157
Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS™) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes for Research NASP Workshop Dallas, TX, March 31, 2004 http://dibels.uoregon.edu

Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS™)

Roland H. Good IIIUniversity of Oregon

Ruth A. Kaminski

Pacific Institutes for Research

NASP WorkshopDallas, TX, March 31, 2004

http://dibels.uoregon.edu

Page 2: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 2

Advances in DIBELS™ Overview Introduction

Core Components of Beginning Reading Review of DIBELS ™ Measures

Use of DIBELS™ within an Outcomes Driven Model Assessing individual students and making

instructional recommendations Providing individual consultation to teachers Providing systems-wide consultation to schools

and districts

Page 3: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 3

Beginning Reading Core Components#1. Phonemic Awareness: The ability to hear and manipulate

sound in words.#2. Phonics: The ability to associate sounds with letters and

use these sounds to read words.#3. Fluency : The effortless, automatic ability to read words

in isolation (orthographic reading) and connected text.#4. Vocabulary Development: The ability to understand

(receptive) and use (expressive) words to acquire and convey meaning.

#5. Reading Comprehension: The complex cognitive process involving the intentional interaction between reader and text to extract meaning.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Available: http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/.

Page 4: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 4

Reading First:Four Kinds/Purposes of Reading Assessment

Outcome - Assessments that provide a bottom-line evaluation of the effectiveness of the reading program.

Screening - Assessments that are administered to determine which children are at risk for reading difficulty and who will need additional intervention.

Diagnosis - Assessments that help teachers plan instruction by providing in-depth information about students’ skills and instructional needs.

Progress Monitoring - Assessments that determine if students are making adequate progress or need more intervention to achieve grade level reading outcomes.

An effective, comprehensive, reading program includes reading assessments to accomplish four purposes:

Source: Reading First Initiative: Secretary’s Leadership Academy

Page 5: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 5

Using an Outcomes Driven Model to Provide Decision Rules for Progress Monitoring

Outcomes Driven model: Decision making steps

1. Identifying Need for Support

2. Validating Need for Instructional Support

3. Planning and Implementing Instructional Support

4. Evaluating and Modifying Instructional Support

5. Reviewing Outcomes for Individuals and Systems

Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best Practices in Using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an Outcomes-Driven Model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Page 6: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 6

Using the Outcomes Driven ModelValidate Need

for Support

ReviewOutcomes

EvaluateSupport

ImplementInstructional

Support

PlanInstructional

Support

Provide Instructional SupportBased on IntegratedAssessment - InterventionFeedback Loop

Identify Needfor Support

3 times per year progress monitoring

- Low RiskFrequent progress monitoring - At Risk

Page 7: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 7

Progress Monitoring Model for Beginning Reading Core Areas

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.

Fall Winter Spring

Third Grade

Big Ideas inBeginningReading

DynamicIndicators ofBig Ideas inBeginningReading

Benchmark GoalTimeline forAssessing BigIdeas K-3

PhonologicalAwareness

AlphabeticPrinciple

Accuracy &Fluency with

Connected Text

High-StakesReadingOutcome

OnRF PSF ORFNWF ORF ORF OSA

Fall Winter Spring

Second Grade

Fall Winter Spring

First Grade

Fall Winter Spring

Kindergarten

3 times per year progress monitoring - Low RiskFrequent progress monitoring - At Risk

ISF

Page 8: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 8

Progress Monitoring Repeated, formative assessment to evaluate progress

toward important goals for the purpose of modifying instruction or intervention.

Frequency of Progress Monitoring 3 times per year for students at low risk (All Students)

Benchmark 1 per month for students with some risk

Strategic 1 per week for students at risk

Intensive

Page 9: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 9

Research on Progress Monitoring Progress monitoring has been extensively researched

in Special Education For example:

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.

With Reading First, progress monitoring is not just for special education any more.

Page 10: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 10

Effects of Progress Monitoring Fuchs and Fuchs (1986) found the average effect size

associated with progress monitoring was: +0.70 for monitoring progress +0.80 when graphing of progress was added +0.90 when decision rules were added

A student at the 50th percentile would be expected to move to the 82nd percentile (i.e., a score of 100 would move to a score of 114)

Perhaps more important, a student at the 6th percentile would be expected to move to the average range (25th percentile)(i.e., a score of 76 would move to a score of 90)

Page 11: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 11

Progress Monitoring Tools Meaningful and important goals, waypoints, or

benchmarks representing reading health or wellness. Meaningful and Important Public and Measurable Ambitious

Brief, repeatable, formative assessment of progress toward benchmark goals that is sensitive to intervention. Brief and Efficient Repeatable - weekly or monthly Reliable and Valid indication of risk and growth

Page 12: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 12

Secretary’s Leadership AcademyAssessment Committee

David Francis, University of Houston Lynn Fuchs, Vanderbilt University Roland Good, University of Oregon Rollanda O’Connor, University of Pittsburgh Deborah Simmons, University of Oregon Gerald Tindal, University of Oregon Joseph Torgesen, Florida State University

Team Leader Edward J. Kame’enui, University of Oregon

Kameenui, E. J., Francis, D., Fuchs, L. Good, R. O’Connor, R. Simmons, D., Tindal, G., Torgesen, J. (2002). Secretary’s Leadership Academy, Reading First Initiative, Assessment Committee Presentation. US Dept. of Education: Washington, DC.

Page 13: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 13

idea.uoregon.edu/assessment

Page 14: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 14

Page 15: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 15

Page 16: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 16

Page 17: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 17

Page 18: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 18

Progress Monitoring Model for Beginning Reading Core Areas

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.

Fall Winter Spring

Third Grade

Big Ideas inBeginningReading

DynamicIndicators ofBig Ideas inBeginningReading

Benchmark GoalTimeline forAssessing BigIdeas K-3

PhonologicalAwareness

AlphabeticPrinciple

Accuracy &Fluency with

Connected Text

High-StakesReadingOutcome

OnRF PSF ORFNWF ORF ORF OSA

Fall Winter Spring

Second Grade

Fall Winter Spring

First Grade

Fall Winter Spring

Kindergarten

3 times per year progress monitoring - Low RiskFrequent progress monitoring - At Risk

ISF

Page 19: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

DIBELS™ Assess the Big IdeasBig Idea of Literacy DIBELS/CBM Measure

Phonological Awareness Initial Sound Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

Alphabetic Principle Nonsense Word Fluency

Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text

Oral Reading Fluency

Comprehension At least through grade 3: A combination of Oral Reading Fluency & Retell Fluency

Vocabulary – Oral Language Word Use Fluency

Indicator of Risk Letter Naming Fluency

Page 20: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

KindergartenPreschool

Initial Sound Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

Letter Nam ing F luency

Nonsense-word Fluency

CBM Reading G1

First Grade Second GradeEndBeg Mid EndBeg Mid EndBeg Mid EndBeg Mid

DIBELS™ Initial Sound FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.Directions for Administration and Scoring*

Initial Sound Fluency is intended for most children from the last year of preschool through the middle of kindergarten. It may be appropriate for monitoring the progress of older children with very low skills in phonological awareness.

The benchmark goal is 25 to 35 in the middle of kindergarten. Below 10 in the middle of kindergarten is indicates need for intensive instructional support.

BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Phonemic Awareness

Page 21: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 21

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy SkillsUniversity of Oregon

Initial Sound Fluency -Sample

DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency

This is a mouse, flowers, pillow, letters (point to each picture while saying its name).

Mouse begins with the sound /m/ (point to the mouse). Listen: /m/, mouse. Which one begins with the sounds /fl/?

Page 22: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

Phoneme Segmentation FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.

Directions for Administration and Scoring*

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency works well for most children from winter of kindergarten through spring of first grade. It may be appropriate for monitoring the progress of older children with low phonological awareness skills.

The benchmark goal is 35 to 45 correct phonemes per minute in the spring of kindergarten and fall of first grade. Students scoring below 10 in the spring of kindergarten and fall of first grade may need intensive instructional support to achieve benchmark goals.

