Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Michelle Bakerson, M.A. and June Gothberg Western Michigan University

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Michelle Bakerson, M.A. and June Gothberg Western Michigan University"— Presentation transcript:

1 Michelle Bakerson, M.A. and June Gothberg Western Michigan University
DIBELS A Look at Reliability and Validity Michelle Bakerson, M.A. and June Gothberg Western Michigan University © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

2 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

3 Background Information
DIBELS came into being through 15 years of research from the University of Oregon. Report of the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) and the National Research Council (1998) highlighted the importance of instruction and assessment in five domains of reading and related skills* -Phonemic awareness -Phonics -Fluency -Vocabulary -Comprehension *these are used as requirements for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). Phonemic awareness = the awareness of and access to the sounds of language(Wagner and Torgesen, 1987) and the cognizance of and ability to manipulate phonemes (Blachman, 1991) Proficiency in phonological awareness skills is highly predictive of reading success. The opposite is also true (Adams, 1990; Ball and Blachman, 1991) © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

4 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Reading Trajectories Reading trajectories are established early. © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

5 Readers stay on their trajectory
Readers on a low trajectory tend to stay on that trajectory. Students on a low trajectory tend to fall further and further behind. © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

6 This is why DIBELS is needed
The later children are identified as needing support, the more difficult it is to catch up! It measures earlier than first grade © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

7 Background Information
The DIBELS was developed by Dr. Roland Good III and Dr. Ruth Kaminski. It measures the five critical areas of literacy indicated by the National Reading Panel (2000) and the National Research Council (1998). © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg Adapted from Sopris West 2005 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

8 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Purposes of DIBELS Screening-to locate the at-risk children, to track children’s progress Progress Monitoring-to evaluate the results of carefully planned and delivered intervention at frequent intervals Information obtained used to plan instruction “The DIBELS are attractive to educators because they are quick and easy to administer, can be used for making educational decisions, and are well suited for use in a formative manner alongside a problem-solving model.(Hintze)” Which children are at risk for reading difficulty because of inadequate phonological awareness skills? Which children need additional instruction in phonological awareness skills? Is the current instruction effective in increasing phonological awareness skills? When has a child developed phonological awareness skills to a degree that is no longer indicative of difficulty learning to read? © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

9 Subtests and What they Measure
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Child’s skill in breaking words into individual phonemes Administration – 1 minute Initial Sounds Fluency Emerging phonological awareness Administration - Approximately 3 minutes Nonsense Word Fluency Sound-symbol knowledge by measuring phonic decoding skills Timed task - 1 minute © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

10 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Subtests, cont. Word Use Fluency Vocabulary assessment Newest test Oral Reading Fluency Oral passage reading rate and accuracy is measured Timed task – 1 minute Letter Naming Fluency Speed of letter naming Timed task minute Oral Reading Retelling Fluency Fluency in retelling main ideas One minute task © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

11 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Subtest Benchmarks © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg Adapted from Sopris West 2005 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

12 Advantages of the DIBELS
Efficient and economical Simple to score Scoring results are immediate Utility for Screening, Progress monitoring and Diagnostic Tool Effects intervention Technically adequate Adequate reliability Sensitive to growth and change over time on normative groups Replicable Predictive validity established © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg PDA edition from wirelessgeneration.com © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

13 Disadvantages of the DIBELS
Normative Data Not representative of the population No utility for Outcome purposes © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

14 Reliability and Validity
Validity and Reliability with standard tests Three sub-tests Letter Naming Fluency Initial Sound Fluency Phonemic Segmentation Fluency CTOPP Reliability – Alternative Form Validity – Criterion Related © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

15 Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)
Median of three alternate form probes: Alternative-form reliability - .93 Concurrent Validity with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (WJPEB) readiness score in kindergarten Predictive validity of LNF in spring of kindergarten with (WJPEB) in spring of first grade is .65 Kindergarten, .71 with first grade oral reading fluency (ORF) using Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM). From Hintze pg.6 One Minute to administer “The child is presented with a printed page containing rows of randomly ordered upper and lower case letters and is asked to name as many letters as he/she can in one minute. The total number of letters correctly identified in one minute is the score”(Hintze,pg.6) © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

16 Initial Sound Fluency (ISF)
There are 20 alternate forms Alternate reliability is .72 Concurrent validity of ISF with the readiness cluster score of the WJPEB is .36, and correlation was the same one year later. Predictive validity of ISF with CBM ORF in spring of first grade is .45 “ISF is a task that requires children o identify from an array of four pictures, the word that begins with a target sound. For example, the examiner would say ‘This is a sink, cat, gloves and a hat. Which picture begins with /s/? There are a total of 12 items on each probe. Every fourth item requires that the child produce the onset sound for a target word. © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

