The Importance and Decision-Making Utility of a Continuum of Fluency-Based Indicators of Foundational Reading Skills for Third-Grade High-Stakes Outcomes

Good, R. H.; Simmons, Deborah C.; Kameenui, Edward J.

doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0503_4

Cited by 387 publications

(184 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

173

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In their sample, there was a correlation of .60 in second grade and .66 in third grade between ORF and third-grade reading scores on the end of year statewide assessment. Good et al (2001) reported a .67 correlation between a spring measurement of ORF and the statewide reading assessment in Oregon. Fuchs et al (2001) found a correlation of .80 between ORF and reading comprehension portion of the statewide assessment in Iowa.…”

Section: Relationship Between Oral Reading Fluency and State Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies have investigated the correlational relationship between ORF and state standardized assessments (Buck & Torgesen, 2003;Crawford, Tindal, & Stieber, 2001;Good et al, 2001;McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004;Schilling, Carlisle, Scott, & Zeng, 2007;Shapiro, Keller, Lutz, Edwards, & Hintze, 2006;Roehrig, Petscher, Nettles, Hudson, & Torgesen, in press;Stage & Jacobsen, 2001;Wood, 2006). For example, Crawford et al (2001) examined the relationship between second and third grade fluency rates and third grade state-wide assessments.…”

Section: Relationship Between Oral Reading Fluency and State Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, what is the relationship between ORF, 4Sight at two time points during the school year (fall and winter) and PSSA at third, fourth, and fifth grade? Although previous studies have investigated the relationship between ORF and state achievement tests (Crawford et al, 2001;Fuchs et al, 2001;Good et al, 2001;McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004;Wood, 2006) our study adds a comprehension based assessment used to monitor student progress on Pennsylvania state reading standards as part of the predictive decision model. Second, what is the predictive accuracy of ORF and 4Sight on reading PSSA outcomes for students who are considered at risk for reading difficulties at two different time points (fall and winter)?…”

Section: Purpose Of Study/research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The short length of assessment makes ORF an easy measurement tool to gauge student performance on reading quickly and efficiently. Many school districts have set benchmark goals for ORF to help make instructional decisions for students who may be at-risk for reading failure and failure on standardized assessments (Good, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 2001;McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004;Stage & Jacobsen, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment

Shapiro

Solari

Petscher

2008

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study examined the diagnostic accuracy of two screening measures of risk for future difficulties in reading comprehension, as well as the degree to which adding a screening measure of reading comprehension enhanced the prediction of Oral Reading Fluency to outcomes of student reading performance on the state high stakes assessment for grades 3 through 5. Data from fall and winter assessments of the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) and 4Sight Benchmark Assessment (4Sight) measures along with outcomes on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) across a total of 1000 students from 6 schools were examined using indices of diagnostic efficiency, ROC curve, and logistic regression analyses. Results showed that the addition of a measure of reading comprehension (4Sight) to DORF enhanced the decision making process for identifying students at risk for reading difficulties, especially for those students at higher elementary grades and those who achieved benchmark levels on the DORF. Although DORF alone showed a good level of prediction to the statewide assessment, the combination of the DORF plus 4Sight measures resulted consistently in the best predictive outcomes. Suggestions are made to consider alternative cut points for the DORF and 4Sight measures. Keywords RTI; Reading comprehension; Oral reading fluencyResults of statewide assessment, often called high-stakes testing, have important implications for districts, teachers, and individual students that impact district level decision making and policy. Usually administered once during the school year, statewide assessments do not provide information about student growth over shorter time periods and provide even less information to guide effective instruction for students who are at-risk (Shephard, 2000). The value and potential impact placed on high-stakes testing has encouraged school districts to put into place more frequent monitoring of student academic outcomes during the school year to identify those students potentially at risk for not reaching proficiency levels prior to the administration of the high-stakes test. Such identification could allow districts to put in place programs to focus instruction for such students in areas that would improve student outcomes on the high-stakes test.

show abstract

Section: Relationship Between Oral Reading Fluency and State Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relationship Between Oral Reading Fluency and State Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Purpose Of Study/research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment

Shapiro

Solari

Petscher

2008

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individuals scoring below the normalization criterion were considered to be non-responders. Good, Simmons, and Kame'enui (2001) used a final benchmark criterion of falling below an empirically-derived benchmark on oral reading fluency. Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) used a dual-discrepancy criterion of scoring one or more standard deviations below classroom peers on both slope and final status on reading fluency.…”

Section: Response To Instruction or Intervention (Rti) Approaches To mentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption

Schatschneider

Wagner

Crawford

2008

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A core assumption of response to instruction or intervention (RTI) models is the importance of measuring growth in achievement over time in response to effective instruction or intervention. Many RTI models actively monitor growth for identifying individuals who need different levels of intervention. A large-scale (N=23,438), two-year longitudinal study of first grade children was carried out to compare the predictive validity of measures of achievement status, growth in achievement, and their combination for predicting future reading achievement. The results indicate that under typical conditions, measures of growth do not make a contribution to prediction that is independent of measures of achievement status. These results question the validity of a core assumption of RTI models.

show abstract

Assessments of Early Reading

Paris

2007

Handbook of Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Importance and Decision-Making Utility of a Continuum of Fluency-Based Indicators of Foundational Reading Skills for Third-Grade High-Stakes Outcomes

Cited by 387 publications

References 26 publications

Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment

Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment

The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption

Assessments of Early Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About