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End

Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade

BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Phonemic Awareness

Page 23: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 23

DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

bad that mine coat meet wild woke fat side jet land beach

/b/ /a/ /d/ /TH/ /a/ /t/ /m/ /ie/ /n/ /k/ /oa/ /t/ /m/ /ea/ /t/ /w/ /ie/ /l/ /d/ /w/ /oa/ /k/ /f/ /a/ /t/ /s/ /ie/ /d/ /j/ /e/ /t/ /l/ /a/ /n/ /d/ /b/ /ea/ /ch/

lock pick noise spin ran dawn sign wait yell of wheel globe

/l/ /o/ /k/ /p/ /i/ /k/ /n/ /oi/ /z/ /s/ /p/ /i/ /n/ /r/ /a/ /n/ /d/ /o/ /n/ /s/ /ie/ /n/ /w/ /ai/ /t/ /y/ /e/ /l/ /o/ /v/ /w/ /ea/ /l/ /g/ /l/ /oa/ /b/

Total

______/6 ______/6 ______/6 ______/7 ______/6 ______/7 ______/6 ______/6 ______/6 ______/5 ______/7 ______/7 ______/75

I am going to say a word. After I say it, you tell me all the sounds in the word. So, if I say, “sam,” you would say /s/ /a/ /m/. Let’s try one. (one second pause). Tell me the sounds in “mop”

Ok. Here is your first word.

Page 24: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

DIBELS™ Nonsense Word FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.

Directions for Administration and Scoring*

Nonsense Word Fluency is intended for most children from spring of kindergarten through spring of first grade. It may be appropriate for monitoring the progress of older children with low skills in alphabetic principle.

The benchmark goal for Nonsense Word Fluency is 50 correct letter sounds per minute by mid first grade. Students scoring below 30 in mid first grade may need intensive instructional support to achieve first grade reading goals.

Nonsense Word Fluency

Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End

Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade

BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Alphabetic Principle

Page 25: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 25

DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency

Here are some more make-believe words (point to the student

probe). Start here (point to the first

word) and go across the page (point across the page). When I say, “begin”, read the words the best you can. Point to each letter and tell me the sound or read the whole word. Read the words the best you can. Put your finger on the first word. Ready, begin.

kik woj sig faj yis kaj fek av zin zez lan nul zem og nom yuf pos vok viv feg bub dij sij vus tos wuv nij pik nok mot nif vec al boj nen suv yig dit tum joj yaj zof um vim vel tig mak sog wot sav

Page 26: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

DIBELS™ Oral Reading FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.Directions for Administration and Scoring*

DIBELS™ Oral Reading Fluency is intended for most children from mid first grade through third grade. The benchmark goals are 40 in spring of kindergarten, 90 in spring of second grade, and 110 in the spring of third grade. Students may need intensive instructional support if they score below 10 in spring of first grade, 50 in spring of second grade, and below 70 in spring of third grade.

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End

Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade

BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text

Page 27: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 27

DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPlease read this (point)

out loud. If you get stuck, I will tell you the word so you can keep reading. When I say, “stop” I may ask you to tell me about what you read, so do your best reading. Start here (point to the first word of the passage). Begin.

The Robin’s Nest

There was a robin’s nest outside our kitchen window. The

nest was in a tall bush. The mother robin sat in the nest all day

long. One day when I was watching, the mother bird flew

away. I saw the eggs she was sitting on. There were four blue

eggs.

I watched and watched. The eggs moved. I watched some

more. The eggs started to crack. Finally, the eggs hatched. I

saw four baby birds. The baby birds opened their beaks wide.

I heard them peeping. Soon the mother bird came back. Then

the mother robin put worms in their mouths.

Every day I watched the baby birds and their mother.

Pretty soon the babies were so fat there was no room for the

mother. Then one morning the nest was gone from the bush.

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency First Grade Benchmark 2 © 2001 Dynamic Measurement Group Revised: 03/28/02

Page 28: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

DIBELS™ Retell FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.

Directions for Administration and Scoring*

DIBELS™ Retell Fluency is intended for most children from mid first grade through third grade who are reading at least 40 words per minute. It has been developed to provide a comprehension check for the DORF Assessment.

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End

Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade

BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Comprehension

Page 29: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 29

DIBELS Retell Fluency

Please tell me all about what you just read. Try to tell me everything you can. Begin. Start your stopwatch after you say “begin”.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

Page 30: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 30

Validity of ORF with RTF for Reading Comprehension Desirable standards: r = .60 to .80 First grade: ORF with consistent retell correlates with

Woodcock Johnson Broad Reading Cluster r = .81 (average of 2 probes) But, ORF with inconsistent retell correlates r

= .42 Third grade: A single probe ORF and RTF correlates

with Oregon State Assessment -- Reading and Literature Subtest: r = .73

RTF by itself generally correlates in the .20s, .30s, .40s and .50s with a variety of measures of comprehension.

Page 31: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 31

Inconsistent Retell in First Grade

Students reading more than 40 words correct per minute, typical retell is about 50% of ORF score.

Consistent retell is greater than or equal to 25% of ORF score.

An inconsistent retell is less than 25% of the ORF score.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Oral Reading Fluency

Re

tell

Flu

en

cy

Page 32: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 32

ORF with inconsistent Retell has lower validity with Reading Outcomes

ORF with consistent retell r = .81

ORF with inconsistent retell r = .42

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

VIP Oral Reading Fluency

WJ

Bro

ad R

ead

ing

Clu

ster

SS

Page 33: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 33

Inconsistent Retell in Third Grade

Students reading more than 40 words correct per minute, typical retell is about 50% of ORF score.

Consistent retell is greater than or equal to 25% of ORF score.

An inconsistent retell is less than 25% of the ORF score.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240Oral Reading Fluency

Ret

ell

Flu

ency

Page 34: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

DIBELS™ Word Use FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.Directions for Administration and Scoring*

Letter Naming Fluency

Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End

Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade

Word Use Fluency

Word Use Fluency (WUF) is intended for most children from fall of kindergarten through third grade. A benchmark goal is not provided for WUF because additional research is needed to establish its linkage to other big ideas of early literacy. Tentatively, students in the lowest 20 percent of a school district using local norms should be considered at risk for poor language and reading outcomes and those between the 20th and 40th percentile should be considered at some risk.

BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Vocabulary and Oral Language

Page 35: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

35Dallas, TXMarch 31, 2004

Probe 1

pool 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 _______

tried 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 _______

worry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 _______

happened 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 _______

DIBELS™ Word Use Fluency

Format: Examiner orally presents word and asks child to tell a sentence using the word. “Listen to me use this word in a sentence. Jump. I like to

jump rope. Your turn to use a word in a sentence. Pool.”

Page 36: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

Street: Don’t go in the street (5)

Today: Today have a fun day (5)

Against: You’re against me (3)

Snow: I like to play in the snow (7)

Bats: Bats are scary (3)

Bottom: Sit on your bottom (4)

Anyone: Anyone can go to my party (6)

Dress: Dress yourself. I’m not gonna dress you.(7)

Middle: Careful that’s middle (0)

Total = 40

Word Use Fluency

Page 37: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 37

WUF Distributions

Grade Level

Third grade

Second grade

First grade

Kindergarten

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

WUF Fall Benchmark

WUF Winter Benchmark

WUF Spring Benchmark

K 1st 2nd 3rd

Page 38: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 38

Statewide WUF DistributionsKindergarten 02-03/03-04

= 2002-2003= 2003 -2004

Page 39: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 39

Statewide WUF DistributionsFirst Grade 02-03/03-04

= 2002-2003= 2003 -2004

Page 40: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 40

Statewide WUF DistributionsSecond Grade 02-03/03-04

= 2002-2003= 2003 -2004

Page 41: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 41

Statewide WUF DistributionsThird Grade 02-03/03-04

= 2002-2003= 2003 -2004

Page 42: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 42

Word Use FluencySummary

1-month Alternate forms reliability = .59 - .65 1-week Alternate forms reliability = .65 -.71 (4-5 probes for r = .90) Criterion-Related Validity

PPVT = .31 - .55 TOLD = .44 - .55 EVT = .22 - .57 WJ-LC = .36 - .47 WRMT Reading Comprehension = .28 - .41 Language Sample DWR = .44 - .72

Sensitive to growth over time in K-1 (mean slope of 3.12 words per minute per month)

Easy and practical to administer No Benchmark goals established -- Use local norms

Page 43: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

DIBELS™ Letter Naming FluencyDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed.

Directions for Administration and Scoring*

Letter Naming Fluency works well for most children from fall of kindergarten through fall of first grade.

Students are considered at risk for difficulty achieving early literacy benchmark goals if they perform in the lowest 20% of students in their district. That is, below the 20th percentile using local district norms. Students are considered at some risk if they perform between the 20th and 40th percentile using local norms. Students are considered at low risk if they perform above the 40th percentile using local norms.

