DIBELS 8th Edition
Oral Reading Fluency

Summary

Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) is a standardized, individually-administered measure of accuracy and fluency with connected text. ORF is administered to students in the fall of first grade through the spring of eighth grade. ORF assesses a student’s ability to read words in connected text. In ORF, the examiner presents the student with a passage and asks the student to read the passage aloud for 1 minute. Words omitted, substituted, and hesitations of more than three seconds are scored as errors. Words self-corrected within three seconds are scored as accurate. The final scores for ORF are (a) the number of words read correctly within 1 minute and (b) the accuracy percentage.

Where to Obtain:
University of Oregon, Center on Teaching and Learning
support@dibels.uoregon.edu
5292 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403
1-888-497-4290
https://dibels.uoregon.edu
Initial Cost:
Free
Replacement Cost:
Free
Included in Cost:
All materials required for administration are available for free download at https://dibels.uoregon.edu. Printed materials are also available at https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market for a cost of $53 to $91 for a classroom set of benchmark screening materials. The DIBELS Data System (DDS) is not required, but is available for online data entry, management and reporting for a cost of $1.00 per student per year. A multi-year discount is currently available. The DDS is free-of-charge to schools in Oregon. For the most current pricing information see: https://dibels.uoregon.edu/help/pricing. Additional costs are associated with printing, and computer and internet access if also using the DIBELS Data System. Starting in the 2019-20 school year, tablet-based administration will be available from Amplify (https://www.amplify.com).
DIBELS 8th Edition approved assessment accommodations involve minor changes to assessment procedures that are unlikely to change the meaning of the results and have been approved either by DIBELS developers or assessment professionals. They should be used only when: • An accurate score is unlikely to be obtained without the accommodation; and/or • Specified in a student’s 504 plan or Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The accommodations approved for DIBELS 8th Edition are: quiet setting for testing; breaks in between measures; assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices, glasses); enlarged student materials; colored overlays, filters, or lighting adjustments; and marker or ruler for tracking.
Training Requirements:
1-4 hours
Qualified Administrators:
Paraprofessional
Access to Technical Support:
Technical support is available from the DIBELS Data System at the University of Oregon, https://dibels.uoregon.edu (phone: 1-888-497-4290, email: support@dibels.uoregon.edu, hours of operation: 6:00am to 5:30pm Pacific Time, Monday through Friday).
Assessment Format:
  • Direct observation
  • Performance measure
  • One-to-one
Scoring Time:
  • 1 minutes per student
Scores Generated:
  • Raw score
  • Percentile score
  • Developmental benchmarks
  • Developmental cut points
  • Subscale/subtest scores
Administration Time:
  • 2 minutes per student
Scoring Method:
  • Manually (by hand)
Technology Requirements:
Accommodations:
DIBELS 8th Edition approved assessment accommodations involve minor changes to assessment procedures that are unlikely to change the meaning of the results and have been approved either by DIBELS developers or assessment professionals. They should be used only when: • An accurate score is unlikely to be obtained without the accommodation; and/or • Specified in a student’s 504 plan or Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The accommodations approved for DIBELS 8th Edition are: quiet setting for testing; breaks in between measures; assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices, glasses); enlarged student materials; colored overlays, filters, or lighting adjustments; and marker or ruler for tracking.

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of your tool:
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) is a standardized, individually-administered measure of accuracy and fluency with connected text. ORF is administered to students in the fall of first grade through the spring of eighth grade. ORF assesses a student’s ability to read words in connected text. In ORF, the examiner presents the student with a passage and asks the student to read the passage aloud for 1 minute. Words omitted, substituted, and hesitations of more than three seconds are scored as errors. Words self-corrected within three seconds are scored as accurate. The final scores for ORF are (a) the number of words read correctly within 1 minute and (b) the accuracy percentage.
The tool is intended for use with the following grade(s).
not selected Preschool / Pre - kindergarten
not selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
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.
selected Students in general education
selected Students with disabilities
selected English language learners

ACADEMIC ONLY: What skills does the tool screen?

