DIBELS 6th Edition

Oral Reading Fluency

Rating Summary

Classification Accuracyfull bubble
GeneralizabilityModerate Low
Reliabilityfull bubble
Validityhalf 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 4-8 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.

The DIBELS ORF is a standardized, individually administered test of accuracy and reading fluency with connected text for students in Grades 1 through 3. The measure consists of a standardized set of reading passages, all of which have been calibrated to an end-of-grade readability level (using Spache). Administration procedures are also standardized. The results of the measure can be used to identify children who may need additional instructional support, and to monitor their progress toward instructional goals.

Student performance is measured by having students read a passage aloud for one minute. Words omitted, substituted, and hesitations of more than three seconds are scored as errors. Words self-corrected within three seconds are scored as accurate. The number of correct words per minute from the passages is the oral reading 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 1-3 or with ages 6-9.

DIBELS ORF 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

 

Middle of First Grade – Benchmark Goal

Middle of First Grade – Cut Point for Risk

End of First Grade – Benchmark Goal

End of First Grade – Cut Point for Risk

Beginning of 2nd grade– Benchmark Goal

Beginning of 2nd grade– Cut Point for Risk

Middle of 2nd Grade – Benchmark Goal

Middle of 2nd Grade – Cut Point for Risk

End of 2nd Grade – Benchmark Goal

End of 2nd Grade – Cut Point for Risk

False Positive Rate

0.14

0.11

0.09

0.07

0.24

0.15

0.18

0.10

0.19

0.09

False Negative Rate

0.19

0.20

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.20

0.20

Sensitivity

0.81

0.80

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.80

0.80

Specificity

0.86

0.89

0.91

0.93

0.76

0.85

0.82

0.90

0.81

0.91

Positive Predictive Power

0.80

0.64

0.87

0.76

0.71

0.61

0.76

0.70

0.76

0.72

Negative Predictive Power

0.87

0.95

0.87

0.95

0.85

0.94

0.85

0.94

0.84

0.94

Overall Classification Rate

0.84

0.87

0.87

0.91

0.78

0.84

0.81

0.88

0.81

0.89

AUC (ROC)

0.92

0.93

0.95

0.96

0.88

0.92

0.90

0.94

0.89

0.94

Base Rate

0.41

0.20

0.42

0.21

0.42

0.22

0.42

0.22

0.43

0.23

Cut Points:

14

9

34

21

33

21

63

40

84

60

At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.78

0.82

0.84

0.88

0.62

0.76

0.65

0.81

0.62

0.80

At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.87

0.89

0.92

0.94

0.78

0.86

0.83

0.90

0.81

0.91

At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.92

0.92

0.96

0.97

0.87

0.92

0.90

0.95

0.89

0.95

 

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on The Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills

 

Beginning of 3rd grade– Benchmark Goal

Beginning of 3rd grade– Cut Point for Risk

Middle of 3rd Grade – Benchmark Goal

Middle of 3rd Grade – Cut Point for Risk

End of 3rd Grade – Benchmark Goal

End of 3rd Grade – Cut Point for Risk

False Positive Rate

0.37

0.29

0.33

0.29

0.34

0.29

False Negative Rate

0.19

0.20

0.20

0.19

0.20

0.20

Sensitivity

0.81

0.80

0.80

0.81

0.80

0.80

Specificity

0.63

0.71

0.67

0.71

0.66

0.71

Positive Predictive Power

0.64

0.46

0.67

0.47

0.66

0.48

Negative Predictive Power

0.80

0.92

0.80

0.92

0.80

0.92

Overall Classification Rate

0.71

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.72

0.74

AUC (ROC)

0.80

0.84

0.82

0.85

0.81

0.84

Base Rate

0.45

0.24

0.46

0.24

0.46

0.25

Cut Points:

72

57

89

76

110

97

At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.46

0.54

0.50

0.58

0.48

0.56

At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.64

0.71

0.67

0.72

0.66

0.71

At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.75

0.82

0.78

0.81

0.76

0.81

 

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

o   ~1%  Unknown

·         Disability status: 6.7% Special Education

·         Language proficiency status: 25.6% English language learners (none qualified as Limited English Proficiency)

Reliability

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data)/Subjects

range

median

3-week test-retest

First

320

NR

0.94

 

Baker et al. (2008). Participants were students at 34 Oregon Reading First Schools across 16 school districts. The study included 17 schools in large urban areas, eight in midsize cities, and nine in rural areas. Approximately 10% of the students received special education services and 32% were English language learners.