Letter Naming Fluency

Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End Beg Mid End

Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade

BIG IDEA of Early Reading: NONE; indicator of risk

Page 44: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

LNF Probes Each probe is a random

sort of 2 lower case and 2 upper case alphabets.

Lines help students to keep their place.

Serial naming and fluency aspects of the task are important.

Probe 1

c c N u Q M u h S i

n b e N F f o a K k

g p k p a H C e G D

b w F i h O x j I K

x t Y q L d f T g v

T V Q o w P J t B X

Z v U P R l V C l W

R J m O z D G y U Y

Z y A m X z H S M E

q n j s W r d s B I

r A E L c c N u Q MTotal: ____/110

Page 45: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 45

Using DIBELS™ Within an Outcomes Driven Model to Provide Decision Rules for Progress Monitoring

Outcomes Driven model: Decision making steps

1. Identifying Need for Support

2. Validating Need for Instructional Support

3. Planning and Implementing Instructional Support

4. Evaluating and Modifying Instructional Support

5. Reviewing Outcomes for Individuals and Systems

Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best Practices in Using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an Outcomes-Driven Model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Page 46: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 46

Three Levels of Assessment

Benchmark Assessment Assess all children 3 - 4 times/year (e.g., Fall, Winter, Spring)

How is the program (e.g.,classroom, school, curriculum, instruction) doing overall?

Are there children who may need additional support to achieve outcomes?

Which children may need additional support to achieve outcomes? Strategic Monitoring

Assess at risk children more frequently (e.g., monthly) Is current program sufficient to keep progress on track or are additional

supports/intervention needed? Continuous or Intensive Care Monitoring

Assess students needing more intensive, effective intervention weekly Are instructional supports/strategies effective or is a change in

intervention needed?

Page 47: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 47

Benchmark Assessment - First GradeDynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy SkillsTM 6th Ed.

University of Oregon First Grade Benchmark Assessment

Name: Teacher:

School: District:

Benchmark 1

Beginning/Fall Benchmark 2

Middle/Winter Benchmark 3 End/Spring

Date

Letter Naming Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation

Fluency

Nonsense Word Fluency

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency2

(middle score) (middle score)

Retell Fluency (Optional)

(middle score) (middle score)

Word Use Fluency

(Optional)

(Optional) (Optional) (Optional)

© 2002 Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. Revised: 07/02/02 Page 1

Benchmark assessment – screening all children to identify need for support to achieve goals in Core Components of literacy: phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy and fluency with connected text, Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension for all children.

Beginning: September, October, or November

Middle: December, January, or February

End: March, April, May, or June

Page 48: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 48

1. Identifying Need for SupportKey Decision for Screening Assessment: Which children may need additional instructional support to attain

important reading outcomes?

Data used to inform the decision: Compare individual student’s performance to benchmark goals or

local normative context to evaluate need for additional instructional support. Benchmark Goals: A deficit in a foundation skill is a strong

indicator that instructional support will be needed to attain later benchmark goals.

Local normative context: First, choose a percentile cutoff. 20th percentile seems a good place to start, but a district could choose 15th percentile or 25th percentile or other cutoff depending on resources.

Page 49: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 49

http://DIBELS.uoregon.edu

Page 50: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 50

Beginning of Kindergarten

Page 51: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 51

Identify Students who Need Support to Reach NEXT Benchmark Goal

In September of Kindergarten, Melissa has a deficit on initial sounds. She may need additional instructional support to achieve kindergarten benchmark goals in Phonemic Awareness.

Tevin is on track with to achieve Phonemic Awareness goals with effective core curriculum and instruction.

Page 52: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 52

Longitudinal Outcomes for DIBELS Benchmark Assessment

Odds of achieving subsequent early literacy goals for DIBELS Benchmark Assessments at the beginning, middle, and end of kindergarten, first, second, and third grades (12 screening points across K - 3) are available at

dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf Students are at risk if the odds are against achieving

subsequent early literacy goals. The purpose of screening is to provide additional

instructional support -- strategic or intensive -- sufficient to thwart the prediction of difficulty achieving reading outcomes.

Page 53: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 53

Sample Odds of Achieving Early Literacy Goals for Different Patterns of DIBELS Performance

Table 4 Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment

Percent Meeting Later Goals

Initial Sound Fluency

Letter Naming Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation

Fluency Pctile End K PSF

Mid 1 NWF

End 1 ORF Avg. Incidence Instructional Support Recommendation

Deficit At Risk At Risk 3 18 14 19 17 More Common Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Deficit At Risk Some Risk 7 34 13 21 23 Unusual Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Emerging At Risk At Risk 9 28 20 28 25 More Common Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Emerging At Risk Some Risk 11 41 17 22 27 More Common Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Deficit Some Risk At Risk 13 24 28 48 33 More Common Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Deficit At Risk Low Risk 15 60 21 25 35 Unusual Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Deficit Some Risk Some Risk 16 37 30 40 36 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Established At Risk At Risk 17 45 32 31 36 Extremely Rare Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging Some Risk At Risk 18 37 30 49 38 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Deficit Low Risk At Risk 20 30 37 58 42 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Established Some Risk At Risk 21 42 38 49 43 Extremely Rare Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging Some Risk Some Risk 22 47 36 51 45 More Common Strategic - Additional Intervention Established At Risk Some Risk 24 52 38 47 45 Extremely Rare Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging At Risk Low Risk 26 75 29 36 47 More Common Strategic - Additional Intervention Deficit Low Risk Some Risk 28 43 42 68 51 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Deficit Some Risk Low Risk 29 66 41 55 54 Extremely Rare Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging Low Risk At Risk 31 42 50 70 54 More Common Strategic - Additional Intervention Established Some Risk Some Risk 33 55 44 64 54 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Established At Risk Low Risk 34 82 34 47 54 Unusual Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging Low Risk Some Risk 38 53 53 80 62 More Common Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging Some Risk Low Risk 44 82 47 59 63 More Common Strategic - Additional Intervention Established Low Risk At Risk 47 51 58 89 66 Extremely Rare Benchmark - At grade level Established Low Risk Some Risk 49 58 62 87 69 More Common Benchmark - At grade level Deficit Low Risk Low Risk 52 74 60 75 70 Unusual Benchmark - At grade level Established Some Risk Low Risk 54 88 56 69 71 More Common Benchmark - At grade level Emerging Low Risk Low Risk 64 88 68 83 80 More Common Benchmark - At grade level Established Low Risk Low Risk 86 93 80 93 89 More Common Benchmark - At grade level

Note. Percent meeting goal is the conditional percent of children who meet the end of first grade goal of 40 or more on DIBELS ORF. Based on n of approximately 32000 students, 638 schools, and 255 school districts.

dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf

Page 54: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 54

Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment

Initial Sound Fluency

Letter Naming Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation

Fluency Pctile

Deficit At Risk At Risk 3 Deficit At Risk Some Risk 7 Emerging At Risk At Risk 9 Emerging At Risk Some Risk 11 Deficit Some Risk At Risk 13

[Table Continues]

Established Some Risk Low Risk 54 Emerging Low Risk Low Risk 64 Established Low Risk Low Risk 86

Pattern of performance based on the DIBELS Benchmark Assessment

[Tab

le C

onti

nues

] Percentile Rank for the pattern of performance. For example, a child with established ISF, some risk on LNF, and low risk on PSF is at the 54th percentile compared to other children in the middle of kindergarten. He or she achieved as well or better than 54% of children in participating schools on DIBELS.

dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf

Page 55: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 55

Percent Meeting Later Goals

Initial Sound Fluency

Letter Naming Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation

Fluency End K

PSF Mid 1 NWF

End 1 ORF Avg.

Deficit At Risk At Risk 18 14 19 17 Deficit At Risk Some Risk 34 13 21 23 Emerging At Risk At Risk 28 20 28 25 Emerging At Risk Some Risk 41 17 22 27 Deficit Some Risk At Risk 24 28 48 33

[Table Continues]

Established Some Risk Low Risk 88 56 69 71 Emerging Low Risk Low Risk 88 68 83 80 Established Low Risk Low Risk 93 80 93 89

Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment (continued)

Odds of achieving specific early literacy goal. For example, 69% of students with Established, Some Risk, Low Risk pattern in the middle of kindergarten achieved the end of first grade DIBELSOral Reading Fluency goal of 40 or more words read correct per minute.