Reading
Phonological processing:
not 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
selected Accuracy
selected Speed

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not selected Other (please describe):

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


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

Acquisition and Cost Information

Where to obtain:
Email Address
support@dibels.uoregon.edu
Address
5292 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403
Phone Number
1-888-497-4290
Website
https://dibels.uoregon.edu
Initial cost for implementing program:
Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost
Duration of license
Additional cost information:
Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the tool. Provide information on what is included in the published tool, as well as what is not included but required for implementation.
All materials required for administration are available for free download at https://dibels.uoregon.edu. Printed materials are also available at https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market for a cost of $53 to $91 for a classroom set of benchmark screening materials. The DIBELS Data System (DDS) is not required, but is available for online data entry, management and reporting for a cost of $1.00 per student per year. A multi-year discount is currently available. The DDS is free-of-charge to schools in Oregon. For the most current pricing information see: https://dibels.uoregon.edu/help/pricing. Additional costs are associated with printing, and computer and internet access if also using the DIBELS Data System. Starting in the 2019-20 school year, tablet-based administration will be available from Amplify (https://www.amplify.com).
Provide information about special accommodations for students with disabilities.
DIBELS 8th Edition approved assessment accommodations involve minor changes to assessment procedures that are unlikely to change the meaning of the results and have been approved either by DIBELS developers or assessment professionals. They should be used only when: • An accurate score is unlikely to be obtained without the accommodation; and/or • Specified in a student’s 504 plan or Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The accommodations approved for DIBELS 8th Edition are: quiet setting for testing; breaks in between measures; assistive technology (e.g., hearing aids, assistive listening devices, glasses); enlarged student materials; colored overlays, filters, or lighting adjustments; and marker or ruler for tracking.

Administration

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

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

Does the tool require technology?
No

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

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

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

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

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

ACADEMIC ONLY: What are the discontinue rules?
not selected No discontinue rules provided
not selected Basals
not selected Ceilings
selected Other
If other, please specify:
If the student reads no words correctly in the first row ORF is discontinued.


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

Training & Scoring

Training

Is training for the administrator required?
Yes
Describe the time required for administrator training, if applicable:
1-4 hours
Please describe the minimum qualifications an administrator must possess.
Paraprofessional
not selected No minimum qualifications
Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials field-tested?
Yes
Are training manuals/materials included in cost of tools?
Yes
If No, please describe training costs:
Information about online training is available 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?
selected Manually (by hand)
not selected Automatically (computer-scored)
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

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

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

Does your tool include decision rules?
Yes
If yes, please describe.
DIBELS 8th Edition ORF provides two cut points to help educators determine where to allocate resources and how much intervention students may need. One cut point indicates that students are likely at risk for future difficulty in learning to read. The other is a benchmark cut point that indicates if students are likely to be on track in learning to read. Students between the two cut points are considered to be somewhere between “at-risk” and “on track”.
Can you provide evidence in support of multiple decision rules?
Yes
If yes, please describe.
This application addresses the “at-risk” cut point. Information about benchmark cut points is available on the DIBELS Data System website https://dibels.uoregon.edu.
Please describe the scoring structure. Provide relevant details such as the scoring format, the number of items overall, the number of items per subscale, what the cluster/composite score comprises, and how raw scores are calculated.
Raw scores: The scorer marks and sums the incorrect items and subtracts that from the total number of items attempted.
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.
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) is a standardized, individually-administered measure of accuracy and fluency with connected text. ORF is administered to students in the fall of first grade through the spring of eighth grade. ORF assesses a student’s ability to read words in connected text. In ORF, the examiner presents the student with a passage and asks the student to read the passage aloud for 1 minute. Words omitted, substituted, and hesitations of more than three seconds are scored as errors. Words self-corrected within three seconds are scored as accurate. DIBELS 8th Edition marks the first time that DIBELS ORF requires the administration of only one passage per benchmark period. Research has shown that administering more than one passage does little to improve the reliability and validity of ORF, meaning that the supposed benefits of administering three passages just does not pan out (Baker et al., 2015; Petscher & Kim, 2011). Rather, a single passage works just as well, and reduces the testing burden for both students and assessors. An additional unique and exciting feature of DIBELS 8th Edition ORF passages is that they were written by published authors and elementary and middle school teachers, most of whom had previous experience writing for students. The authors had diverse backgrounds, came from across the US, and had experience writing in a range of genres. In addition, all ORF passages were reviewed by a panel of parents and former teachers for developmental appropriateness and text complexity in the grades for which they were intended. Passages deemed inappropriate, too complex, or not complex enough for a given grade were either revised (and reviewed again) or discarded. As a result, ORF passages are not only more engaging for both students and assessors, but also feel more authentic and appropriate for the grades in which they appear. The final scores for ORF are (a) the number of words read correctly within 1 minute and (b) the accuracy percentage. The ORF measure takes about 2 minutes to administer and has 20 alternate forms per grade for monitoring progress.

