DIBELS Next

Oral Reading Fluency - Word Correct

Rating Summary

Classification Accuracyfull bubble
GeneralizabilityModerate High
Reliabilityfull bubble
Validityfull bubble
Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Datahalf bubble
Efficiency
AdministrationIndividual
Administration & Scoring Time1-2 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

DMG: Materials may be downloaded at no cost from DMG at http://dibels.org/next. Minimal reproduction costs associated with printing.

Amplify: The basic pricing plan is an annual per student license of $14.90. For users already using an mCLASS assessment product, the cost per student to add mCLASS:DIBELS Next is $6 per student. 

Voyager Sopris: There are three purchasing options for implementing Progress Monitoring materials in Year 1:

1) Progress Monitoring via Online Test Administration and Scoring

2) Progress Monitoring materials as part of the purchase of Classroom Sets, which also include Benchmark materials and DIBELS Next Survey

3) Individual Progress Monitoring materials. DIBELS Next Classroom Sets contain everything needed for one person to conduct the Benchmark Assessment for 25 students and the Progress Monitoring Assessment for up to five students. These easy-to-implement kits simplify the distribution and organization of DIBELS Next materials.

Testers will require 4-8 hours of training. Examiners must at a minimum be a paraprofessional.

Training manuals and materials are field tested and are included in the cost of the tool.

DMG: Customer Support is available from 8:00am to 5:00pm PST, Monday through Friday by phone, email, or through DMG's website.

Voyager Sopris: 8:00am to 6:00pm CST, Monday through Friday by phone, email, or through the Voyager Sopris website.

Amplify: Customer Care Center offers complete user-level support from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Customers may contact a customer support representative via telephone, e-mail, or electronically through the mCLASS website. Additionally, customers have self-service access to instructions, documents, and frequently asked questions on our Website.  The research staff and product teams are available to answer questions about the content within the assessments.

Accommodations:

DIBELS Next is an assessment instrument well-suited for use with capturing the developing reading skills of special education students learning to read, with a few exceptions: a) students who are deaf; b) students who have fluency-based speech disabilities, e.g., stuttering, oral apraxia; c) students who are learning to read in a language other than English or Spanish; d) students with severe disabilities.  Use of DIBELS Next is appropriate for all other students, including those in special education for whom reading connected text is an IEP goal. For students receiving special education, it may be necessary to adjust goals and timelines. Approved accommodations are available in the administration manual.

Where to obtain:

DMG
859 Willamette Street, Suite 320, Eugene, OR 97401
541-431-6931
(888) 943-1240
http://dibels.org

Amplify Education, Inc.
55 Washington Street, Suite 900
Brooklyn, NY 11201
1-800-823-1969, option 1
www.amplify.com

Voyager Sopris
17855 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400, Dallas, TX 75287-6816 (888)399-1995
http://www.voyagersopris.com

DIBELS Next measures are brief, powerful indicators of foundational early literacy skills that: are quick to administer and score; serve as universal screening (or benchmark assessment) and progress monitoring; identify students in need of intervention support; evaluate the effectiveness of interventions; and support the RtI/Multi-tiered model. DIBELS Next comprises six measures: First Sound Fluency (FSF), Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF), and Daze. 

DIBELS Next Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) is a measure of advanced phonics and word attack skills and accurate and fluent reading of connected text. The DORF passages and procedures are based on the program of research and development of Curriculum-Based Measurement of reading by Stan Deno and colleagues at the University of Minnesota (Deno, 1989). There are two components to DORF: oral reading fluency and passage retell

Administration of the test takes 1 minute plus 1 minute maximum for retell.

Students are given an unfamiliar, grade-level passage of text and asked to read for 1 minute. Errors such as substitutions, omissions, and hesitations for more than 3 seconds are marked while listening to the student read aloud. For benchmark assessment, students are asked to read three different grade-level passages for 1 minute each. Following the passage reading, the student is ask to retell the story if he/she reads 40 or more words correctly on the passage. Scores: 1) The median number of words read correctly in 1 minute across the three passages. 2) The percentage of words read accurately in 1 minute. 3) The number of words spoken in the retell that is about what was read. 4) The quality of the retell response is rated against a rubric for number of details, meaningful sequence, and main idea. Raw scores, cut points, and benchmark goals are all grade-specific but are not strictly based on grade norms.

