DIBELS 6th Edition

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

Rating Summary

Classification Accuracyhalf bubble
GeneralizabilityModerate Low
Reliabilityhalf 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 PSF is a standardized, individually administered test of phonological awareness requiring students to say the sounds in words. This measure is typically administered from the middle to the end of kindergarten and can be used as a progress monitoring tool for students at-risk for later reading difficulties through first grade. During this task the examiner says a word and asks the student to say all the sounds in the word. This task is entirely auditory and requires no student materials. For example, if the examiner says “cat” a correct response would be “/k/ /a/ /t/”. Students are given credit for partially segmented words. The examiner continues to present words in a specified order for one minute. The student’s score consists of the number of different, correct sound segments correctly produced in one minute.

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 5-7.

DIBELS PSF 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 Kindergarten – Benchmark Goal

Middle of Kindergarten – Cut Point for Risk

End of Kindergarten – Benchmark Goal

End of Kindergarten – Cut Point for Risk

False Positive Rate

0.38

0.33

0.52

0.40

False Negative Rate

0.19

0.19

0.20

0.19

Sensitivity

0.81

0.81

0.80

0.81

Specificity

0.62

0.67

0.48

0.60

Positive Predictive Power

0.52

0.31

0.45

0.27

Negative Predictive Power

0.86

0.95

0.82

0.94

Overall Classification Rate

0.68

0.69

0.59

0.63

AUC (ROC)

0.79

0.82

0.74

0.79

Base Rate

0.34

0.15

0.35

0.16

Cut Points:

25

17

53

48

At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.44

0.54

0.25

0.39

At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.63

0.64

0.48

0.62

At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.73

0.70

0.65

0.75

 

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

·         First language: English

Reliability

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data)/Subjects

range

median

One-month alternate form

K

63-215

0.66-0.79

0.74

7.88 – 10.49

Good, et al. (2004). Participants were students at two elementary schools near Eugene, Oregon. The first school had a total population of about 490 students in a town of around 53,000. The second school had a population of 580 in a town of around 4,700.

Alternate form

K

86

NR

0.97

 

Hintze, Ryan, & Stoner (2003). Participants were 86 kindergarten students from three elementary schools in a mid-sized city in Massachusetts.

One-week alternate form

K

18

NR

0.88

 

Kaminski & Good (1996). Participants were students in a rural elementary school in the Pacific Northwest. In the school as a whole, approximately 9% of the students receive special education.

 

Validity

 

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

 

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient (if applicable)

 

Information (including normative data)/Subjects

range

Median

Concurrent

K

WJ Readiness Cluster

54-66

0.35-0.56

0.54

Good et al. (2004)

Concurrent

K

CTOPP Aware Comp.

86

NR

0.53

Hintze et al. (2003)

Concurrent

 

K

DRA Instructional Reading

330

NR

0.48

Rouse & Fantuzzo (2006). Participants were stratified to be demographically and geographically representative of the large urban public school district.

K

TERA Reading

330

NR

0.43

K

TERA Alphabet

330

NR

0.47

K

TERA Conventions

330

NR

0.36

K

TERA Meaning

330

NR

0.37

Predictive

K

1st (W) TOWRE-SWE

289

NR

0.48

Burke, Crowder, Hagan-Burke, & Zou (2009). Participants were in rural northeast Georgia. All participants were native speakers of English and the majority received all their education within the regular education program.

Predictive

K

1st (W) TOWRE-PDE

180

NR

0.48

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

K

1st (W) TOWRE-SWE

180

NR

0.44

Predictive

K

1st (S) WJ Total Reading

37-44

0.38-0.68

0.60

Good et al. (2004)

K

1st (S) CBMR

50-59

0.35-0.69

0.52

Predictive

K

1st (S) DRA Instruct. Read.

288

NR

0.55

Rouse & Fantuzzo (2006)

K

1st (S) TerraNova (R)

288

NR

0.49

K

1st (S) TerraNova Voc.

288

NR

0.50

K

1st (S) TerraNova Language

288

NR

0.53

Concurrent

K

DIBELS NWF

218

NR

0.59

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

Predictive

K

Mid of 1st NWF

289

NR

0.54

Burke, Crowder, Hagan-Burke, & Zou (2009)

Predictive

K

1st (W) DORF

179

NR

0.49

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

Predictive

K

K (S) NWF

63-141

0.37-0.49

0.39

Good et al. (2004)

K

1st (W) NWF

50-60

0.33-0.63

0.58

Median Predictive Validity  Coefficient

K

Cross-Measure

0.50

Median Percent of Variance Explained = 25%

Median Concurrent Validity  Coefficient

K

Cross-Measure

0.48

Median Percent of Variance Explained = 23%