3-week test-retest

First

320

NR

0.98

 

3-week test-retest

Second

320

NR

0.97

 

2-week test-retest

First

73

NR

0.97

 

Cummings, Stoolmiller, Baker, Fien, & Kame’enui (under review). Participants were 73 first-grade students during the 2008-2009 academic year from a subset of schools participating in the Oregon Reading First program.

2-week test-retest

Third

64

NR

0.93

 

Cummings, Stoolmiller, Baker, Fien, & Kame’enui (under review). Participants were 64 third-grade students during the 2007-2008 academic year from a subset of schools participating in the Oregon Reading First program.

Internal Consistency

Second

666

0.94 - 0.97

NR

 

Cummings, Stoolmiller, Baker, Fien, & Kame’enui (under review). Participants were 666 second-grade students from a subset of nine of 51 schools taking part in the Oregon Reading First (RFO) program; these nine schools were located in six school districts throughout Oregon. For our analyses, we used student data from the academic years 2006-2007 and included any student with at least one passage score at the fall or spring benchmark assessments.

3-week test-retest

First and Second

 

0.94 - 0.99

NR

 

Fien et al. (2010). Participants were a random subset of 20% of the students in first and second grade in schools that participated in the federally funded Oregon Reading First Program during the 2006-2007 school year.

Alternate form

Second

134

0.87 - 0.96

0.92

 

Francis et al. (2008). Participants were second grade students in two large urban school districts in Texas. There were 69 female students and 65 male students. The ethnic composition was 31% African–American, 3% Asian, 57% Hispanic, and 9% Caucasian, with 80% economically disadvantaged.

Alternate form (one passage)

First

86

NR

0.89

 

Roberts, Good, & Corcoran (2005). Participants were 86 first grade students in six schools in an urban, southeastern school district. Participating schools served low income, Title I populations.

Alternate form (three passages)

First

86

NR

0.96

 

2-week test-retest

First

 

NR

0.97

 

Stoolmiller, Biancarosa, & Fien (2013). Participants were a random subsample of first grade students from a subset of 4 schools in a school district in Western Oregon during the academic year 2009–2010.

2-week test-retest

Third

 

NR

0.93

 

Stoolmiller, Biancarosa, & Fien (2013). Participants were a random subsample of third grade students from a subset of 4 schools in a school district in Western Oregon during the academic year 2009–2010.

Alternate form

Second

209

0.92 - 0.93

NR

 

Stoolmiller, Biancarosa, & Fien (2013). Participants were 209 second grade students from a subset of 4 schools in a school district in Western Oregon during the academic year 2009–2010.

Inter-passage

First

 

0.94 - 0.95

NR

Mdn. 7.47 (range = 6.73 – 8.20)

Dynamic Measurement Group (2007) Unpublished raw data. (SEM Range = 6.73 – 8.20)

Inter-passage

Second

 

NR

0.93

Mdn. 9.79 (range = (SEM Range = 8.35 – 10.06)

Dynamic Measurement Group (2007) Unpublished raw data. 

Inter-passage

Third

 

0.90 - 0.93

0.91

Mdn. 11.19 (range = 8.89 – 11.67)

Dynamic Measurement Group (2007) Unpublished raw data.  (SEM Range = 8.89 – 11.67)

 

Validity

 

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

 

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient (if applicable)

 

Information (including normative data)/Subjects

range

Median

Predictive

First

Spring Grade 2 CAT Reading Comprehension Test

167

NR

0.63

Baker & Smith (2001). Participants were students in grades 1 through 3 who were administered both sets of tests over a number of academic years. The number of students represented in the grade 1 correlation for OSA is lower than the other grade and assessment combinations “because only one year of students were administered the fluency measures in the spring of first grade and subsequently the OSA reading test in the spring of grade 3.” (p. 320)

Predictive

First

Spring Grade 3 OSA Reading Test

36

NR

0.63

Concurrent

Second

Spring Grade 2 CAT Reading Comprehension Test

275

NR

0.73

Predictive

Second

Spring Grade 3 OSA Reading Test

194

NR

0.72

Concurrent

Third

Spring Grade 3 OSA Reading Test

172

NR

0.76

Concurrent

First

SAT-10

4,973

NR

0.82

Baker et al. (2008)

Concurrent

Second

SAT-10

4,826

NR

0.80

Concurrent

Third

SAT-10

4,696

NR

0.67

Predictive

First

End of 1st SAT-10

4,973

NR

0.72

Predictive

First

End of 2nd SAT-10

2,417

0.63 - 0.72

0.68 

Predictive

Second

End of 2nd SAT-10

4,826

0.72 - 0.79

0.76

Predictive

Second

End of 3rd SAT-10

2,367

0.58 - 0.63

0.63

Predictive

Third

End of 3rd SAT-10

4,696

0.65 - 0.68

0.67

Concurrent

Third

NC End of Grade reading test

38

NR

0.73

Barger (2003). Participants were from one school in North Carolina. Twenty-seven of the students scored high enough on the end of grade assessment to be considered at grade level.