 

Classification Accuracy

Primary Sample

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on GRADE (Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation)

 

Grade 1

n = 196

Grade 2

n = 219

Grade 3

n = 187

Grade 4

n = 187

Grade 5

n = 195

Grade 6

n = 103

False Positive Rate

0.13

0.08

0.10

0.20

0.26

0.14

False Negative Rate

0.24

0.22

0.31

0.24

0.26

0.14

Sensitivity

0.76

0.78

0.69

0.76

0.74

0.86

Specificity

0.87

0.92

0.90

0.80

0.74

0.86

Positive Predictive Power

0.70

0.78

0.71

0.68

0.35

0.32

Negative Predictive Power

0.90

0.92

0.88

0.86

0.94

0.99

Overall Classification Rate

0.84

0.88

0.84

0.79

0.74

0.86

AUC (ROC)

0.91

0.92

0.88

0.87

0.86

0.86

Base Rate

0.28

0.27

0.27

0.35

0.16

0.07

Cut Points:

23

72

86

103

101

92

At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.80

0.84

0.71

0.52

0.61

0.40

At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.86

0.91

0.85

0.77

0.63

0.89

At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.87

0.94

0.89

0.89

0.79

0.90

Cross-Validation

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on the CSTs (STAR program)

 

Grade 2

n = 1,177

Grade 3

n = 1,216

Grade 4

n = 1,155

Grade 5

n = 1,205

Grade 6

n = 606

False Positive Rate

0.09

0.16

0.10

0.25

0.09

False Negative Rate

0.25

0.25

0.34

0.20

0.28

Sensitivity

0.75

0.75

0.66

0.80

0.72

Specificity

0.91

0.84

0.90

0.75

0.91

Positive Predictive Power

0.77

0.43

0.66

0.25

0.29

Negative Predictive Power

0.91

0.96

0.90

0.97

0.99

Overall Classification Rate

0.87

0.83

0.84

0.75

0.90

AUC (ROC)

0.92

0.88

0.88

0.87

0.93

Base Rate

0.27

0.14

0.23

0.10

0.05

Cut Points:

72

68

103

101

92

At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.74

0.63

0.61

0.66

0.85

At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.86

0.77

0.78

0.75

0.87

At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

0.95

0.87

0.89

0.85

0.91

 

Generalizability

Description of study sample:

·         Number of States: 5 (Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, California)

·         Size: 1,306

·         Regions: Divisions 3 and 4 (North Central Midwest) and Division 9 (Pacific West), according to the US Census Bureau

·         SES: 16% Free/Reduced Lunch Rate (according to NCES data aggregated at the school level)

·         Race/Ethnicity (according to NCES data aggregated at the school level):

o   94% White, Non-Hispanic

o   <1% American Indian/Alaska Native

o   <1% Black, Non-Hispanic

o   <1% Asian, Pacific Islander

o   4% Hispanic

 

Description of cross-validation study sample:

·         Number of States: 1 (California)

·         Regions: Division 9, West (according to US Census Bureau)

·         SES: 31% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

·         Race/ethnicity:

o   46% White, non-Hispanic

o   38% Hispanic

Reliability

 Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient

SEM

Information (including normative data)/Subjects

range

median

Test-Retest

1-5

21-28

0.91-0.97

0.95

NA

Participants included students in kindergarten through sixth grade from thirteen schools across five states.

Alternate-form

1-6

24-61

0.94-0.98

0.96

5.56-8.53

 

Inter-rater

2-6

20-28

0.99-0.99

0.99

NA

 

 

Validity

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient (if applicable)

Information (including normative data)/Subjects

range

Median

Content  1-6         The DORF passages were designed to represent the different types of text that students will encounter, including a mix of narrative and expository, with different types of passages and content within those categories. A range of topics and themes was selected so that each student would encounter familiar topics and unfamiliar topics. The passages were designed to be authentic text, so they include irregular words and are not written entirely in decodable text. Passages are administered in triads, that include 3 narrative and 1 expository in grades 1 through 3, and 1 narrative and 2 expository in grades 4 through 6. Passages were written and revised by professional authors according to the design specifica­tions available on p 28 of the DIBELS Next Technical Manual.

Predictive Validity

Grade 2 to predict Grade 3

IREAD3

28,162

 

0.68

Validity was computed using DIBELS DORF data from school year 2011-2012 to predict IREAD3 data from school year 2012-2013. 9% African American, 8% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 4% Multi-race; 27% subsidized lunch; 5% special education; 4% English as second language.

Predictive

1-6

GRADE Total Test

103-215

 0.64-0.77

0.68

Participants included students in kindergarten through sixth grade from thirteen schools across five states.

Concurrent

1-6

GRADE Total Test

103-215

0.61-0.75

0.70

Participants included students in kindergarten through sixth grade from thirteen schools across five states.

Concurrent

1-6

NAEP Oral Reading Study 4th Grade Passage

23

0.83-0.97

0.94

Participants included students in kindergarten through sixth grade from thirteen schools across five states.

Concurrent

1-6

GRADE Total Test

103-215

 0.49-0.73

0.57

Participants included students in kindergarten through sixth grade from thirteen schools across five states.