[Tab

le C

onti

nu

es] Average Percent

achieving subsequent early literacy goals. For example, a student with a Deficit, Some Risk, At Risk pattern on DIBELS has 33% odds of achieving later literacy goals on average.

dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf

Page 56: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 56

Initial Sound Fluency

Letter Naming Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation

Fluency Incidence

Deficit At Risk At Risk More Common Deficit At Risk Some Risk Unusual Emerging At Risk At Risk More Common Emerging At Risk Some Risk More Common Deficit Some Risk At Risk More Common

[Table Continues]

Established Some Risk Low Risk More Common Emerging Low Risk Low Risk More Common Established Low Risk Low Risk More Common

Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment (continued)

Extremely rare patterns may indicate a need to retest. For example, it would be extremely rare for a student to have Established ISF, Low Risk on LNF, and At Risk status on PSF. Their PSF score may not be accurately estimating their phonemic awareness skill.

[Tab

le C

onti

nu

es]

Incidence or how often a pattern of performance occurs. For example, among students with a Deficit on ISF and Some Risk on LNF, achieving in the At Risk range on PSF would be a more common pattern, but achieving in the Some Risk range would be an unusual pattern.

dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf

Page 57: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 57

Initial Sound Fluency

Letter Naming Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation

Fluency Instructional Support Recommendation

Deficit At Risk At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Deficit At Risk Some Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention Emerging At Risk At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

[Table Continues]

Emerging Some Risk Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention Established At Risk Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention Emerging At Risk Low Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

[Table Continues]

Established Some Risk Low Risk Benchmark - At grade level Emerging Low Risk Low Risk Benchmark - At grade level Established Low Risk Low Risk Benchmark - At grade level

Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment (continued)

Instructional Support Recommendation. For students with odds in favor of achieving subsequent literacy goals, benchmark instruction is recommended. For students with odds against achieving subsequent literacy goals, intensive support is recommended. For about 50 – 50 odds, strategic support is recommended.

[Tab

le C

onti

nu

es]

dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf

Page 58: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 58

Decision Utility of DIBELS Pattern of performance on DIBELS measures determines

overall risk status and instructional recommendation. In fall of first grade, for example,

LNF >= 37, DIBELS PSF >= 35, DIBELS NWF >= 24Instructional Recommendation: Benchmark - At grade level. Effective core curriculum and instruction recommended, Odds of reading 40 or more words correct per minute at the end of

first grade: 84% Odds of reading less than 20 words correct per minute at the end of

first grade: 2% LNF < 25, DIBELS PSF < 10, DIBELS NWF < 13

Instructional Rec: Intensive - Needs substantial intervention: Odds of reading 40 or more words correct per minute at the end of

first grade: 18% (unless given intensive intervention) Odds of reading less than 20 words correct per minute at the end of

first grade: 48% (unless given intensive intervention) Value of knowing the instructional recommendation and the goal early

enough to change the outcome: Priceless.

Page 59: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 59

Sample Cutoffs for Low Risk, Some Risk, At Risk for Kinder DIBELS Performance

DIBELS 3 Benchmark Goals and Indicators of Risk Kindergarten

Beginning of Year

Month 1 - 3

Middle of Year

Month 4 - 6

End of Year

Month 7 - 10 DIBELS Measure Scores Status Scores Status Scores Status

DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency

ISF < 4

4 <= ISF < 8

ISF >= 8

At risk

Some risk

Low risk

ISF < 10

10 <= ISF < 25

ISF >= 25

Deficit

Emerging

Established

DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency

LNF < 2

2 <= LNF < 8

LNF >= 8

At risk

Some risk

Low risk

LNF < 15

15 <= LNF < 27

LNF >= 27

At risk

Some risk

Low risk

LNF < 29

29 <= LNF < 40

LNF >= 40

At risk

Some risk

Low risk

DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

PSF < 7

7 <= PSF < 18

PSF >= 18

At risk

Some risk

Low risk

PSF < 10

10 <= PSF < 35

PSF >= 35

Deficit

Emerging

Established

DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency

NWF < 5

5 <= NWF < 13

NWF >= 13

At risk

Some risk

Low risk

NWF < 15

15 <= NWF < 25

NWF >= 25

At risk

Some risk

Low risk

Page 60: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 60

Middle of Kindergarten

Page 61: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 61

End of Kindergarten

Page 62: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 62

Identify Need for Support: Using Local Norms

X

X

X

Page 63: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 63

2. Validate Need for SupportKey Decision: Are we reasonably confident the student needs instructional

support? Rule out easy reasons for poor performance:

Bad day, confused on directions or task, ill, shy, or similar. More reliable information is needed to validate need for

support than for screening decisions. Data used to inform the decision: Repeated assessments on different days under different

conditions Compare individual student’s performance to local normative

context or expected performance to evaluate discrepancy.

Page 64: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

64Dallas, TXMarch 31, 2004

Identify Need: Which children may need additional support?Teacher’s list of children in class and DIBELS™ scores: January of K

In January of Kindergarten: Sandra, Matrix, Brandon, and Danielle have a deficit on Initial Sound Fluency. They may

need additional instructional support to attain kindergarten benchmarks. Joseph and Tiffany are on track with established skills on ISF. Halley and Latisha have emerging skills and should be monitored strategically

Student Scor

e

Per

cent

ile

Initial Sound Skill

Status Scor

e

Per

cent

ile

All Sounds Skill Status Sc

ore

Per

cent

ile

Risk StatusInstructional Recommendations Based

Primarily on PSF

T., Sandra 9 4 Deficit 1 7 Deficit 8 13 At risk Intensive support indicated.R., Matrix 7 2 Deficit 1 7 Deficit 11 19 At risk Intensive support indicated.W., Halley 14 12 Emerging 2 9 Deficit 29 46 Low risk Strategic support.M., Latisha 19 22 Emerging 3 11 Deficit 35 59 Low risk Strategic support.A., Brandon 9 4 Deficit 3 11 Deficit 24 35 Some risk Intensive support indicated.R., Tiffany 42 86 Established 13 31 Emerging 48 85 Low risk Benchmark.M., Danielle 5 1 Deficit 14 33 Emerging 21 28 Some risk Strategic support.M., Joseph 38 75 Established 15 35 Emerging 37 66 Low risk Benchmark.

Onset Recognition Fluency

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Letter Naming Fluency

Initial Sound Fluency

At riskAt riskSome riskSome riskSome riskLow riskLow riskLow risk

Page 65: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 65

When brief, 1-minute probes are used, it is important to consider error as one possible cause of poor performance. A pattern of low performance across 3 - 4 probes is much more reliable.

Aggregating multiple, brief assessments increases reliability

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of Probes

Rel

iab

ilit

y o

f A

gg

reg

ate

Page 66: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 66

Validating Need for Support Verify need for instructional support by retesting with

alternate forms until we are reasonably confident.

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

M archScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

Ph

on

eme

Seg

men

tati

on

Flu

ency

Mid-year cutoff at risk

BrandonSandra

Matrix

Danielle

Page 67: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 67

3. Planning and Implementing Instructional SupportKey Decisions for Diagnostic Assessment: What are the Goals of instruction?

Where are we? Where do we need to be? By when? What course do we need to follow to get there?

What skills should we teach to get there? Focus on the beginning reading core areas: Phonological

Awareness, Alphabetic Principle, Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text

Specific skills based on error analysis or additional diagnostic assessment (e.g., CTOPP).

What kind of instructional support is needed? Intensive Instructional Support Strategic Instructional Support Benchmark Instruction

Page 68: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 68

Exploring Support - Aimline for Brandon The aimline connects where we are to where we need to be by when, and shows the course to follow to get there.

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

M archScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

Ph

on

eme

Seg

men

tati

on

Flu

ency

Aimline

End-year cutoff at risk

End-year Benchmark Goal

Page 69: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 69

Planning Support - Aimline for Sandra The aimline connects where we are to where we need to be by when, and shows the course to follow to get there.

