Growth on Oral Reading Fluency Measures as a Function of Special Education and Measurement Sufficiency

Abstract

Oral reading fluency (ORF) was investigated initially by Deno, Mirkin, and Chiang (1982) with a plethora of studies published since then (Tindal, 2013). As originally designed, ORF was to provide teachers a systematic way to monitor the effects of instruction over time. In the early days, passages were drawn at random from a curriculum series representing a "long range goal" level of difficulty (to be covered within the year) that inherently provided preview and review of material (Fuchs & Deno, 1994). Although the early applications of ORF were oriented to monitoring progress for students with disabilities, it quickly spread to establishing "benchmarks" or norms at various times (seasons) in Grades 1 to 8, beginning with Tindal, Germann, and Deno (1983). Typically, change over time has been reported as words correct per minute (wcpm), using either school days (5) or calendar days (7) to create a weekly metric.Concurrent with the research on ORF, its use in applied settings is becoming nearly ubiquitous with response to intervention (RTI) systems. In part, this is likely due to the emphasis with most RTI approaches on collecting learning data over time to evaluate instruction using some kind decision-making process (Batsche et al., 2005). Typically, RTI includes high-quality, differentiated instruction organized into tiers (levels of intensity) as well as universal screening and progress monitoring to support the decision-making process (Liu, Alonzo, & Tindal, 2011). As a measurement system, ORF appears both technically adequate in its relation to other important indicators (e.g., statewide tests) and is sensitive to change within the year. Shapiro, Zigmond, Wallace, and Marston (2011) noted that, in RTI, "progress monitoring plays such a key role, underlying many of the decisions made through the model" (p. xiv).We position this research in an applied setting where ORF is being used by hundreds of teachers to monitor their students' progress in Tier 2 settings (having been found to be significantly below peers on fall benchmark measures). An important study for our research is that of Mellard, McKnight, and Woods (2009) who concluded that schools were screening students in various ways, using norms or percentage of population as cut points for risk assessment, placing students into instructional tiers (in varying proportions), and monitoring progress in Tiers 2 and 3. Through their in-depth interviews, they noted that "first, the importance of good record keeping systems was a recurring theme" (p. 192). For us, good record keeping includes sufficient progress monitoring to inform the decision-making process.

Variability in DIBELS Next Progress Monitoring Measures for Students at Risk for Reading Difficulties

“…The results of this study suggest that the variability around the slope for progress monitoring may be considerably smaller than in previous studies (e.g., Briggs, 2011; Christ, 2006) as measured by the highest and lowest readability progress monitoring passages for second, third, and fourth grade in DIBELS Next (Good & Kaminski, 2011) read by students who are at risk in reading. We found that students’ CWPM grew by approximately 1 word per minute per week, which is similar to previous research on the growth rates for students who are at risk for reading difficulties (e.g., Deno, Fuchs, Marston, & Shin, 2001; Fuchs et al, 1984; Tindal et al, 2016). In addition, this growth was statistically significant and almost 4 times higher than the error around that slope.…”

“…The data were analyzed using a two-level repeated measures growth model (Holt, 2008) using HLM 7 (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2011). Students’ weekly CBM ORF scores (CWPM) were nested within student (Briggs, 2011; Hintze & Christ, 2004; Tindal et al, 2016). Although ordinary least squares (OLS) analysis has been used in previous studies on CBM growth (e.g., Christ, 2006), OLS requires that all students receive assessments on the same time schedule and that all students receive the same number of assessments.…”

“…These studies have found higher variability (i.e., the error of the estimate was greater than the estimate) around a static point in time (e.g., Cummings et al, 2013) or around the slope in progress monitoring (e.g., Ardoin & Christ, 2009). Studies that have explored variability in progress monitoring specifically with students who are at risk and with newer passage sets have not found excessive variability around progress monitoring slopes ( DIBELS Next , Powell-Smith et al, 2010; easyCBM , Tindal, Nese, Stevens, & Alonso, 2016). Since validity questions attempt to determine “ .…”

Improving Reading Fluency Through Videoscribe For Student with Learning Disability

“…Abdurrahman ( 2003) said that students with learning disabilities is a learning difficulty that associated with development learning disabilities, included: a motor disorder, p learning difficulties in the adjustment of social behavior, and the difficulty of academic learning which include : reading , writing and mathematics. This finding was similar to that of Alonzo (2016), who found that performance on measu special education status The types of reading that need to be mastered by students according to is reading fluently, intensive reading, reading languages, and reading quickly. The large number of students with disabilities who experience reading difficulties, as well as students who may not be eligible for special This study aims to determine the effect of videoscribe for improving reading fluently ability for learning disability.…”

Growth in Oral Reading Fluency in a Semitransparent Orthography: Concurrent and Predictive Relations With Reading Proficiency in Norwegian, Grades 2–5

“…If we compare our findings with growth rates found in studies of English readers, we see that the Norwegian students began the year reading fewer WCPM but experience stronger growth during the school year. For instance, Tindal, Nese, Stevens, and Alonzo () found that U.S. students in grade 3 began the year reading an average of nearly 81 WCPM (15 WCPM more than Norwegian students), just above 100 WCPM in grade 4 (three WCPM more than Norwegians), and 125 WCPM in grade 5 (21 WCPM more than Norwegians). The slope in each of these grades ranged between 0.65 and 0.73 WCPM, whereas the slope in the Norwegian grades 3–5 ranged between 0.76 and 0.84 WCPM.…”