Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg DIBELS Michelle Bakerson, M.A. and June Gothberg Western Michigan University A Look at Reliability and Validity."— Presentation transcript:

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

2 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg D ynamic I ndicators of B asic E arly L iteracy S kills

3 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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).

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

5 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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.

6 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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

7 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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). Adapted from Sopris West 2005

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

9 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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

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 - 1 minute Oral Reading Retelling Fluency – Fluency in retelling main ideas – One minute task

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

12 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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 PDA edition from wirelessgeneration.com

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

14 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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

15 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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 -.70 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).

16 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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

17 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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

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

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

20 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg Intercorrelations for Scores on the DIBELS and CTOPP MeasureELIRCNBCWSMRONMDNRWPAComPMComRNCom LNF ISF PSF 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.

21 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg Reliability of DIBELS MeasureAlternate Form Reliability Phoneme Segmentation Fluency1 probe:.88 3 probes:.96 Initial Sound Fluency1 probe:.92 3 probes:.98 Nonsense Word Fluency1 probe:.65 5 probes:.90 Word Use Fluency1 probe:.90 Oral Reading Fluency Letter Naming Fluency1 probe:.93 3 probes:.98 Adapted from Whalen, A. 2006

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

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.

24 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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, 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

25 © 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg 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

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


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google