Concurrent

Third

FCAT-SSS Reading

1,102

NR

0.70

Buck & Torgeson (2003). Participants were at 13 schools in one Florida school district. Only 1% of the students were considered limited English proficient, and 19% were identified as exceptional students under IDEA.

Concurrent

Third

FCAT-NRT Reading

1,102

NR

0.74

Concurrent

First

TOWRE - PDE

213

NR

0.77

Burke & Hagan-Burke (2007). Participants were from a public primary school in semirural northeast Georgia and came from middle- to lower-middle-class families.

Concurrent

First

TOWRE - SWE

213

NR

0.92

Concurrent

First

TOWRE - PDE

162

NR

0.81

Burke, Hagan-Burke, Kwok, & Parker (2009). Participants were 218 kindergarteners at a rural primary school in northern Georgia.

Concurrent

First

TOWRE - SWE

162

NR

0.89

Predictive

First

Middle of 2nd WRMT-R (PC)

162

NR

0.61

Concurrent

Second

WRMT-R (PC)

162

NR

0.69

Predictive

First

Third grade WIAT-II Reading Comprehension

35

NR

0.66

Munger & Blachman (2013). Participants were first grade students from a small, urban elementary school located in the Northeastern United States.

Predictive

First

Third grade GRADE Reading Comprehension

35

NR

0.72

Predictive

First

Third grade NYSELA3

35

 NR

0.56

Predictive

First

End of 1st Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation

1,027 – 1,224

0.59 - 0.67

0.63

Riedel (2007). Participants were students in Memphis who attended one of 26 schools with a Reading Excellence Act grant and participated in REA-related assessments. Students receiving special education services were not included, and data from students classified as English language learners were analyzed separately.

Predictive

First

End 2nd TerraNova

891 – 1,054

0.49 - 0.54

0.52

Concurrent

First

Broad Reading Cluster

86

0.72-0.75

0.74

Roberts et al. (2005). Coefficients are for individual passages.

Concurrent

First

Broad Reading Cluster

86

NR

0.76

Predictive

Third

FCAT-SSS

16,539 – 16,908

0.66 - 0.71

0.68

Roehrig, Petscher,  Nettles, Hudson, & Torgesen (2008). Participants were students enrolled in Florida Reading First schools. Students were divided into two cohorts for cross-validation purposes. Data for each cohort is reported here separately.

Predictive

Third

SAT-10

16,539 – 16,908

0.68 - 0.71

0.69

Predictive

First

End of 1st ITBS Reading Total

2,588

NR

0.69

Schilling, Carlisle, Scott, & Zeng (2007). Participants were 2,588 first graders, 2,437 second graders, and 2,527 third graders who took the ITBS and a similar number who took DIBELS at each grade level at 49 schools at nine school districts in Michigan. Sixteen percent had limited English proficiency, and 8.5% of students had disabilities.

Concurrent

First

ITBS Read. Total

2,588

NR

0.75

Concurrent

First

End 1st ITBS Voc

2,588

NR

0.61

Predictive

First

End of 1st ITBS Comprehension

2,588

NR

0.69

Concurrent

First

ITBS Comp

2,588

NR

0.74

Predictive

First

End of 1st ITBS Word Analysis

2,588

NR

0.61

Concurrent

First

ITBS Word Analysis

2,588

NR

0.69

Predictive

First

End of 1st ITBS Language

2,588

NR

0.63

Concurrent

First

ITBS Language

2,588

NR

0.71

Discriminant

First

End of 1st ITBS Listening

2,588

0.31 - 0.34

0.33

Predictive

Second

End of 2nd ITBS Reading Total

2,437

0.69 - 0.75

0.72

Concurrent

Second

ITBS Read. Total

2,437

NR

0.75

Predictive

Second

End 2nd ITBS Voc

2,437

0.61 - 0.65

0.63

Concurrent

Second

ITBS Vocabulary

2,437

NR

0.75

Predictive

Second

End of 2nd ITBS Comprehension

2,437

0.68 - 0.75

0.72

Concurrent

Second

ITBS Comp.