Construct 1 GRADE 539   0.75 Construct validity was computed by calculating the correlation between DORF WC and the GRADE using data collected from the 2009-2010 school year. The districts reported 15% of students were eligible for subsidized lunch, and 2% were English Language Learners. Of the students who received the GRADE, 6% were Hispanic or Latino, 5% multiracial, and 1% American Indian or Native Alaskan.
Construct 2 California State Standards Test 1,162-1,189   0.76 Construct validity was computed by calculating the correlation between DORF WC and the CST using data collected from the 2010-2011 school year. The district is comprised of 38% Hispanic or Latino; 31% subsidized lunch; 20% English Language Learner.
Construct 3 California State Standards Test 1,228   0.70 Construct validity was computed by calculating the correlation between DORF WC and the CST using data collected from the 2010-2011 school year. The district is comprised of 38% Hispanic or Latino; 31% subsidized lunch; 20% English Language Learner.
Construct 4 California State Standards Test 1,167   0.72 Construct validity was computed by calculating the correlation between DORF WC and the CST using data collected from the 2010-2011 school year. The district is comprised of 38% Hispanic or Latino; 31% subsidized lunch; 20% English Language Learner.
Construct 5 California State Standards Test 1,189   0.90 Construct validity was computed by calculating the correlation between DORF WC and the CST using data collected from the 2010-2011 school year. The district is comprised of 38% Hispanic or Latino; 31% subsidized lunch; 20% English Language Learner.
Construct 6 California State Standards Test 606   0.66 Construct validity was computed by calculating the correlation between DORF WC and the CST using data collected from the 2010-2011 school year. The district is comprised of 38% Hispanic or Latino; 31% subsidized lunch; 20% English Language Learner.

 

Disaggregated Reliability, Validity, and Classification Data for Diverse Populations

Disaggregated Classification Accuracy: Cross Validation Study 1

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on the DIBELS Grade 3 BOY to Grade 3 Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress Plus Test in English Language Arts

 

Overall

White

Black

Hispanic

False Positive Rate

0.05

0.03

0.10

0.06

False Negative Rate

0.59

0.67

0.48

0.55

Sensitivity

0.41

0.33

0.52

0.45

Specificity

0.95

0.97

0.90

0.94

Positive Predictive Power

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.82

Negative Predictive Power

0.77

0.79

0.71

0.74

Overall Classification Rate

0.78

0.79

0.74

0.76

AUC (ROC)

0.79

0.80

0.76

0.78

Base Rate

0.32

0.28

0.43

0.37

Cut Points:

70

70

70

70

At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

1.18

1.19

1.19

1.21

At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

1.14

1.15

1.12

1.15

At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

1.09

1.11

1.04

1.09

Disaggregated Classification Accuracy: Cross Validation Study 2

Classification Accuracy in Predicting Proficiency on the DIBELS Grade 2 EOY to Grade 3 IREAD

 

Overall

White

Black

Hispanic

False Positive Rate

0.04

0.02

0.12

0.07

False Negative Rate

0.66

0.72

0.47

0.55

Sensitivity

0.34

0.28

0.53

0.45

Specificity

0.96

0.98

0.88

0.93

Positive Predictive Power

0.82

0.83

0.80

0.84

Negative Predictive Power

0.75

0.77

0.68

0.67

Overall Classification Rate

0.76

0.78

0.72

0.71

AUC (ROC)

0.79

0.80

0.74

0.76

Base Rate

0.33

0.29

0.47

0.45

Cut Points:

87

87

87

87

At 90% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

1.24

1.23

1.21

1.30

At 80% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

1.19

1.19

1.12

1.22

At 70% Sensitivity, Specificity equals

1.14

1.15

1.03

1.14

Disaggregated Validity

 

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

 

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient (if applicable)

 

Information (including normative data)/Subjects

range

median

Predictive Validity (Caucasian)

Grade 2 to predict Grade 3

IREAD3

14,751

 

0.66

Validity was computed using DIBELS DORF data from school year 2011-2012 to predict IREAD3 data from school year 2012-2013. 27% subsidized lunch; 5% special education; 4% English as second language.

Predictive Validity (African American)

Grade 2 to predict Grade 3

IREAD3

2,634

 

0.66

Validity was computed using DIBELS DORF data from school year 2011-2012 to predict IREAD3 data from school year 2012-2013. 27% subsidized lunch; 5% special education; 4% English as second language.

Predictive Validity (Hispanic)

Grade 2 to predict Grade 3

IREAD3

2,167

 

0.70

Validity was computed using DIBELS DORF data from school year 2011-2012 to predict IREAD3 data from school year 2012-2013. 27% subsidized lunch; 5% special education; 4% English as second language.