DIBELS

Last updated

DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) is a series of short tests designed to evaluate key literacy skills among students in kindergarten through 8th grade, such as phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. The theory behind DIBELS is that giving students a number of quick tests, will allow educators to identify students who need additional assistance and later monitor the effectiveness of intervention strategies.

Contents

Mark Shinn originated "Dynamic Indicators of Basic Skills." [1] The first subtests of this early literacy curriculum-based measurement system were created by Dr. Ruth Kaminski while she was a student of Dr. Roland Good at the University of Oregon with the support of federal funding. [2] DIBELS is used by some kindergarten through eighth grade teachers in the United States to screen for students who are at risk of reading difficulty, to monitor students' progress, to guide instruction, and most recently – to screen for risk for dyslexia in compliance with state legislation.

The DIBELS comprise a developmental sequence of one-minute measures: naming the letters of the alphabet (alphabetic principle), segmenting words into phonemes (phonemic awareness), reading nonsense words (alphabetic principle), reading real words (orthographic knowledge), and oral reading of a passage (accuracy and fluency). DIBELS also includes a three-minute reading comprehension measure that uses the maze approach, which is a modification of the cloze test approach that provides students with answer choices for missing words.

DIBELS scores are intended to only be used for instructional decision-making (i.e., to identify students who need additional instructional support and monitoring response to intervention) and, as such, should not be used to grade students.

Criticisms

DIBELS has become a fairly widely used assessment for early reading intervention by many schools in the United States. Since its development and release, there have been many critics challenging the effectiveness and validity of the DIBELS assessments. One criticism has been that although the Official DIBELS homepage claims that there is an abundance of research validating the DIBELS assessments much of that was unpublished. "Of the 89 references listed, only 18 are published in professionally reviewed journals in the fields of psychology, special education, or music therapy, and eight are chapters in edited books." [3] Similar criticism notes that the DIBELS developers claim that the research base was the reason for the widespread use of the assessments, but critics say the political pressure to use DIBELS as a part of the Reading First Initiative was the reason for the widespread adoption. [4] An article from 2005 in EducationWeek states that DIBELS got the competitive edge because its developers and their colleagues at the University of Oregon were consultants to the U.S. Department of Education for Reading First, with one of the main developers, Mr. Good, being one of the persons who evaluated 29 early literacy tests including his own product. [5]

Brant Riedel (2007) wrote, "... the ORF [Oral Reading Fluency] task emphasizes speed rather than comprehension and may actually penalize students who are carefully searching for meaning within the text." [4] This is a concern that has been brought up by other researchers and teachers as well. Bellinger (2011) [6] said that a 1-minute reading test may not be enough to measure comprehension, because they are only allowed to read for such a short amount of time, and the amount of information that is meaningful is limited. She goes on to say that because the ORF emphasizes that students read quickly and correctly, they may be more focused on reading for speed than meaning. Michael Pressley an educator at the University of Michigan states, "... if you want a test of whether kids can read fast with low comprehension, then DIBELS is great, and these [tested skills] become your end goal, DIBELS is leading teachers to infer the wrong end goal, which is to read words fast." [5]

Research

Nancy Rankie Shelton and associates (2009) used DIBELS as an assessment in a research study with 2nd-grade students and compared it to fluency and comprehension of literature in the classroom. [3] It is important to note that the retell fluency test (RTF) is meant to be used to validate the ORF scores, and is the only component in DIBELS that attends to comprehension. If the RTF score is at least 50% of the ORF score then it is validated, but if it falls below 25% the ORF score is not validated. The researchers used the RTF along with the ORF to help measure comprehension and found that the DIBELS scoring guide gave them no information about how to proceed with students whose ORF was not validated by their RTF scores. The findings of the study indicated that the DIBELS ORF/RTF score and the ORF/RTF score of literature in the classroom had no connection.