2,437

NR

0.75

Predictive

Second

End of 2nd ITBS Word Analysis

2,437

0.59 - 0.63

0.61

Concurrent

Second

ITBS Word An.

2,437

NR

0.62

Predictive

Second

END of 2nd ITBS Language

2,437

0.59 - 0.65

0.62

Concurrent

Second

ITBS Language

2,437

NR

0.64

Discriminant

Second

End of 2nd ITBS Listening

2,437

0.29 - 0.33

0.33

Predictive

Third

End of 2nd ITBS Reading Total

2,527

0.65 - 0.67

0.66

Concurrent

Third

ITBS Read. Total

2,527

NR

0.65

Predictive

Third

End of 2nd ITBS Voc

2,527

0.57 - 0.58

0.58

Concurrent

Third

ITBS Vocabulary

2,527

NR

0.56

Predictive

Third

End of 2nd ITBS Comprehension

2,527

0.63 - 0.65

0.64

Concurrent

Third

ITBS Comp.

2,527

NR

0.63

Predictive

Third

End of 2nd ITBS Word Analysis

2,527

0.63 - 0.65

0.64

Concurrent

Third

ITBS Word An.

2,527

NR

0.63

Predictive

Third

End of 2nd ITBS Language

2,527

0.67 - 0.69

0.68

Concurrent

Third

ITBS Language

2,527

NR

0.68

Discriminant

Third

End of 2nd ITBS Listening

2,527

0.36 - 0.37

0.37

Concurrent

Third

4Sight

401

0.67 - 0.71

0.69

Shapiro, Solari, & Petscher (2008). Participants were from six elementary schools in three Pennsylvania districts.

Predictive

Third

Middle of third 4Sight

401

NR

0.66

Predictive

Third

Middle of third PA System of School Assessment

401

NR

0.67

Concurrent

Third

PA System of School Assessment

401

NR

0.68

Predictive

Third

End of 3rd CO State Assess. Prog. Read.

52

0.73 - 0.80

0.77

Shaw & Shaw (2002). Participants were third-grade students at a Colorado elementary school.

Concurrent

Third

CSAP Reading

52

NR

0.80

Predictive

Third

Beginning of 4th Ohio Proficiency Test

318

NR

0.65

Vandermeer, Lentz, & Stollar (2005). Participants were from three elementary schools in a suburban school district in southwest Ohio. All students were included in this study except those identified with significant cognitive disabilities. Students with an Individualized Education Program were provided allowable accommodations.

Concurrent

Third

Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards

241

NR

0.74

Wilson (2005). Participants were 241 third-grade students with both AIMS and ORF scores available from three schools that received a Reading First grant. Of these students, 65 were identified as English language learners.

Predictive

Third

End of Third CSAP

82

NR

0.70

Wood (2006). Participants were in a public elementary school in a middle-class neighborhood in northern Colorado. All available students whose primary language was English were tested. Seven students received special education services at the third-grade level, 10 students received special education services at the fourth-grade level, and nine students received services at the fifth-grade level.

Concurrent

First

DIBELS RTF

213

NR

0.69

Burke & Hagan-Burke (2007).

Predictive

First

Middle of 2nd ORF

162

NR

0.81

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

Predictive

First

End of First NWF

938

NR

0.69

Harn, Stoolmiller, & Chard (2008). Participants were 938 students from two Pacific Northwest school districts. The first district had five participating schools and was rural. The second district, with seven participating schools, was suburban. There was also an additional independent set of 109 students from the first district.

Predictive

First

End of First NWF

109

NR

0.62

Predictive

First

End of First ORF

938

NR

0.91

Predictive

First

End of First ORF

109

NR

0.85

Concurrent

First

DIBELS RTF

191

NR

0.31

Pressley, Hilden, & Shankland (2005). Participants were 191 third grade students in four schools in a small school district in a Midwest urban area.

Predictive

Third

Early winter ORF

16,539 – 16,908

0.90 - 0.91

0.91

Roehrig, Petscher,  Nettles, Hudson, & Torgesen (2008).

Predictive

Third

Late winter ORF

16,539 – 16,908

0.88 - 0.92

0.91

Predictive

Third

Middle of third ORF

401

NR

0.94

Shapiro, Solari, & Petscher (2008).

Predictive

Third

Middle of 3rd ORF

52

NR

0.91

Shaw & Shaw (2002).

Predictive

Third

End of 3rd ORF

52

0.89 - 0.93

0.91