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

Abstract

Previous research on curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM ORF) found high levels of variability around the estimates of students’ fluency; however, little research has studied the issue of variability specifically with well-designed passage sets and a sample of students who scored below benchmark for the purpose of progress monitoring. We examined the variability in oral reading fluency score slopes due to passage and student characteristics using DIBELS Next progress monitoring passages over 4 weeks using a hierarchical linear growth model. Participants included second-, third-, and fourth-grade students identified as at risk for reading difficulties. The results showed an average growth rate of approximately 1 correctly read word per minute per week, with considerably lower variability than shown in previous research with less controlled passage sets and/or higher performing student samples. Implications for practice are discussed, including procedural recommendations for administrators and teachers.

Strategies for Minimizing Variability in Progress Monitoring of Oral Reading Fluency

“…M. Shinn & Shinn, 2002) and, more recently, including the use of readability formulae, field-testing, and statistical equating to decrease passage variability (Ardoin & Christ, 2009; Christ & Ardoin, 2009; Poncy et al, 2005; Powell-Smith, Good, & Atkins, 2010). In spite of these actions, some passage-level variability remains (Briggs, 2011; O’Keeffe et al, 2017). In particular, research has indicated that there are differences in difficulty level between narrative and expository passages at the same reading level, but there is not a consensus regarding which type of passage tends to be more difficult (Briggs, 2011; O’Keeffe et al, 2017).…”

“…In spite of these actions, some passage-level variability remains (Briggs, 2011; O’Keeffe et al, 2017). In particular, research has indicated that there are differences in difficulty level between narrative and expository passages at the same reading level, but there is not a consensus regarding which type of passage tends to be more difficult (Briggs, 2011; O’Keeffe et al, 2017). Publishers continue to include both narrative and expository passages to increase the validity of their passage sets for monitoring progress toward important goals, which would presumably include the ability to read and comprehend narrative and expository text.…”

“…. .” (O’Keeffe et al, 2017). These features may contribute to students’ reading this expository passage faster than other passages at this grade level, even though previous research indicated that expository passages tended to be more difficult (Briggs, 2011).…”

“…Although some researchers have found persistent variability among these more modern passages (Cummings, Park, & Schaper, 2013), those studies were conducted with higher-performing students than those who are typically included in progress monitoring (e.g., students scoring at or above benchmark at screening). Other researchers found that when passages are implemented as intended, such as to progress monitor students below or well below benchmark, acceptably low levels of variability are seen (O’Keeffe, Bundock, Kladis, Yan, & Nelson, 2017; Tindal, Nese, Stevens, & Alonso, 2016). Given the challenges presented by excessive variability, educators should be aware of possible sources of variability and have strategies to prevent and address variability in CBM ORF progress monitoring.…”

The Influence of Measurement Error Associated With Oral Reading Progress Monitoring Measures on the Consistency and Accuracy of Nonparametric Single-Case Design Effect Size Outcomes

“…Differences in WRCM scores across time are not solely attributable to meaningful changes in oral reading rate. The manner in which probes are constructed (Christ & Ardoin, 2009; Hintze & Christ, 2004), differences in difficulty among passage sets (Betts, Pickart, & Heistad, 2009; Cummings, Park, & Bauer Schaper, 2013; Francis et al, 2009), the type of passage (e.g., expository vs. narrative; O’Keeffe, Bundock, Kladis, Yan, & Nelson, 2017), the manner in which instructions are delivered (Christ, White, Ardoin, & Eckert, 2013; Colon & Kranzler, 2006), the setting in which data are collected (Derr & Shapiro, 1989), and errors committed by data collectors (Cummings, Biancarosa, Schaper, & Reed, 2014) all influence the observed WRCM for a student at any given point in time. Further, it is likely that idiosyncratic differences in the testing environment and disposition of the student may contribute to minor fluctuations in performance.…”