Technical Standards

Classification Accuracy & Cross-Validation Summary

Grade Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Classification Accuracy Fall Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Classification Accuracy Winter Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence
Classification Accuracy Spring Partially convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Data unavailable
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available

Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score

Classification Accuracy

Select time of year
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?

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 and the fall of the 2019-2020 school year. The Iowa Assessment was administered in the spring of 2019 to the full benchmarking sample and in the fall of 2019 to a subset of schools. 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. Winter benchmarks predicted end of year performance on the spring 2019 Iowa administration because no concurrent administration was available. Fall benchmarks predicted end of year performance on the spring 2019 Iowa administration due to limited sample size for the fall 2019 concurrent Iowa sample, except for Grades 2-3 where the sample size was sufficient and thus the concurrent Fall 2019 administration was used.
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 ORF 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.
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?

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 1 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 Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 140 145 158 176 185 194 202 211
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 4 28 54 61 80 98 100 109
Classification Data - True Positive (a) 19 20 23 23 17 5 10 15
Classification Data - False Positive (b) 20 13 11 17 15 7 1 4
Classification Data - False Negative (c) 7 4 5 10 7 2 1 6
Classification Data - True Negative (d) 67 48 56 136 99 32 25 20
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.83 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.82 0.84 0.92 0.89
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.72 0.71 0.81 0.79
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.97 1.00 0.98
Statistics Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Base Rate 0.23 0.28 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.30 0.47
Overall Classification Rate 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.84 0.80 0.95 0.78
Sensitivity 0.73 0.83 0.82 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.91 0.71
Specificity 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.89 0.87 0.82 0.96 0.83
False Positive Rate 0.23 0.21 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.18 0.04 0.17
False Negative Rate 0.27 0.17 0.18 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.29
Positive Predictive Power 0.49 0.61 0.68 0.58 0.53 0.42 0.91 0.79
Negative Predictive Power 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.77
Sample Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Date Fall 2018 screening; Spring 2019 criterion Fall 2019 screening; Fall 2019 criterion Fall 2019 screening; Fall 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 113 85 95 186 138 46 37 45
Geographic Representation East North Central (OH)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (OR, WA)
South Atlantic (GA)
West North Central (MO)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (OR, WA)
South Atlantic (GA)
West North Central (MO)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (OR, WA)
South Atlantic (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)
West North Central (MO)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (WA)
West North Central (MO)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (WA)
West North Central (MO)
Male 35.4 % 52.9 % 37.9 % 32.8 % 43.5 % 43.5 % 54.1 % 46.7 %
Female 35.4 % 47.1 % 61.1 % 47.3 % 41.3 % 56.5 % 45.9 % 53.3 %
Other                
Gender Unknown 29.2 %   1.1 % 19.9 % 15.2 %      
White, Non-Hispanic 26.5 % 57.6 % 35.8 % 35.5 % 47.8 % 65.2 % 75.7 % 75.6 %
Black, Non-Hispanic 32.7 % 29.4 % 50.5 % 27.4 % 27.5 % 10.9 % 5.4 % 2.2 %
Hispanic 2.7 % 3.5 % 1.1 % 5.9 % 2.2 % 15.2 % 5.4 %  
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.9 % 1.2 %   4.3 % 4.3 %      
American Indian/Alaska Native 5.3 % 5.9 % 5.3 % 2.7 % 1.4 %   2.7 % 20.0 %
Other 2.7 % 1.2 % 6.3 % 4.3 % 0.7 % 8.7 % 10.8 % 2.2 %
Race / Ethnicity Unknown 29.2 % 1.2 % 1.1 % 19.9 % 15.2 %      
Low SES                
IEP or diagnosed disability                
English Language Learner                