In 2007 Brant Reidel conducted a study of the effectiveness of the DIBELS subtests with 1st grade students. [4] As noted above in the subtest section DIBELS recommends using the initial sound Fluency (ISF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) subtests with 1st grade students adding in the ORF subtest halfway through the year. Reidel (2007) found that the PSF score was a poor indicator of reading comprehension. [4] He found that at the point when the 1st-grade students began taking the ORF test it proved to be the single best predictor of comprehension at the end of first grade. With these results he speculated that if it was the goal of the DIBELS administration to help identify students who may be at risk for reading comprehension difficulties then administering any other subtests besides the ORF by the middle of first grade was unnecessary. Reidel also stated that although the RTF subtest was meant to be a measure of comprehension it proved to be a weaker indicator of comprehension than the ORF score alone. [4]

Jillian M Bellinger conducted a study to test the reliability and validity of the story retell task (RTF). [6] In this study, examiners scored retells in live time and from a digital recording. Results indicated that there was a significant difference, with a large effect, between retells scored in real time verses those scored from a digital recording. In addition, there was a low relationship between retell fluency scores and scores from the Woodcock Johnson Reading Comprehension Composite. She stated that, "The low level of predictive validity of RTF scores suggests that the 1 minute read and retell procedure may not accurately assess students’ reading comprehension."

Oral reading Fluency was strongly related to performance on all ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) subtests except listening at all testing points starting in the winter of first grade. [7] Schilling worked with students in 1st through 3rd grades, and also stated that the scores from any other subtest except ORF at the end of 1st grade were minimal in predicting success on state testing. The teachers were encouraged to use DIBELS results in helping them make decision about reading instruction.

One research group, Amy R. Hoffman and associates, sent out a survey to classroom teachers, reading specialists, administrators, university teachers, and special education teachers. [8] She also conducted face to face interviews asking professional if they use DIBELS and how, and what parts. The biggest response regarding the subtests was the RTF measure was the least frequently administered, and the disadvantages were an overemphasis on speed and the use of nonsense words.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phonics</span> Method of teaching reading and writing

Phonics is a method for teaching reading and writing to beginners. To use phonics is to teach the relationship between the sounds of the spoken language (phonemes), and the letters (graphemes) or groups of letters or syllables of the written language. Phonics is also known as the alphabetic principle or the alphabetic code. It can be used with any writing system that is alphabetic, such as that of English, Russian, and most other languages. Phonics is also sometimes used as part of the process of teaching Chinese people to read and write Chinese characters, which are not alphabetic, using pinyin, which is.

Readability is the ease with which a reader can understand a written text. The concept exists in both in natural language and programming languages though in different forms. In natural language, the readability of text depends on its content and its presentation. In programming, things such as programmer comments, choice of loop structure, and choice of names can determine the ease with which humans can read computer program code.

Reading for special needs has become an area of interest as the understanding of reading has improved. Teaching children with special needs how to read was not historically pursued due to perspectives of a Reading Readiness model. This model assumes that a reader must learn to read in a hierarchical manner such that one skill must be mastered before learning the next skill. This approach often led to teaching sub-skills of reading in a decontextualized manner. This style of teaching made it difficult for children to master these early skills, and as a result, did not advance to more advanced literacy instruction and often continued to receive age-inappropriate instruction.

The National Reading Panel (NRP) was a United States government body. Formed in 1997 at the request of Congress, it was a national panel with the stated aim of assessing the effectiveness of different approaches used to teach children to read.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Reading comprehension relies on two abilities that are connected to each other: word reading and language comprehension. Comprehension specifically is a "creative, multifaceted process" that is dependent upon four language skills: phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Synthetic phonics</span> Teaching reading by blending and segmenting the sounds of the letters

Synthetic phonics, also known as blended phonics or inductive phonics, is a method of teaching English reading which first teaches the letter sounds and then builds up to blending these sounds together to achieve full pronunciation of whole words.

A pseudoword is a unit of speech or text that appears to be an actual word in a certain language, while in fact it has no meaning. It is a specific type of nonce word, or even more narrowly a nonsense word, composed of a combination of phonemes which nevertheless conform to the language's phonotactic rules. It is thus a kind of vocable: utterable but meaningless.