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

M archScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

Ph

on

eme

Seg

men

tati

on

Flu

ency

Aimline

End-year Benchmark Goal

End-year cutoff at risk

Page 70: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 70

Instructional Goals for Core Components of Beginning ReadingBenchmark Goals to be On Grade Level Step 1: Phonological Awareness with 25 - 35 on DIBELS Initial Sound

Fluency by mid kindergarten (and 18 on PSF) Step 2: Phonemic Awareness with 35 - 45 on DIBELS Phoneme

Segmentation Fluency by end of kindergarten (and 25 on NWF) Step 3: Alphabetic principle 50 - 60 on DIBELS Nonsense Word

Fluency by mid first grade (and 20 on DORF) Step 4: Fluency with 40 - 50 on DIBELS Oral reading fluency by end

of first grade. Step 5: Fluency with 90 + on DIBELS Oral reading fluency by end of

second grade Step 6: Fluency with 110 + on DIBELS Oral reading fluency by end

of third grade

Page 71: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 71

Instructional Steps from Kindergarten to Successful Reading Outcomes

The outcome of each step depends on (a) students beginning skills, (b) effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction, and (c) effectiveness of system of additional instructional support.

Page 72: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 72

Planning Support: What skills should we teach?

Focus on the Big Ideas: Initial Sounds Fluency and Phoneme Segmentation

Fluency - Phonemic Awareness Nonsense Word Fluency - Alphabetic Principle Oral Reading Fluency - Accuracy and Fluency with

Connected Text Retell Fluency - Comprehension Word Use Fluency - Vocabulary

Page 73: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 73

What specific skills to teach? For specific skill level use:

Error analysis of DIBELS performance Knowledge of child performance in class Curriculum-linked assessment, e.g., mastery

measures Use supplementary assessment as needed What can the child do/not do?

Page 74: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 74

Phonemic Awareness Is the child accurate but not fluent? Build

fluency. Does the child have errors? What is the

error rate? Few (5-10%), some (10-33%), many (33-

90%), all? What is the pattern of errors?

Page 75: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 75

ISF Response Patterns Produces multiple random errors Substitutes name of letter for initial sound Repeats word when prompted for sound Recognizes but does not produce initial sounds consistently Recognizes and produces initial sounds confidently Difficulty with consonant sounds Difficulty with vowel sounds Pronunciation differences due to dialect or second language Frequent articulation difficulties, consider referral to language

specialist Difficulty remembering picture names Frequent self corrections

Page 76: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 76

PSF Response Patterns Stage 1: repeats entire word Stage 2: produces initial sound or sounds only Stage 3: produces onset and rhyme Stage 4: produces initial and final sounds correctly; errors on middle sounds Stage 5: produces initial, middle and final sounds correctly; does not segment blends Stage 6: correctly segments all phonemes including phonemes in blends Produces consonant sounds correctly; misses vowel sounds Omits final sounds Pronunciation differences due to dialect or second language Frequent articulation difficulties, consider referral to language specialist Frequent phoneme additions Frequent phoneme omissions Frequent self corrections

Page 77: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 77

Sequence of Phonological Awareness Skills - K1. Sound and Word Discrimination

* Tells whether words or sounds are the same or different (cat/cat = same; cat/car=different).* Identifies which word is different (e.g., sun, fun, sun).* Tells the difference between single speech sounds (e.g., Which one is different? s, s, k).

2. Rhyming * Identifies whether words rhyme (e.g., cat/mat; ring/sing). * Produces a word that rhymes with another (e.g., "A word that rhymes with rose is nose. Tell me another word that rhymes with rose.)

3. Blending* Orally blends syllables (mon-key) or onset-rimes (m-ilk) into a whole word. * Orally blends 2-3 separately spoken phonemes into one-syllable words (e.g., m-e: me; u-p: up; f-u-n: fun).

4. Segmentation * Claps or counts the words in a 3-5 word sentence (e.g., Sue can jump far). * Claps or counts the syllables in 1-, 2-, and 3-syllable words. * Says each syllable in 2- and 3-syllable words (di-no-saur). * Identifies the first sound in a one-syllable word (e.g., /m/ in man). * Segments individual sounds in 2- and 3-phoneme, one-syllable words (e.g., run: /r/ /u/ /n/; feet: /f/ /ee/ /t/).

Page 78: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 78

Alphabetic Principle

Nonsense Word Fluency Is the child accurate but not fluent? Build

fluency. Does the child have errors? What is the

error rate? Does the child have errors? What is the

pattern of errors?

Page 79: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 79

NWF Response Patterns Stage 1: Has isolated letter-sound correspondences but lacks a systematic strategy for attacking

unknown words. Stage 2: Produces correct consonant sounds; incorrect vowel sounds. Stage 3: Produces most sounds correctly sound-by-sound, but does not recode into complete word. Stage 4: Produces sounds correctly sound-by-sound and then recodes into complete word (e.g.,

/m/ /o/ /t/ “mot”) Stage 5: Fluently applies systematic trategy for attacking unknown words (i.e., reads mot as “mot”) Substitutes real words for nonsense words Produces sounds correctly sound-by-sound; recodes sounds out of order (e.g.,/b…i…s…/ “sib”) Consistent error for a specific consonant/vowel sound requiring review Pronunciation differences due to dialect or second language Frequent articulation difficulties, consider referral to language specialist Frequent sound additions Frequent sound omissions Frequent self corrections

Page 80: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 80

Critical Alphabetic Principle Skills

Letter-Sound Correspondences Example: (Teacher points to letter m on board). "The sound of this

letter is /mmmmm/. Tell me the sound of this letter.” Sounding Out Words

Example: (Teacher points to the word map on the board, touches under each sound as the students sound it out, and slashes finger under the word as students say it fast.) "Sound it out." (/mmmmmmmmaaaaaaap/) "Say it fast." (map)

Reading Words Reading Words in connected text

Page 81: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 81

Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text Oral Reading Fluency

Is the child accurate but not fluent? Build fluency. Does the child have errors? What is the pattern of errors?

Correctly decodes easy, phonetically correct words, misses long and/or irregular words

Consistently makes errors on words with specific blends, digraphs, etc.

Only reads simple and common words correctly consistently (e.g., “the” “and”)

Page 82: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 82

Vocabulary WUF Response Patterns

Stereotypical response pattern, e.g., “I like to ____” Word use is sparse and employs minimum utterances Word use is fluent and confident employing elaborated

sentences Response often unrelated to target word Student appears shy and reticent to talk Student uses similar sounding word, may have difficulty

hearing target word Student frequently asks for the word to be repeated, may

have difficulty hearing target word

Page 83: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 83

What Curriculum and/or program?Good News - Bad News - Good News

Good News: All but small number of children can learn to read.

Bad News: No Magical Curriculum or program that is effective for all students.

Good News: The Magic is in the system of support that matches each child with the support that is effective for her/him.

Page 84: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 84

Planning Support: What curriculum/program to use?

Three levels of instructional support Benchmark -- Core Curriculum Strategic -- Supplemental Curriculum Intensive -- Intervention Curriculum

Page 85: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 85

Benchmark Instruction - Core Comprehensive Reading Programs

Purpose: to provide complete instruction in the core components of reading

Examples: Open Court Reading, SRA/McGraw Hill Houghton Mifflin Reading Mastery

Page 86: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 86

Strategic Support - Supplemental Reading Programs

Purpose: to provide additional instruction in one or more areas of reading for students who require strategic instructional support to reach benchmark goals.

Examples: phonemic awareness programs

Phonemic Awareness in Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.

fluency building programsRead Naturally, Read Naturally, Inc.Read Well, Sopris West

comprehension strategy programsSoar to Success, Houghton Mifflin Co.Collaborative Strategic Reading

Page 87: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 87

Intensive Support - Intervention Reading Programs Purpose: to provide additional instruction to

students who have skill deficits and need intensive support to reach benchmark goals.

Examples: Corrective Reading, SRA/McGraw-Hill Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention

(Optimize), Scott Foresman Phonological Awareness Training for

Reading, AGS Publishing

Page 88: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 88

Instructional Strategies Grouping

Small group instruction Flexible instructional grouping

Effective Instruction Focused and systematic Explicit

Direct explanation Modeling

High student engagement Lots of opportunities to respond Lots of Guided Practice with immediate feedback

Scaffolding to support learning Integration of skills Review

Page 89: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 89

4. Evaluating and Modifying Instructional Support

Key Decision for Progress Monitoring Assessment: Is the intervention effective in improving the child’s early

literacy skills?

How much instructional support is needed? Enough to get the child on trajectory for Benchmark

Goal.

When is increased support needed? Monitor child’s progress during intervention by

comparing their performance and progress to past performance and their aimline. Three consecutive assessments below the aimline indicates a need to increase instructional support.

Page 90: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 90

Evaluating Support Sandra: Is the intervention working?