Classification Accuracy - Winter

Evidence Grade 1 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 Iowa Assessment Total Reading Score
Cut Points - Percentile rank on criterion measure 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Cut Points - Performance score on criterion measure 140 154 166 176 185 194 202 211
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 9 58 84 97 107 116 120 115
Classification Data - True Positive (a) 26 43 15 29 19 30 34 37
Classification Data - False Positive (b) 22 24 30 17 19 15 21 14
Classification Data - False Negative (c) 9 7 7 6 6 8 9 7
Classification Data - True Negative (d) 78 119 119 135 98 100 91 47
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.82 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.90 0.87 0.83
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.75 0.88 0.77 0.87 0.83 0.84 0.81 0.75
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.89 0.96 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91
Statistics Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Base Rate 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.19 0.18 0.25 0.28 0.42
Overall Classification Rate 0.77 0.84 0.78 0.88 0.82 0.85 0.81 0.80
Sensitivity 0.74 0.86 0.68 0.83 0.76 0.79 0.79 0.84
Specificity 0.78 0.83 0.80 0.89 0.84 0.87 0.81 0.77
False Positive Rate 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.19 0.23
False Negative Rate 0.26 0.14 0.32 0.17 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.16
Positive Predictive Power 0.54 0.64 0.33 0.63 0.50 0.67 0.62 0.73
Negative Predictive Power 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.87
Sample Grade 1 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 Winter 2018/2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion
Sample Size 135 193 171 187 142 153 155 105
Geographic Representation East North Central (OH)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (OR, WA)
South Atlantic (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)
East North Central (OH)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (OR, WA)
South Atlantic (FL, GA)
West North Central (MO)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (OR, WA)
South Atlantic (GA)
West North Central (MO)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (WA)
South Atlantic (FL, GA)
West North Central (MO)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (WA)
South Atlantic (FL, GA)
West North Central (MO)
Mountain (AZ)
South Atlantic (GA)
West North Central (MO)
Male 36.3 % 34.7 % 38.6 % 32.6 % 43.0 % 45.1 % 45.8 % 45.7 %
Female 34.1 % 40.4 % 37.4 % 47.1 % 40.8 % 54.9 % 52.3 % 48.6 %
Other                
Gender Unknown 29.6 % 24.9 % 24.0 % 20.3 % 16.2 %   1.9 % 5.7 %
White, Non-Hispanic 23.0 % 27.5 % 39.2 % 35.8 % 46.5 % 45.8 % 46.5 % 36.2 %
Black, Non-Hispanic 37.8 % 35.8 % 25.1 % 26.7 % 27.5 % 39.9 % 43.2 % 48.6 %
Hispanic 2.2 % 3.6 % 4.1 % 5.9 % 2.1 % 4.6 % 1.3 %  
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.7 % 2.6 % 2.9 % 4.3 % 4.9 % 6.5 % 3.9 %  
American Indian/Alaska Native 4.4 % 2.1 % 2.3 % 2.7 % 1.4 %   0.6 % 8.6 %
Other 2.2 % 3.6 % 2.3 % 4.3 % 0.7 % 3.3 % 2.6 % 1.0 %
Race / Ethnicity Unknown 29.6 % 24.9 % 24.0 % 20.3 % 16.2 %   1.9 % 5.7 %
Low SES                
IEP or diagnosed disability                
English Language Learner                