17 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)
There are 20 alternate forms Alternate form reliability is .88 for kindergarten Concurrent, criterion-related validity with the readiness cluster of the WJPEB was .54 in the spring of kindergarten Concurrent validity estimates range from .43 to .65 on other standard measures. Predictive validity of spring kindergarten with spring first grade WJPWB is .68 and with ORF is .62 “PSF assesses a child’s ability to segment three and four phoneme words into individual phonemes with fluency. Words are presented orally to the student for one minute and the child is instructed to orally repeat the word in segmented syllables. The number of correct phonemes per minute represents the child’s score.(Hintze)” There are 20 alternate forms of the DIBELs to enable multiple testing per year. According to Good and Kaminski 2001, the 20 alternate forms reliability for the PSF is .88. ORF Curriculum Based Measurement Oral Reading Fluency © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

18 The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)
Standardized measure of early literacy Norm-referenced test Has reliability and validity to accurately measure phonological processing © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

19 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
COTPP Coefficient alphas for sub-tests .74 to .93 (5 and 6 year olds) Composite scores internal reliability coefficients (age 5) .95, .84, and .87 Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory and Rapid Naming respectively Age 6 .96, .81, and .89 Test-retest reliability .74 to .97 for sub-tests .79, .92 and .70 for composites Moderate to strong correlations between DIBELS and COTPP © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

20 Intercorrelations for Scores on the DIBELS and CTOPP
Measure ELI RCN BCW SM RON MD NRW PACom PMCom RNCom LNF .45 .59 .38 .53 .43 .44 .52 .58 ISF .21 .51 .24 .34 .60 .46 .20 PSF .47 .08 .63 .25 .14 .32 .33 .39 .09 DIBELS strongly correlates with most subtest and composite scores of the CTOPP. Closer inspection of the pattern of coeffiecents suggest that both the ISF and PSF tasks of the DIBELS correlate most strongly with those subtests and composite scores on the CTOPP that are designed to measure both phonological awareness and memory and less strongly with those tasks that involve rapid naming activities. In addition to providing support for the concurrent validity of the DIBELS, this pattern also lends support for the construct validity of measures as well. Furthermore, the Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) task correlated strongly with subtest and composite scores on the CTOPP that represent both phonological awareness and memory, as well as rapid naming abilities. Such findings support the efficacy of letter naming fluency as it relates to a beginning understanding of the alphabetic principle, as well as a critical component in overall phonological development. (Hintze) Note: LNF=letter naming fluency, ISF=initial sound fluency, and PSF=phoneme segmentation fluency; ELI=Elision, RCN=rapid color naming, BLW=blending words, SM=sound matching, RON=rapid object naming, MD=memory for digits, NWR=nonsense words repetition, PACom=phonological awareness composite, PMCom=phonological memory composite, and RNCom=rapid naming composite. © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

21 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Reliability of DIBELS Measure Alternate Form Reliability Phoneme Segmentation Fluency 1 probe: .88 3 probes: .96 Initial Sound Fluency 1 probe: .92 3 probes: .98 Nonsense Word Fluency 1 probe: .65 5 probes: .90 Word Use Fluency 1 probe: .90 Oral Reading Fluency Letter Naming Fluency 1 probe: .93 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg Adapted from Whalen, A. 2006 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

22 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Validity of DIBELS Measure Criterion-Related Validity Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Initial Sound Fluency .84 Nonsense Word Fluency Word Use Fluency Oral Reading Fluency Letter Naming Fluency © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg Adapted from Whalen, A. 2006 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

23 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Conclusion “Ideally, an assessment system must be designed to measure the skills that research has found to be representative of phonological awareness, predictive of early reading success, and aligned with effective beginning reading instruction” (Hintze, Ryan, & Stoner). DIBELS measures the construct of early literacy and is an instrument with moderate validity and reliability. DIBELS is useful for districts, schools and class-wide screening purposes to identify early intervention for individual students. © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

24 Bibliographic Sources
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, Blachman, B. A. (1991). Phonological awareness: Implications for pre-reading and early reading instruction. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Ed.), Phonological processes in literacy (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read – A causal connection, Nature, 30,, Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Review, 81, Diamond Canyon Schools (2005). DIBELS, Labels, AIMS, Terra Nova, what does it all mean? Retrieved March 22, 2006 from 11. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (2006). Retrieved March 22, 2006 from Eck, J. (2002). Assessment overview: Foundations of DIBELS. Colorado Reading First. Ehri, L. C. (1987). Learning to read and spell words. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 5-31. Francis, D.J., Santi, K.L., & Barr, C. (2005). Form effects on the estimation of students’ progress in oral reading fluency using CBM. CRESST. Retrieved March 24, 2006 from Good, R. H. & Kaminski, R. A. (2005). DIBELS: A reliable and valid reading assessment grades K-6 overview [Electronic version]. Sopris West. Retrieved March 24, 2006 from © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

25 More Bibliographic Sources
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., ReMillard, A., Ebmeyer, C., & VanLoo, D. (2001). Using DIBELS in an outcomes driven model. Early Childhood Research Institute. University of Oregon, College of Education. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from Hintze, J.M., Ryan, A.L., & Stoner, G. Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the DIBELS/CTOPP 23 scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. National Research Council (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R. 1, 107th Cong. (2001). Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & DIBELS/CTOPP 24 Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED,Inc. Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, Whalen, A. (2006). Universal screening and progress monitoring. Oregon Department of Education. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg

26 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Thank you for your time. © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg


Download ppt "Michelle Bakerson, M.A. and June Gothberg Western Michigan University"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google