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

M archScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

Ph

on

eme

Seg

men

tati

on

Flu

ency

Aimline

Page 91: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 91

Evaluating Support Brandon: Is the intervention working?

Whoops! Time to make a change!

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

M archScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

Ph

on

eme

Seg

men

tati

on

Flu

ency

Aimline

Page 92: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 92

Evaluating Support - Brandon:Is Instructional Support Sufficient Now?

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

M archScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

Ph

on

eme

Seg

men

tati

on

Flu

ency

Aimline

Page 93: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 93

Where are we?What is our goal?What course should we follow?How are we doing?

ActualCourse

DesiredCourse

Our Goal

We are Here

Page 94: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 94

Progress Monitoring: The Teacher’s MapThe GPS for Educators

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

M archScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

Aimline

A change in intervention

Page 95: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 95

Dynamic Interventions Build in anAssessment InterventionFeedback Loop Good interventions are identified by their outcomes -

not our philosophy, or beliefs, or the quality of their packaging.

Good interventions are individual – an effective intervention for one child may not be effective for another.

Integrating assessment and intervention driven by outcomes is a key aspect of an effective intervention.

Page 96: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 96

Sept.

10

20

30

40

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores

Step 1: Initial Sound Fluency in First Half of Kindergarten

Mid year goal: 25 on ISF

Beginning K Low risk: >= 8 At risk: < 4

Middle K Low risk: >= 25 At risk: < 10

Additional Goal PSF >= 18

Page 97: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 97

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

10

20

30

40

50

60

JuneScores

MayScores

AprilScores

MarchScores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

Dec.Scores

Step 2: Phoneme Segmentation Fluency in Second Half of Kinder

End K goal: 35 on PSF

Middle K Low risk: >= 18 At risk: < 7

End K PSF Established:

PSF >= 35 Deficit: < 10

Additional Goal NWF >= 25

Page 98: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 98

Sept.

10

20

30

40

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores Scores

60

70

80

50

Step 3: Nonsense Word Fluency in First Half of First Grade

Middle first goal: 50 on NWF

Beginning first Low risk: >= 24 At risk: < 13

Mid first NWF: Established:

NWF >= 50 Deficit: < 30

Additional Goal: ORF >= 20

Page 99: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 99

Step 4: Oral Reading Fluency in Second Half of First Grade

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

JuneScores

MayScores

AprilScores

MarchScores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

Dec.Scores

End first goal: 40 on ORF

Middle first ORF: Low risk: >= 20 At risk: < 8

End first ORF: Low risk: >= 40 At risk: < 20

Additional Goal: Retell > ORF/4

Page 100: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 100

Step 5: Oral Reading Fluency in Second Grade

Wk 1

Wk 2

Wk 3

Wk 4

10

20

30

40

50

60

120

JuneScores

MayScores

AprilScores

MarchScores

Jan.Scores

Nov.Scores

Sep.Scores

100

90

110

80

70

Oct.Scores

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

End second goal: 90 on ORF

Beg second ORF: Low risk: >= 44 At risk: < 26

End second ORF: Low Risk:

>= 90 At Risk: < 70

Additional Goal: Retell > ORF/4

Page 101: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 101

Step 6: Oral Reading Fluency in Third Grade

End third goal: 110 on ORF

Beg third ORF: Low risk: >= 77 At risk: < 53

End third ORF: Low Risk:

>= 110 At Risk: < 80

Additional Goal: Retell > ORF/4

Wk 1

Wk 2

Wk 3

Wk 4

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

JuneScores

MayScores

AprilScores

MarchScores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

Sept.Scores

Oct.Scores

Nov.Scores

Dec.Scores

*Each tick is 4 points.

Page 102: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 102

Is Progress is Related to Outcomes? The logic of the Evaluating and Modifying Support step relies on

evidence that amount of progress toward goals is related to important reading outcomes.

Is slope of progress on NWF in the Fall of first grade related to first grade reading outcomes? This questions was recently examined by

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., and Compton, D. L. (in press). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word Identification Fluency versus Nonsense Word Fluency. Exceptional Children. Fuchs et al. also examined the validity of spring slope, whole

year slope, and the validity of fall level, all of which will not be addressed here.

Page 103: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 103

Validity of Slope on NWF in Fall of First Grade for Oral Reading Fluency Outcomes Based on 151 “at risk” children, Fuchs et al. correlated slope of

progress in fall of first grade with spring of first grade reading outcomes:

Note. WIF is Word Identification Fluency

Spring Outcome Measure Fall WIF

Slope Fall NWF

Slope

WRMT-R Word Identification .43 .05

WRMT-R Word Attack .27 -.03

CRAB Fluency .54 .16

CRAB Comprehension .49 -.04

Page 104: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 104

Conclusions: Validity of NWF Slope “coefficients for the nonsense word fluency measure slopes were

disappointingly low, ranging from -.04 to .16. Because nonsense word fluency is recommended for progress monitoring in the fall of first grade within the DIBELS system (Good et al., 2001), these findings raise serious concern. An increasing pattern of scores through the first semester of first grade on DIBELS nonsense word fluency appears to bear little relationship to students’ end-of-year reading status.” (p. 21)

“practitioners can have confidence that increases in word identification fluency over time reflect improved performance on important end-of-year reading outcomes. As our results suggest, the same is not true for DIBELS nonsense word fluency, and findings are particularly compelling because data were collected on the same group of children using the same methods.” (p. 23)

Page 105: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 105

Concerns and Questions Before accepting these conclusions, some concerns should

be addressed.

1. The simple correlation between slope and reading outcome addresses the wrong question. There is no rational or logical reason why slope by

itself should be related to reading outcomes without considering the students initial skills.

The crucial question is, Given the student’s initial skills, does slope of progress add to the variance explained in reading outcomes?

Nick has NWF slope of +0.70 while Nora has NWF slope of +1.50. Who would you expect to have higher reading outcomes in the spring?

Page 106: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 106

Answer: It depends on initial skills. Nora has a slope twice that of Nick, but substantially

lower reading outcome because her initial skills are so much lower.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Week

NW

F C

orr

ect

Let

ter

So

un

ds

Nick: slope = +0.70

Nora: slope = +1.50

Spring DORF = 51

Spring DORF = 27

Slope, by itself without considering initial skills is not enough to predict outcomes.

Page 107: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 107

Now Consider Nora and Nell Nora and Nell have similar initial skills – Nell’s

higher slope predicts higher skills in middle of first grade and higher reading outcomes.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Week

NW

F C

orr

ect

Let

ter

So

un

ds

Nick: slope = +0.70

Nora: slope = +1.50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Week

NW

F C

orr

ect

Let

ter

So

un

ds

Nick: slope = +0.70

Nell: slope = +2.56

Nora: slope = +1.50

Spring DORF = 37

Spring DORF = 27

Page 108: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 108

Given Initial Skills, Does Slope Add to Predictions of Outcomes? Students with complete data from 2002-2003 in the

DIBELS Data System were examined for level of risk, slope of progress, and reading outcomes.

Beginning NWF NWF Slope

Group N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev

At Risk 20739 5.46 4.23 20739 1.54 1.02

Some Risk 20606 18.08 3.13 20606 1.47 0.97

Low Risk 38082 34.62 7.09 38082 1.23 1.16

Hi AP 12288 70.32 22.55 12288 1.24 1.73

Total 91715 29.09 22.12 91715 1.36 1.19

Page 109: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 109

Fuchs et al. “At Risk” Sample Mean DIBELS NWF score is in the low risk range. An estimated 70% of the sample would be above the

NWF cutoff of 23 for low risk.

Initial Skills Slope

Variable N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev

CBM WIF 151 10.11 9.26 151 0.90 0.90

DIBELS NWF 151 31.29 14.47 151 1.92 2.04

Page 110: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 110

Utility of Initial NWF Risk Categories Initial skills on NWF are a very strong predictor of

reading outcomes.

Ending ORF

Group N Mean Std Dev Odds of Achieving Benchmark Goal

At Risk 20739 26.52 21.13 22%

Some Risk 20606 42.81 24.47 47%

Low Risk 38082 62.07 28.74 76%

Hi AP 12288 102.19 34.44 97%

Total 91715 55.08 35.68 60%

0 -12

Page 111: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 111

Does Slope Add to the Prediction of Reading Outcomes After Risk Level and Initial Skills? Rules for evaluating effects:

1. Significance. With N > 20,000 everything is significant.

2. Percent of variance explained. More than 10% of variance explained is a good indication of a strong effect. Greater percent is stronger.

