Effectiveness of Dibels
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Validity and its Relationship with Reading Comprehension
Introduction to Research
Reading fluency is considered an integral component of the reading process and it has a big presence in the classroom. Its importance became evident since the National Reading Panel (2000) pronounced fluency instruction and assessment an essential and was thus incorporated into the reading First guidelines of No Child Left Behind in 2002 (Shelton, Altwerger, &Jordan, 2009). Reading fluency has been defined in many ways; an outcome of decoding and comprehension, a contributor to both decoding and comprehension, the ability to recognize words rapidly and accurately, the connections readers make between the natural phrasing when speaking and the phrasal segmentation when orally reading, among others (Abadiano &Turner, 2005). Nevertheless, Roehrig, Petscher, Nettles, Hudson and Torgesen (2008) state that perhaps fluency is best defined as having three main components, word recognition accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. Reading with accuracy is the student’s ability to read with few or no errors. Reading with automaticity is the students’ ability to recognize words quickly with little effort; quantifying the students’ reading rate. Prosody is the students’ ability to read with expression such as suing intonation, stress patterns, and phrasing. Due to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Reading First program, which requires that validated standardized reading fluency assessments be used to progress monitor and identify any readers that might not be making sufficient progress to be at grade level, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) is one of the few empirically validated assessments to progress monitor fluency (Roehring et al, 2008). The purpose of this literature review is to explore the validity of DIBELS and its relationship with reading comprehension. Students who demonstrate
Introduction to Research
Reading fluency is considered an integral component of the reading process and it has a big presence in the classroom. Its importance became evident since the National Reading Panel (2000) pronounced fluency instruction and assessment an essential and was thus incorporated into the reading First guidelines of No Child Left Behind in 2002 (Shelton, Altwerger, &Jordan, 2009). Reading fluency has been defined in many ways; an outcome of decoding and comprehension, a contributor to both decoding and comprehension, the ability to recognize words rapidly and accurately, the connections readers make between the natural phrasing when speaking and the phrasal segmentation when orally reading, among others (Abadiano &Turner, 2005). Nevertheless, Roehrig, Petscher, Nettles, Hudson and Torgesen (2008) state that perhaps fluency is best defined as having three main components, word recognition accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. Reading with accuracy is the student’s ability to read with few or no errors. Reading with automaticity is the students’ ability to recognize words quickly with little effort; quantifying the students’ reading rate. Prosody is the students’ ability to read with expression such as suing intonation, stress patterns, and phrasing. Due to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Reading First program, which requires that validated standardized reading fluency assessments be used to progress monitor and identify any readers that might not be making sufficient progress to be at grade level, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) is one of the few empirically validated assessments to progress monitor fluency (Roehring et al, 2008). The purpose of this literature review is to explore the validity of DIBELS and its relationship with reading comprehension. Students who demonstrate
References: Abadiano, H.R. (2005). Reading fluency: The road to developing efficient and effective readers. The New England Reading Association Journal, 41(1), 50-56. Hoffman A.R., Jenkins J.E., & Dunlap S.K. (2009). Using DIBELS: A survey of purposes and practices. Reading Psychology, 30, 1-16. Martin S.D., & Shapiro E.S. (2011). Examining the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of DIBELS performance. Psychology in the Schools, 48(4), 343-356. Paleologos T.M., & Brabham E.G. (2011). The effectiveness of DIBELS oral reading fluency for predicting reading comprehension of high-and-low income students. Reading Psychology, 32, 54-74. Roehrig A.D., Petscher, Y., Nettles S.M., Hudson, R., & Torgesen J.K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343-366. Scheffel, D., Lefly D., & Houser, J. (2012). The predictive utility of DIBELS reading assessment of reading comprehension among third grade English language learners and English speaking children. Reading Improvement, 49(3), 75-95. Shelton, N.R., Altwerger, B., & Jordan, N. (2009). Does DIBELS put reading first? Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 137-148. Yesil-Dagli, U. (2009). Predicting ELL students’ beginning first grade English oral reading fluency from initial kindergarten vocabulary, letter naming, and phonological awareness skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 15-29.