	5	7
Classification Data - False Positive (b)	24	26	36	10	8	4
Classification Data - False Negative (c)	9	4	2	5	1	1
Classification Data - True Negative (d)	119	122	112	85	19	16
Area Under the Curve (AUC)	0.89	0.89	0.90	0.88	0.89	0.93
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound	0.85	0.83	0.84	0.77	0.77	0.82
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound	0.94	0.94	0.96	0.99	1.00	1.00

Statistics	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7
Base Rate	0.25	0.13	0.18	0.13	0.18	0.29
Overall Classification Rate	0.83	0.82	0.79	0.86	0.73	0.82
Sensitivity	0.81	0.83	0.94	0.64	0.83	0.88
Specificity	0.83	0.82	0.76	0.89	0.70	0.80
False Positive Rate	0.17	0.18	0.24	0.11	0.30	0.20
False Negative Rate	0.19	0.17	0.06	0.36	0.17	0.13
Positive Predictive Power	0.61	0.42	0.46	0.47	0.38	0.64
Negative Predictive Power	0.93	0.97	0.98	0.94	0.95	0.94

Sample	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7
Date	Spring 2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Spring 2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Spring 2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Spring 2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Spring 2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion	Spring 2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion
Sample Size	190	171	181	109	33	28
Geographic Representation	East North Central (OH) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA)	East North Central (OH) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA)	East North Central (OH) Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA)	Mountain (AZ) Pacific (OR, WA) South Atlantic (FL, GA)	Pacific (WA) West North Central (MO)	Pacific (WA) West North Central (MO)
Male	33.7%	36.3%	33.7%	37.6%	39.4%	50.0%
Female	41.6%	37.4%	45.3%	42.2%	60.6%	50.0%
Other
Gender Unknown	24.7%	26.3%	21.0%	20.2%
White, Non-Hispanic	27.9%	39.2%	36.5%	61.5%	75.8%	82.1%
Black, Non-Hispanic	35.3%	22.8%	25.4%	6.4%
Hispanic	3.7%	3.5%	5.5%	1.8%	15.2%
Asian/Pacific Islander	2.6%	2.9%	4.4%	6.4%
American Indian/Alaska Native	2.1%	2.3%	2.8%	1.8%		3.6%
Other	3.7%	2.9%	4.4%	0.9%	9.1%	14.3%
Race / Ethnicity Unknown	24.7%	26.3%	21.0%	21.1%
Low SES
IEP or diagnosed disability
English Language Learner

Reliability

Grade	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

*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 benchmark periods. 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. 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. The use of alternate form reliability is also justified due to the use of alternate forms when a benchmark administration is spoiled (e.g., interrupted administration).

*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each reliability analysis conducted.

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:

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	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating

*Describe each criterion measure used and explain why each measure is appropriate, given the type and purpose of the tool.

The DIBELS 8th Edition Maze subtest in grades 2-8 was validated against the Iowa Assessment of Reading. The Iowa Assessment is a published, group-administered, multiple-choice, norm-referenced measure of reading achievement. The Total Reading measure assesses broad reading achievement.

*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.

Sample 1. 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 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 student future performance on the criterion measure.

*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.

Describe the degree to which the provided data support the validity of the tool.

Overall, the validity of Maze for DIBELS 8th Edition is supported by a range of concurrent and predictive validity correlations. The majority of both concurrent and predictive correlation coefficients are .6 or above, with the majority of lower bounds of the coefficients at .50 or above. These correlations are in many ways to be expected to be somewhat lower due to the fact that Maze is known to tap relatively lower level comprehension (i.e., local coherence more so than global coherence), while a measure like the Iowa taps literal, inferential, and higher level comprehension, wherein the latter two types of questions call on the reader achieving global coherence rather than merely local coherence.

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	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5	Grade 6	Grade 7	Grade 8
Rating	No	No	No	No	No	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.