3. Educationally meaningful effects. Analysis of outcomes to see if the predicted differences would be educationally important to teachers, students, parents.

Page 112: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 112

Does Slope Add to the Prediction of Reading Outcomes After Risk Level and Initial Skills? Sequential model predicting first grade DORF reading

outcomes from (1) risk category, (2) initial NWF skill given risk, and (3) slope given risk and initial skill.

Source DF R2 change

NWF Risk Category 3 0.40

Initial NWF Skill Given Risk 1 0.08

Slope Given Risk, Initial Skill 1 0.11

Total 91714 1.00

Risk category, initial skills, and slope combined explain 59% of reading outcomes.

Page 113: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 113

Variance Explained by Slope for Each Risk Category A separate analysis was conducted for each risk

category.

Percent of Risk Category Variance in Reading Outcomes

Explained

Group NWF Initial

Skills NWF Slope Given

Initial Skills

At Risk 8% 26%

Some Risk 2% 21%

Low Risk 8% 21%

Hi AP 25% 11%

Rate of progress is especially important for students who are at risk for low reading outcomes.

But, is the variance explained by slope (given risk and initial skills) educationally important?

Page 114: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 114

Variability in Slope for At Risk Students About 68% of student’s trajectories are between the

low slope and the high slope.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36Week

NW

F C

orr

ect

Let

ter-

So

un

ds

Mean NWF - 1sd slope

Mean NWF Mean slope

Mean NWF + 1sd slope

Hi Slope

Lo Slope

Page 115: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 115

Are Differences in Slope Educationally Meaningful for At Risk Students? Yes. Predicted reading outcomes are substantially

different.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.52 0.77 1.03 1.28 1.54 1.79 2.05 2.30 2.56

MSlope - 1sd to MSlope + 1sd

Pre

dic

ted

En

d F

irst

DO

RF

Hi Slope

Lo Slop

e

Page 116: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 116

Conclusions: Validity of DIBELS NWF Slope Initial risk status and initial skills on DIBELS Nonsense

Word Fluency are very important in predicting reading outcomes in first grade, explaining 48% of variance in outcomes.

An increasing pattern of scores through the first semester of first grade on DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency appears to be a very important predictor of reading outcomes for students who are at risk and for each risk category.

We can be confident that increases in DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency reflect improved performance on essential skills that contribute to important end-of-year reading outcomes.

Page 117: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 117

5. Reviewing OutcomesKey Decisions for Outcome/Accountability Assessment: Does the child have the early literacy skills predictive of successful

reading outcomes? Does the school have core curriculum and instruction as well as a system

of effective instructional support so their students achieve literacy outcomes?

Data used to inform the decision: Evaluate individual student’s performance with respect to benchmark

goals that with the odds in favor of achieving subsequent literacy goals. Compare school/district outcomes to goals and outcomes from previous

year. Evaluate core curriculum and system of additional support for each step

to identify strengths and areas for improvement.

Page 118: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 118

Reviewing Outcomes - School Level 1998 – 99 First Grade Reading

CBM Reading

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Correct Words

Fre

qu

en

cy

28% Established Readers57% Emerging Readers15% Non-Readers

Page 119: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 119

Reviewing Outcomes - School Level 1999 – 00 First Grade Reading

CBM Reading

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Correct Words

Fre

qu

en

cy

57% Established Readers36% Emerging Readers6% Non-Readers

Page 120: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 120

Heartland Early Literacy Project Across Year First Grade Oral Reading Fluency Outcomes

2001-2002 Beginning: Middle: 4229 End: 4414 2000-2001 Beginning: Middle: 4037 End: 4152 1999-2000 Beginning: Middle: 1595 End: 1879

Page 121: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 121

Reviewing Outcomes: Effectiveness of Benchmark Instruction (Core Curriculum) For each step toward literacy outcomes, a school with

an effective core curriculum and instruction supports students who are on track (i.e., low risk or benchmark) to achieve the goal.

For students with the odds in favor of achieving literacy goals, it is the job of the core to teach the core components so that all students (100%) achieve the goals.

Page 122: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 122

Reviewing Outcomes: Effectiveness of Strategic and Intensive Intervention For each step toward literacy outcomes, a school with

an effective system of effective interventions supports students who are not on track (i.e., at some risk or at risk of difficulty achieving literacy goals) to achieve the goal.

For students with the odds against achieving literacy goals unless we provide an effective intervention, it is the job of the system of additional support to augment the core curriculum so that all students (100%) achieve the same benchmark goals.

Page 123: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 123

Instructional Steps from Kindergarten to Successful Reading Outcomes

Big Ideas inBeginningReading

DynamicIndicators ofBig Ideas inBeginningReading

Benchmark GoalTimeline forAssessing BigIdeas K-3

Accuracy &Fluency with

Connected Text

High-StakesReadingOutcome

AlphabeticPrinciple

PhonologicalAwareness

ISF PSF NWF ORF ORF ORF HSA

Fall Winter Spring

Kindergarten

Fall Winter Spring

First Grade

Fall Winter Spring

Second Grade Third Grade

InstructionalStep

Step1

Step2

Step3

Step4

Step5

Fall Winter Spring

Step6

The outcome of each step depends on (a) students beginning skills, (b) effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction, and (c) effectiveness of system of additional instructional support.

Page 124: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 124

Step by Step, Core and Intervention

Step Effectiveness

of Core

Effectiveness of Strategic

Support

Effectiveness of Intensive

Support

Step 1: Phonemic Awareness

Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics

Step 3: Phonics and Fluency

Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6: Fluency and Comprehension

AI

AS

AB

Effectiveness of Benchmark (core) for School A

Effectiveness of Strategic support for School A

Effectiveness of Intensive support for School A

Page 125: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 125

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Core Curriculum and Instruction1. Is the core curriculum and instruction getting at least

95% of Benchmark students to the next early literacy goal? If children are on track, the core should keep them

on track. What would it take to achieve 100%?

2. Is the core curriculum and instruction as effective as other schools in getting Benchmark students to the goal? If typical schools are not getting 100% of Benchmark

students to the goal, then supplementing the core in this area can improve reading outcomes.

Page 126: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 126

Page 127: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 127

Step 1: Beginning K to Middle K

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Conditional Percent Reaching ISF Goal

Nu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Intensive

Strategic

Benchmark

A typical (middle) school had 62% of children with a beginning kindergarten benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of kindergarten goal, and 2% of children with intensive support recommendation.

Benchmark Median School

Intensive Median School Note. Graph based

on all schools participating in the DIBELS Data System in the 2001 – 2002 academic year.

Middle kindergarten outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the beginning of kindergarten

AI

AS

AB

Page 128: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 128

Page 129: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 129

Step 2: Middle K to End K

0

50

100

150

200

250

Conditional Percent Reaching PSF Goal

Nu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Intensive

Strategic

Benchmark

A typical (middle) school had 90% of children with a middle kindergarten benchmark recommendation achieve the end of kindergarten goal, and 26% of children with intensive support recommendation.

Benchmark Median School

Intensive Median School

End of kindergarten outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations in the middle of kindergarten

AI

AS

AB

Page 130: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 130

Page 131: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 131

Step 3: Beginning First to Middle First

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Conditional Percent Reaching NWF Goal

Nu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Intensive

Strategic

Benchmark

A typical (middle) school had 68% of children with a beginning first grade benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of first grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation.

Benchmark Median School

Intensive Median School

Middle of first grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations in the beginning of first grade

AI

AS

AB

Page 132: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 132

Page 133: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 133

Step 4: Middle First to End First

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal

Nu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Intensive

Strategic

Benchmark

A typical (middle) school had 96% of children with a middle first grade benchmark recommendation achieve the end of first grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation.

Benchmark Median SchoolIntensive

Median School

End of first grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations in the middle of first grade

AI

AS

AB

Page 134: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 134

Page 135: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 135

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal

Nu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Intensive

Strategic

Benchmark

Step 5a: Beginning Second to Middle Second

A typical (middle) school had 90% of children with a beginning second grade benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of second grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation.