Classification Accuracy - Spring

Evidence Grade 1 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 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 140 154 166 176 185 194 202
Cut Points - Corresponding performance score (numeric) on screener measure 25 76 95 98 123 124 126
Classification Data - True Positive (a) 22 42 18 26 20 26 33
Classification Data - False Positive (b) 17 17 24 23 25 14 23
Classification Data - False Negative (c) 11 9 7 10 6 12 9
Classification Data - True Negative (d) 83 130 130 130 96 104 90
Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.84 0.93 0.85 0.89 0.87 0.83 0.88
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Lower Bound 0.78 0.89 0.78 0.84 0.79 0.75 0.81
AUC Estimate’s 95% Confidence Interval: Upper Bound 0.91 0.96 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.91 0.94
Statistics Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7
Base Rate 0.25 0.26 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.24 0.27
Overall Classification Rate 0.79 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.79 0.83 0.79
Sensitivity 0.67 0.82 0.72 0.72 0.77 0.68 0.79
Specificity 0.83 0.88 0.84 0.85 0.79 0.88 0.80
False Positive Rate 0.17 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.21 0.12 0.20
False Negative Rate 0.33 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.23 0.32 0.21
Positive Predictive Power 0.56 0.71 0.43 0.53 0.44 0.65 0.59
Negative Predictive Power 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.93 0.94 0.90 0.91
Sample Grade 1 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 Spring 2019 screening; Spring 2019 criterion
Sample Size 133 198 179 189 147 156 155
Geographic Representation East North Central (OH)
Mountain (AZ)
Pacific (OR, WA)
South Atlantic (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)
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, GA)
West North Central (MO)
Male 35.3 % 33.8 % 37.4 % 33.9 % 43.5 % 45.5 % 45.2 %
Female 30.8 % 40.4 % 37.4 % 46.0 % 41.5 % 54.5 % 52.9 %
Other              
Gender Unknown 33.8 % 25.8 % 25.1 % 20.1 % 16.3 %   1.9 %
White, Non-Hispanic 24.8 % 27.3 % 37.4 % 36.5 % 46.3 % 45.5 % 46.5 %
Black, Non-Hispanic 31.6 % 34.8 % 25.7 % 27.0 % 29.3 % 39.7 % 43.2 %
Hispanic 3.0 % 3.5 % 3.9 % 5.3 % 2.0 % 5.1 % 1.3 %
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.8 % 2.5 % 2.8 % 4.2 % 4.8 % 6.4 % 3.9 %
American Indian/Alaska Native 4.5 % 2.0 % 2.2 % 2.6 % 1.4 %   0.6 %
Other 2.3 % 4.0 % 2.8 % 4.2 % 0.7 % 3.2 % 2.6 %
Race / Ethnicity Unknown 33.8 % 25.8 % 25.1 % 20.1 % 17.0 %   1.9 %
Low SES              
IEP or diagnosed disability              
English Language Learner              

Reliability

Grade Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence
Legend
Full BubbleConvincing evidence
Half BubblePartially convincing evidence
Empty BubbleUnconvincing evidence
Null BubbleData unavailable
dDisaggregated data available
*Offer a justification for each type of reliability reported, given the type and purpose of the tool.
To assess the reliability of DIBELS 8th Edition, we evaluated multiple forms of reliability, including test-retest reliability, concurrent alternate form reliability, and delayed alternate form reliability. We include delayed alternate form reliability as a supplementary source of reliability evidence by reporting correlations between two or more alternate form of the same test administered at different 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.
Sample 1. DIBELS 8th Edition was administered to 4,453 students in grades K – 8 in twenty-nine schools. Participating students came from throughout the country: all four census regions were represented. 48.1% of the participating students were female, 5.9% were male. 18.1% of students were Hispanic. The sample included .6% Asian students, 14.3% Black/African American students, .4% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 3.9% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 64.3% white, 3.2% two or more races, and 13.3% unknown or not reported. 6.3% of students were English Learners, and 13.9% were eligible for Special Education services. 57.4% of the students were eligible for the free or reduced lunch program. Sample 2. 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 5.6% male and 48.9% female; 1.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native; 2.5% Asian, 17.2% Black, 2.9% Hispanic, 4.1% two or more races, .4% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 53.0% White. 13.9% of students had disabilities, 59.6% were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 7.3% were English learners.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of reliability.
Test-retest reliability: Students were re-administered the same version of test (i.e., same item pool) at multiple benchmark assessments. Test-retest reliability was estimated as the correlation coefficient between the test and retest. Alternate form reliability: Students were administered multiple forms of each subtest, and scores from these two forms were correlated. Concurrent alternate-form reliability of a single (i.e., benchmark) form was estimated by the correlation between the score on that form and the score on an alternate (i.e., progress monitoring) form. Delayed alternate form reliability was estimated by correlating scores measured at different benchmark administrations across year—beginning-, middle-, and end of year.

