DIBELS 6th Edition

Letter Naming Fluency

Rating Summary

Classification Accuracyhalf bubble
GeneralizabilityModerate Low
Reliabilityfull bubble
Validityempty bubble
Disaggregated Reliability and Validity DataN A
Efficiency
AdministrationIndividual
Administration & Scoring Time2 Minutes
Scoring KeyComputer Scored
Benchmarks / NormsYes
Cost Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs Service and Support Purpose and Other Implementation Information Usage and Reporting

The DIBELS 6th Edition materials can be downloaded, free of charge, at: https://dibels.uoregon.edu. The materials consist of the manuals and test materials, directions for administration, test forms, technical manuals, and student protocols.

Use of the DIBELS Data System for the purpose of entering and managing data, as well as generating project, district, school, class, or student reports costs $1.00 per student per year, and is optional.

Testers will require 1-4 hours of training.

Paraprofessionals can administer the test.

A list of DIBELS-approved accommodations is available in the Administration and Score Guide.

Where to Obtain: University of Oregon DIBELS Data System  

Address:
5292 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR  97403                                     

Phone: 1-888-497-4290 

Website:  https://dibels.uoregon.edu                                 

Field tested training materials are not included in the cost of the tool.

Ongoing technical support is available by calling 1-888-497-4290 or emailing support@dibels.uoregon.edu.

DIBELS LNF is a standardized, individually administered measure of a student’s accuracy and fluency with naming a series of upper- and lower-case letters of the alphabet. The measure is designed as an indicator of later reading risk for students in kindergarten and first grade. The measure is timed for one-minute. Letters omitted, substituted, and hesitations of more than three seconds are scored as errors. Letters self-corrected within three seconds are scored as accurate. The number of correct letters named in 1-minute is the letter naming fluency rate.

There are specific scoring rules regarding articulation and dialect to mitigate linguistic bias. Students are not penalized for differences in speech production that are the result of dialect, first-language, or articulation.

The tool is intended for use in grades K-1 or with ages 5-6.

DIBELS LNF is administered individually and takes 2 minutes per student.

Available scores include: raw scores, percentile scores, developmental benchmarks and cut points, and error analysis. 

 

Classification Accuracy

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on The Stanford Achievement Test

 

Beginning of Kindergarten – Benchmark Goal

Beginning of Kindergarten – Cut Point for Risk

Middle of Kindergarten – Benchmark Goal

Middle of Kindergarten – Cut Point for Risk

End of Kindergarten – Benchmark Goal

End of Kindergarten – Cut Point for Risk

Beginning of First grade– Benchmark Goal

Beginning of First grade– Cut Point for Risk

False Positive Rate

0.39

0.38

0.31

0.25

0.30

0.26

0.35

0.28

False Negative Rate

0.18

0.17

0.19

0.20

0.20

0.19

0.18

0.19

Sensitivity

0.82

0.83

0.81

0.80

0.80

0.81

0.82

0.81

Specificity

0.61

0.62

0.69

0.75

0.70

0.74

0.65

0.72

Positive Predictive Power

0.51

0.28

0.58

0.37

0.59

0.37

0.61

0.41

Negative Predictive Power

0.87

0.95

0.88

0.95

0.87

0.95

0.84

0.94

Overall Classification Rate

0.68

0.65

0.73

0.76

0.73

0.75

0.72

0.74

AUC (ROC)

0.77

0.76

0.84

0.85

0.84

0.85

0.82

0.84

Base Rate

0.34

0.15

0.34

0.15

0.35

0.16

0.40

0.19

Cut Points:

5

3

25

17

39

33

34

27

At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.47

0.50

0.53

0.62

0.55

0.60

0.53

0.58

At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.63

0.64

0.71

0.75

0.70

0.75

0.68

0.73

At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.72

0.70

0.81

0.82

0.80

0.82

0.78

0.84

 

Generalizability

Description of study sample:

·         Number of States: 1

·         Size: 20,051 criterion test scores from 13,507 students (5,634 in kindergarten, 4,953 in Grade 1, 4,636 in Grade 2, and 4,828 in Grade 3)        

·         Regions: West

·         Gender

o   51% Male

o   49% Female

·         SES: 69%

·         Race/Ethnicity:

o   57% White, Non-Hispanic

o   5% American Indian/Alaska Native

o   11% Black, Non-Hispanic

o   4% Asian, Pacific Islander

o   22% Hispanic

·         Disability status: 6.7% Special Education

·         First language: English

Reliability

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data)/Subjects

range

median

1-month Alternate form

Kindergarten

71 - 215

0.86 - 0.92

0.89

 

Good, et al. (2004). Participants were from kindergarten, first-, second-, and third-grade classrooms in two elementary schools in separate school districts. Data were collected from the first elementary school beginning in the 1997-98 academic year and from the second elementary school in the 1998-99 academic year. Both schools remained in the study until its conclusion at the end of the 2000-01 academic year. Most participants were followed for multiple consecutive years.