Benchmark Median School

Intensive Median School

Middle of second grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the beginning of second grade

AI

AS

AB

Page 136: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 136

Page 137: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 137

End of second grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the middle of second grade

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal

Nu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Intensive

Strategic

Benchmark

Step 5b: Middle Second to End Second

A typical (middle) school had 92% of children with a middle second grade benchmark recommendation achieve the end of second grade goal, and 4% of children with intensive support recommendation.

Benchmark Median School

Intensive Median School

AI

AS

AB

Page 138: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 138

Page 139: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 139

Middle of third grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the beginning of third grade

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal

Nu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Intensive

Strategic

Benchmark

Step 6a: Beginning Third to Middle Third

A typical (middle) school had 90% of children with a beginning third grade benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of third grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation.

Benchmark Median School

Intensive Median School

AI

AS

AB

Page 140: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 140

Page 141: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 141

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal

Nu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Intensive

Strategic

Benchmark

Step 6b: Middle Third to End Third

A typical (middle) school had 91% of children with a middle third grade benchmark recommendation achieve the end of third grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation.

Benchmark Median School

Intensive Median School

End of third grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the middle of third grade

AI

AS A

B

Page 142: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 142

Step by Step, Core and Intervention

Step Effectiveness

of Core

Effectiveness of Strategic

Support

Effectiveness of Intensive

Support

Step 1: Phonemic Awareness

Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics

Step 3: Phonics and Fluency

Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension

Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools

Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.

Page 143: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 143

Outcomes Driven ModelRepeat for Each StepValidate Need

for Support

ReviewOutcomes

EvaluateSupport

ImplementInstructional

Support

PlanInstructional

Support

Provide Instructional SupportBased on IntegratedAssessment - InterventionFeedback Loop

Identify Needfor Support

3 time per year progress monitoring - Low RiskFrequent progress monitoring - At Risk

Page 144: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 144

Instructional Steps from Kindergarten to Successful Reading Outcomes

Big Ideas inBeginningReading

DynamicIndicators ofBig Ideas inBeginningReading

Benchmark GoalTimeline forAssessing BigIdeas K-3

Accuracy &Fluency with

Connected Text

High-StakesReadingOutcome

AlphabeticPrinciple

PhonologicalAwareness

ISF PSF NWF ORF ORF ORF HSA

Fall Winter Spring

Kindergarten

Fall Winter Spring

First Grade

Fall Winter Spring

Second Grade Third Grade

InstructionalStep

Step1

Step2

Step3

Step4

Step5

Fall Winter Spring

Step6

Step by step to important reading goals and outcomes. Implicit in this logic is a linkage to High Stakes Reading Outcomes.

Page 145: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 145

Third Grade Oral Reading Fluency to Oregon Statewide Assessment Test

Odds of “meets expectation” on OSAT given 3rd grade TORF of 110 : 90 of 91 or 99%.

Odds of “meets expectation” on OSAT given 3rd grade TORF below 70: 4 of 23 or 17%.

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240TORF May Grade 3

OS

AT

To

tal S

co

rer = .7353% of Variance

Meets

Does not meetExpectations

Exceeds

Page 146: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 146

Linkage of Third-Grade TORF to Illinois State Assessment Test (ISAT)

Odds of “meets standards” on ISAT given Third-Grade TORF of 110 or above: 73 of 74 or 99%.

Odds of “meets standards” on ISAT given Third-Grade TORF of 70 or below: 1 of 8 or 12%.

r = .7963% of Variance

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180TORF, Spring Grade 3

ISA

T, S

pri

ng

Gra

de

3

Meets Standards

Below Standards

Exceeds Standards

Sibley, D., Biwer, D., & Hesch, A. (2001). Unpublished Data. Arlington Heights, IL: Arlington Heights School District 25.

Page 147: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 147

3rd Grade Benchmark in Reading - CBM

Above 110, the odds are strong the student will rank “proficient” on the AK State Benchmark.

Ala

ska

Sta

te B

ench

mar

k in

Rea

din

g

Below Proficient

Below 70, the odds are low the student will rank “proficient” on the AK State Benchmark.

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

525

550

BM

1-R

-SC

OR

E

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

Words Per Minute: TORF 3.3

Not Proficient

Proficient

Advanced

Proficient

Linner, S. (2001, January). Curriculum Based Assessment in reading used as a predictor for the Alaska Benchmark Test. Paper presented at the Alaska Special Education Conference, Anchorage, AK.

Page 148: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 148

Linkage of Oral Reading Fluency to State Reading Outcome Assessments

Oral Reading Fluency

240220200180160140120100806040200

Re

ad

ing

FC

AT

-SS

S S

core

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Technical Report 1). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research,.

Above 110, the odds are 91% the student will rank “adequate” on the FL State Assessment.

Below 80, the odds are 19% the student will rank “adequate” on the FL State Assessment.

Page 149: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 149

Themes Don’t loose track of the bottom line. Are we getting closer to

important and meaningful outcomes? Monitor Progress on -- and teach -- what is important:

Phonemic Awareness, Alphabetic Principle, Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text

Oral Reading Fluency is an important instructional goal and target of progress monitoring.

Use progress monitoring to make decisions that change outcomes for children.

Progress monitoring should be efficient and purposeful. Start early! Trajectories of reading progress are very difficult

to change.

Page 150: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 151

Step by Step, Core and Intervention

Step Effectiveness

of Core

Effectiveness of Strategic

Support

Effectiveness of Intensive

Support

Step 1: Phonemic Awareness

Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics

Step 3: Phonics and Fluency

Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension

Support Strength Strength

Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools

Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.

Page 151: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 152

Step by Step, Core and Intervention

Step Effectiveness

of Core

Effectiveness of Strategic

Support

Effectiveness of Intensive

Support

Step 1: Phonemic Awareness

Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics

Step 3: Phonics and Fluency

Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension

Support Strength Strength

SupportStrengthStrength

Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools

Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.

Page 152: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 153

Step by Step, Core and Intervention

Step Effectiveness

of Core

Effectiveness of Strategic

Support

Effectiveness of Intensive

Support

Step 1: Phonemic Awareness

Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics

Step 3: Phonics and Fluency

Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension

Support Strength Strength

SupportStrengthStrength

TypicalStrengthTypical

Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools

Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.

Page 153: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 154

Step by Step, Core and Intervention

Step Effectiveness

of Core

Effectiveness of Strategic

Support

Effectiveness of Intensive

Support

Step 1: Phonemic Awareness

Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics

Step 3: Phonics and Fluency

Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension

Support Strength Strength

SupportStrengthStrength

TypicalStrengthTypical

Support TypicalTypical

Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools

Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.

Page 154: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 155

Step by Step, Core and Intervention

Step Effectiveness

of Core

Effectiveness of Strategic

Support

Effectiveness of Intensive

Support

Step 1: Phonemic Awareness

Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics

Step 3: Phonics and Fluency

Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension

Support Strength Strength

SupportStrengthStrength

TypicalStrengthTypical

Support TypicalTypical

Typical TypicalTypical

Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools

Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.

Page 155: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 156

Step by Step, Core and Intervention

Step Effectiveness

of Core

Effectiveness of Strategic

Support

Effectiveness of Intensive

Support

Step 1: Phonemic Awareness

Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics

Step 3: Phonics and Fluency

Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension

Support StrengthStrength

Support Strength Strength

SupportStrengthStrength

TypicalStrengthTypical

Support TypicalTypical

Typical TypicalTypical

Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools

Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.

Page 156: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 157

Step by Step, Core and Intervention

Step Effectiveness

of Core

Effectiveness of Strategic

Support

Effectiveness of Intensive

Support

Step 1: Phonemic Awareness

Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics

Step 3: Phonics and Fluency

Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension

Support StrengthStrength

Strength Typical Strength

Support Strength Strength

SupportStrengthStrength

TypicalStrengthTypical

Support TypicalTypical

Typical TypicalTypical

Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools

Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.

Page 157: Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes

March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX 158

Step by Step, Core and Intervention

Step Effectiveness

of Core

Effectiveness of Strategic

Support

Effectiveness of Intensive

Support

Step 1: Phonemic Awareness

Step 2: Phonemic Awareness and Phonics

Step 3: Phonics and Fluency

Step 4: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 5b: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6a: Fluency and Comprehension

Step 6b: Fluency and Comprehension

Support Typical Typical

Strength Typical Strength

Support Strength Strength

SupportStrengthStrength

TypicalStrengthTypical

Support TypicalTypical

Typical TypicalTypical

Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools

Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal.Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools.

Support StrengthStrength