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

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

Validity

Grade Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Convincing evidence Partially convincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing evidence Unconvincing 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.
The DIBELS 8th Edition ORF score in grades 1 through 8 was validated against multiple criterion measures drawn from DIBELS Next and the Iowa Assessment of Reading. DIBELS Next criterion measures were DIBELS Next Nonsense Word Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, and Composite Score and provided both concurrent and predictive validity evidence. The DIBELS Next Composite score is comprised of the individual DIBELS Next subtests administered in a given grade and time of year. The DIBELS Next measure scores are appropriate because they assess reading and were developed independently and administered separately from DIBELS 8th Edition. The Iowa Assessment was utilized as an additional criterion measure, administered in spring. The Iowa Assessment is a published, group-administered, multiple-choice, norm-referenced measure of reading achievement. It is completely independent of DIBELS 8th Edition measures. The Iowa Assessment is a commonly accepted measure of reading achievement. It is a published, group-administered, multiple-choice, norm-referenced test of reading. The Total Reading measure assesses broad reading achievement. Iowa assessments are completely independent of DIBELS 8th Edition measures.
*Describe the sample(s), including size and characteristics, for each validity analysis conducted.
Sample 1. DIBELS 8th Edition was administered to 4,453 students in grades K – 8 in twenty-nine schools. Participating students came from throughout the country: all four census regions were represented. 48.1% of the participating students were female, 50.9% were male. 18.1% of students were Hispanic. The sample included 0.6% Asian students, 14.3% Black/African American students, 0.4% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 3.9% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 64.3% white, 3.2% two or more races, and 13.3% unknown or not reported. 6.3% of students were English Learners, and 13.9% were eligible for Special Education services. 57.4% of the students were eligible for the free or reduced lunch program. Sample 2. Twenty-one schools administered DIBELS 8th Edition to 5,259 students in grades K - 8. The schools were located in the Pacific, East North Central, West North Central, Mountain, and South Atlantic census divisions. Schools represent towns, large cities, suburbs and rural areas. The sample of students was 50.6% male and 48.9% female; 1.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native; 2.5% Asian, 17.2% Black, 20.9% Hispanic, 4.1% two or more races, 0.4% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 53.0% White. 13.9% of students had disabilities, 59.6% were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 7.3% were English learners. Sample 3. Six public schools in five school districts administered DIBELS 8th Edition to 1,275 students in grades K - 3. The schools were located in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. The sample of students was 52.0% male and 47.3% female; 0.1% American Indian or Alaskan Native; 0.5% Black, 25.1% Hispanic, 1.2% two or more races, and 72.2% White. 7.2% of students were eligible for Special Education, 49.3% were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 1.1% were English learners.
*Describe the analysis procedures for each reported type of validity.
Concurrent validity: Concurrent validity was evaluated by examining the strength of correlation between the screening measure and the criterion measures administered at approximately the same time of the year. Predictive validity: Predictive validity was evaluated by examining the strength of correlation between the screening measure and the student future performance on the criterion measures.

*In the table below, report the results of the validity analyses described above (e.g., concurrent or predictive validity, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and/or evidence based on consequences of testing), and the criterion measures.

Type of Subgroup Informant Age / Grade Test or Criterion n Median Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Upper Bound
Results from other forms of validity analysis not compatible with above table format:
Manual cites other published reliability studies:
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 ORF for DIBELS 8th Edition is strongly supported by a range of concurrent and predictive validity correlations across two criterion measures. The vast majority of both concurrent and predictive correlation coefficients are .75 or above, with the majority of lower bounds of the coefficients at .60 or above.
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 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Rating No 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.

Data Collection Practices

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