1-month Alternate form

First Grade

80 - 231

0.80 - 0.87

0.86

 

1-week Test-Retest

Kindergarten

633

 

0.86

 

McBride, Ysseldyke, Milone, & Stickney (2010). Participants were students in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade in eight participating schools in seven states. The states were geographically dispersed, with representation from the midwest, west, northwest, southeast, and southwest.

Alternate Form

Kindergarten

18

0.91 - 0.94

0.93

 

Kaminski & Good (1996). Participants were 37 kindergarten students and 41 first grade students from general education classrooms in a rural elementary school in the Pacific Northwest.

Alternate Form

First Grade

20

0.77 - 0.87

0.83

 

Alternate Form

Kindergarten

86

 

0.94

 

Hintze, Ryan, & Stoner (2003). Participants were 86 students from a midsized city in Northwestern Massachusetts.

 

Validity

 

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

 

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient (if applicable)

 

Information (including normative data)/Subjects

range

Median

Predictive

Kindergarten

TOWRE PDE

218

 

0.59

Burke, Hagan-Burke, Kwok, & Parker (2009). This study occurred at a large, rural primary school in northern Georgia. The sample included 218 kindergarteners.

Predictive

Kindergarten

TOWRE SWE

218

 

0.72

Predictive

Kindergarten

WRMT-R PC

218

 

0.51

Concurrent Criterion-Related

Kindergarten

WJRC-SS

54 - 66

0.64 - 0.76

0.70

Good, et al. (2004). Participants were from kindergarten, first-, second-, and third-grade classrooms in two elementary schools in separate school districts. Data were collected from the first elementary school beginning in the 1997-98 academic year and from the second elementary school in the 1998-99 academic year. Both schools remained in the study until its conclusion at the end of the 2000-01 academic year. Most participants were followed for multiple consecutive years.

Predictive

Kindergarten

Spring of First Grade WJTRC-SS

38 - 44

0.44 - 0.69

0.66

Predictive

Kindergarten

Spring of First Grade CBMR

50 - 59

0.64 - 0.80

0.72

Concurrent Criterion-Related

First Grade

WJRC-SS

64 - 126

0.41 - 0.72

0.53

Predictive

First Grade

SAT-10

27,813

 

0.55

Powell-Smith & Cummings (2007). Participants were first-grade students in the first year of Reading First implementation in Florida. The sample consisted of 27,813 first-grade students from 321 schools.

Concurrent

Kindergarten

DRA Instructional Reading

330

 

0.62

Rouse & Fantuzzo (2006). Participants were selected using a stratified, random sample. The sample demographics mirrored those of the entire cohort of 14,803 kindergarten students with 55% African American, 17% Caucasian, 17% Hispanic, 9% Asian, and 2% Other. 31% of the students qualified for free or reduced-cost lunch.

Concurrent

Kindergarten

TERA

330

0.32 - 0.59

0.47

Predictive

Kindergarten

First Grade DRA Instructional Reading

330

 

0.67

Predictive

Kindergarten

First Grade TerraNova

330

0.48 - 0.63

0.57

Predictive

First Grade

ITBS

2,588

0.30 - 0.57

0.53

Schilling, Carlisle, Scott & Zeng (2007). Data were gathered from students attending schools in nine districts or local educational agencies (LEAs) that made up the first Reading First cohort in Michigan.

Predictive

Kindergarten

End of First Grade DIBELS ORF

218

 

0.71

Burke, Hagan-Burke, Kwok, & Parker (2009).

Predictive

Kindergarten

End of Second Grade DIBELS ORF

218

 

0.62

Concurrent

Kindergarten

DIBELS FSF

1,097

 

0.55

Cummings, Kaminski, Good, & O’Neil (2011). Participants were all K and Pre-K students from classrooms in 17 elementary schools from three school districts, who were receiving English reading instruction.

Predictive

First Grade

First Grade DIBELS ORF

67

 

0.62

Goffreda, DiPerna, & Pedersen (2009).

Predictive

Kindergarten

Winter of First Grade DIBELS NWF

50 - 60

0.61 - 0.77

0.72

Good, et al. (2004).

Predictive

First Grade

First Grade DIBELS ORF

47

 

0.63

Munger & Blachman (2013).

Concurrent

First Grade

First Grade DIBELS NWF

47

 

0.68

Predictive

First Grade

First Grade DIBELS NWF

27,813

0.51 - 0.64

0.57

Powell-Smith & Cummings (2007).

Predictive

First Grade

First Grade DIBELS ORF

27,813

0.52 - 0.60

0.57

Median Predictive Validity Coefficient

K

Cross-Measure

0.67

Percent of variance explained: 44%

Median Predictive Validity Coefficient

1

Cross-Measure

0.57

Percent of variance explained: 33%

Median Predictive Validity Coefficient

K

Cross-Measure

0.59

Percent of variance explained: 34%

Median Predictive Validity Coefficient

1

Cross-Measure

0.61

Percent of variance explained: 37%