The Iowa Assessments also known informally as the Iowa Tests, formerly known as the ITBS tests or the Iowa Basics, are standardized tests provided as a service to schools by the College of Education of the University of Iowa. Developers Everett Franklin Lindquist, Harry Greene, Ernest Horn, Maude McBroom, and Herbert Spitzer first designed and administered the tests in 1935 as a tool for improving student instruction. The tests are administered to students in kindergarten through eighth grade as part of the Iowa Statewide Testing Programs, a division of the Iowa Testing Programs (ITP). Over decades, participation expanded and currently nearly all school districts in Iowa participate annually in the program, as do many other school districts across the United States. In a cooperative relationship, participating schools receive ITBS test materials, scoring and reporting services and consultation in the use of ITBS for instructional purposes, and ITP utilizes participation by schools in research and test development. Both the ITBS and Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) were revised in the 2011–2012 school year. They were rebranded the Iowa Assessments. In 2016–2017, Iowa Assessments will roll out their new testing program, Next Generation Iowa Assessments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Progress in International Reading Literacy Study</span> International study of fourth graders literacy

The IEA's Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) is an international study of reading (comprehension) achievement in 9-10 year olds. It has been conducted every five years since 2001 by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). It is designed to measure children's reading literacy achievement, to provide a baseline for future studies of trends in achievement, and to gather information about children's home and school experiences in learning to read.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">STAR (software)</span>

STAR Reading, STAR Early Literacy and STAR Math are standardized, computer-adaptive assessments created by Renaissance Learning, Inc., for use in K–12 education. Each is a "Tier 2" assessment of a skill that can be used any number of times due to item-bank technology. These assessments fall somewhere between progress monitoring tools and high-stakes tests.

Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) is an instrument for assessing the language function of adults with suspected aphasia as a result of a stroke, head injury, or dementia. The updated version is the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R). The battery helps discern the presence, degree, and type of aphasia. It can provide a baseline for monitoring changes during therapy. It is useful for determining what to treat. It can provide indications of the location of the lesion that caused the aphasia. The Western Aphasia Battery was introduced in 1980.

The Nelson–Denny Reading Test was created in 1930 by Martin J. Nelson and Emerson Charles Denny, both of whom were on the faculty of Iowa State Teacher's College. The purpose of the test is to measure reading ability among high school and college students. It is not appropriate for the clinical evaluation of reading disorders, however it may be used to identify students in need of remedial reading instruction. The Nelson–Denny includes two subtests both with multiple choice questions, and yields four scores. The most recent revision was published in 1993 and is available from Riverside Publishing in Itasca, Illinois.

Adolescent literacy refers to the ability of adolescents to read and write. Adolescence is a period of rapid psychological and neurological development, during which children develop morally, cognitively, and socially. All of these three types of development have influence—to varying degrees—on the development of literacy skills.

Balanced literacy is a theory of teaching reading and writing the English language that arose in the 1990s and has a variety of interpretations. For some, balanced literacy strikes a balance between whole language and phonics and puts an end to the so called reading wars. Others say balanced literacy, in practice, usually means the whole language approach to reading.

The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Second Edition assesses the academic achievement of children, adolescents, college students and adults, aged 4 through 85. The test enables the assessment of a broad range of academics skills or only a particular area of need. The WIAT-II is a revision of the original WIAT, and additional measures. There are four basic scales: Reading, Math, Writing and Oral Language. Within these scales there is a total of 9 sub-test scores.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Literacy in the United States</span> Overview of literacy in the United States

Literacy in the United States was categorized by the National Center for Education Statistics into different literacy levels, with 92% of American adults having at least "Level 1" literacy in 2014. Nationally, over 20% of adult Americans have a literacy proficiency at or below Level 1. Adults in this range have difficulty using or understanding print materials. Those on the higher end of this category can perform simple tasks based on the information they read, but adults below Level 1 may only understand very basic vocabulary or be functionally illiterate. According to a 2020 report by the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of adults in the United States have English prose literacy below the 6th-grade level.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reading</span> Taking in the meaning of letters or symbols

Reading is the process of taking in the sense or meaning of letters, symbols, etc., especially by sight or touch.

The Lexile Framework for Reading is an educational tool that uses a measure called a Lexile to match readers with books, articles and other leveled reading resources. Readers and books are assigned a score on the Lexile scale, in which lower scores reflect easier readability for books and lower reading ability for readers. The Lexile framework uses quantitative methods, based on individual words and sentence lengths, rather than qualitative analysis of content to produce scores. Accordingly, the scores for texts do not reflect factors such as multiple levels of meaning or maturity of themes. Hence, the United States Common Core State Standards recommend the use of alternative, qualitative methods for selecting books for students at grade 6 and over. In the US, Lexile measures are reported from reading programs and assessments annually. Thus, about half of U.S. students in grades 3rd through 12th receive a Lexile measure each year. In addition to being used in schools in all 50 states, Lexile measures are also used outside of the United States.

The Peabody Individual Achievement Test is a criterion based survey of an individual’s scholastic attainment. It can be administered to individuals between the ages of five and 22 years of age, and returns a grade range between Kindergarten and grade 12. The test is available in English and Spanish.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Test of Word Reading Efficiency Second Edition</span>

Test of Word Reading Efficiency Second Edition or commonly known as TOWRE - 2 is a kind of reading test developed to test the efficiency of reading ability of children from age 6–24 years. It generally seeks to measure an individual's accuracy and fluency regarding two efficiencies; Sight Word Efficiency (SWE) and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (PDE). SWE measures ability of pronouncing words that are printed and PDE assesses the quantity of pronouncing phonemically regular non-words. TOWRE - 2 is a very simple test which can be administered by teachers and aides, and it only takes five minutes to complete the procedure. It is commonly used in reading research, classroom assessment and clinical practice. This test is both straightforward and easy to use because it does not require a lot of materials and can be administered by teachers and aides.

References

  1. ↑ Deno, Stanley L. (April 2003). "Curriculum-Based Measures: Development and Perspectives". Assessment for Effective Intervention. 28 (3–4): 3–12. doi:10.1177/073724770302800302. ISSN   1534-5084. S2CID   144852409.
  2. ↑ Kaminski, Ruth Ann (1992). "Assessment for the primary prevention of early academic problems: Utility of curriculum-based measurement prereading tasks". ProQuest . Retrieved August 22, 2022.
  3. 1 2 Shelton, Nancy Rankie; Altwerger, Bess; Jordan, Nancy (2009-02-23). "Does DIBELS Put Reading First?". Literacy Research and Instruction. 48 (2): 137–148. doi:10.1080/19388070802226311. ISSN   1938-8071. S2CID   145224619.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Riedel, Brant W. (2007-10-12). "The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary in urban first-grade students". Reading Research Quarterly. 42 (4): 546–567. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.4.5.
  5. 1 2 Manzo, Kathleen (September 27, 2005). "National Clout of DIBELS Test Draws Scrutiny". Education Week. Retrieved August 22, 2022.
  6. 1 2 Bellinger, Jillian M.; DiPerna, James C. (April 2011). "Is fluency-based story retell a good indicator of reading comprehension?: Assessing Reading Comprehension". Psychology in the Schools. 48 (4): 416–426. doi:10.1002/pits.20563.
  7. ↑ Schilling, Stephen G.; Carlisle, Joanne F.; Scott, Sarah E.; Zeng, Ji (2007-05-01). "Are Fluency Measures Accurate Predictors of Reading Achievement?". The Elementary School Journal. 107 (5): 429–448. doi:10.1086/518622. ISSN   0013-5984. S2CID   145811728.
  8. ↑ Hoffman, Amy R.; Jenkins, Jeanne E.; Dunlap, S. Kay (2009-01-23). "Using DIBELS: A Survey of Purposes and Practices". Reading Psychology. 30 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1080/02702710802274820. ISSN   0270-2711. S2CID   145464024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.