1. news

DMDIBELS Next Development Team
®
•
What Is Next for Benchmark Goals?
•
•
National Association of School Psychologists
Annual Conference
San Francisco, CA
February 25, 2011
Kelly Powell-Smith
Dynamic
D
i M
Measurementt G
Group, IInc.
Lisa Habedank Stewart
Minnesota State University Moorhead
•
Roland H. Good III
Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc.
University of Oregon
Elizabeth N. Dewey
y
Measurement Group, Inc.
Dynamic
•
San Francisco, CA
February 25, 2011
1
Executive Directors
o Ruth Kaminski
o Roland Good
Research Scientists
o Kelli Cummings
o Kelly A.
A Powell
Powell-Smith
Smith
o Stephanie Stollar
Professional
Development Specialists
o Kathleen Petersen
o Alisa Dorman
Project Manager
o Josh Wallin
Graphic Designer
o Karla
K l Wysocki
W
ki
February 25, 2011
Kristen MacConnell
Amy Murdoch
Alecia Rahn-Blakeslee
Kristin Orton
• Thank you also to all of the school, teachers, students
who worked to contribute to our knowledge of DIBELS
Next.
Next
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
•
Data Team
o Beth Dewey
o Rachel Latimer
o Maya O’Neil
Support Staff
o Dan Cohn
o Laura Collins
o Jeff Heriot
o Sarah
S h Laszlo
L
l
•
San Francisco, CA
2
1. Research Validated Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for
Risk. Benchmark goals and cut points for risk are empirically
validated
lid t d b
based
d on th
the odds
dd off achieving
hi i ffuture
t
reading
di
goals.
2. Research Based DIBELS Composite Score. The DIBELS
Composite Score combines multiple DIBELS Next scores into
a single composite that best predicts and measures
outcomes.
3. Extraordinary Control of Text Readability. Passages at
each grade level are developed, researched, and arranged to
provide maximum control of text difficulty
difficulty.
4. DIBELS Instructional Grouping Worksheets, DIBELS
Survey.
5. And, First Sound Fluency replaces Initial Sound Fluency;
NWF-Whole Words Read and Daze are added. And more!
• A special
p
thank yyou to all of the site coordinators who
made our benchmark goal study possible. They ensured
fidelity to the research design, made sure all research
activities were timely
timely, and did a wonderful job of
submitting data in time for analyses.
Lisa Habedank Stewart
Research Assistants
o Annie Hommel
o Doug Rice
o Katherine Schwinler
o Karla Wysocki
Significant Advances in Reading
Assessment to Inform Instruction
Special Thank You
Mary
y Giboneyy
•
3
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
4
Participants
Benchmark Goal Study
R
Research
hQ
Questions
ti
• The Benchmark Goal Study was designed to address
three research questions:
1. What levels of performance on DIBELS Next assessments
predict a student is likely to score at or above the 40%ile on
selected outcome measures?
2. What levels of performance on DIBELS Next assessments
predict a student is unlikely to score at or above the 40%ile on
selected outcome measures?
3 What are the correlations between DIBELS Next
3.
assessments and the Group Reading Assessment and
Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE), a criterion measure of
reading proficiency that includes comprehension?
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
•
Students recruited for the study were from 13 schools in five
school districts representing five US regions.
•
Participating school districts had a median of 10 years
experience using DIBELS.
•
Kindergarten through 6th grade students participated in
DIBELS Next assessments (n = 3,816 total; 433 to 569 per
grade). The percentage at benchmark ranged from 65% 79% across grades and times of year.
•
Subsamples of students participated in testing with an
external criterion measure (Group Reading Assessment and
Diagnostic Evaluation; GRADE) (n = 1257 total; 103 to 219
per grade). The GRADE subsample was 50% female on
average across grades
grades.
5
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
6
7
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
8
Participant Demographics
Fi
Figure
1
1. R
Racial/Ethnic
i l/Eth i B
Background
k
d
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
Measures: DIBELS Next
• The measures included all DIBELS Next assessments.
DIBELS Next assessments include:
• Letter Naming Fluency
• First Sound Fluency
• Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
• Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds and
Whole Words Read
• Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct, Accuracy, and
Retell.
• Daze Adjusted Score (DIBELS-maze)
• DIBELS Composite Score
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
9
February 25, 2011
Measures: Group Reading Assessment and
Di
Diagnostic
ti Evaluation
E l ti (GRADE)
•
Un-timed and group administered. Appropriate for
students in preschool through grade 12
•
Five components and 16 subtests. Subtests combine to
form the following composites:
10
Procedures: Data Collection
•
All Data were collected during
g the 2009-2010 school
year
• DIBELS Next assessments were administered at regular
benchmark intervals by trained school personnel using
standardized procedures.
• Phonemic Awareness, Early Literacy Skills, Comprehension,
Vocabulary, and Total Test.
•
• We used the Total Test Raw Score for analyses.
•
San Francisco, CA
The GRADE has excellent reliabilityy and validityy for its
intended purposes.
• Reliability ranges from .77 to .98.
G
GRADE
testing occurred in the spring at the end off the
year and was conducted across two to three sessions.
Total testing
g time ranged
g from 60 to 90 minutes. The
GRADE was administered by trained school personnel
and onsite coordinators.
• Correlation coefficients range from .69 to .86 with other groupand individually-administered achievement tests.
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
11
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
12
Fourth Grade Reading Outcomes on the 2007 National Assessment of Educational
Progress
What is the Purpose of Benchmark Goals
and
dS
Screening
i ffor Ri
Risk
k iin Ed
Education?
ti ?
Different standards, procedures, and requirements are necessary if our purpose is:
1. To quickly identify students
that are likely to need
additional support to prevent
later academic difficulty.
• To specify important and
meaningful future goals—a
level of skills at a point in time
where we can change the
odds to being in favor of an
individual’s meeting
subsequent goals.
Basic
We are troubled by the purpose of
identifying true Tier 3 students. We
thi k th
think
the ffuture
t
iis nott set.
t Ti
Tier 3 iis
not a characteristic of the student.
There are no true Tier 3 students.
pp
Tier 3 is a level of support
necessary for the student to make
adequate progress.
No fate but what we make.
Our purpose is to prevent reading difficulty and enhance reading
outcomes by providing targeted, differentiated instruction early.
February 25, 2011
Skill
Level
2. To accurately identify
students who are the true Tier
3 students or who have a true
learning disability early.
San Francisco, CA
13
34%
54%, 51%, 49%, 50%
68%
86%, 83%, 80%, 83%
Basic denotes ppartial masteryy
of prerequisite knowledge and
skills that are fundamental for
proficient work at a given
g
grade.
Note: Students from diverse backgrounds includes students identified as Black, Hispanic,
American Indian/Alaska Native, and eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch. From
14
data reported in Lee, Grigg, & Donahue (2007).
Building
Outcomes
Futures
Driven
by Changing
Decisions
Odds
• Adequate reading skills should generalize across
different state, national, and published reading tests.
• Adequate
Ad
t reading
di skills
kill are nott a normative
ti d
decision,
i i
b
butt
are a socio-political judgment.
• The 40th p
percentile or above on a high
g q
quality,
y, nationally
y
norm-referenced test can serve as an approximation for
adequate reading performance.
• Students
St d t att or above
b
th
the 40th percentile
til on a hi
high
h
quality, nationally norm-referenced test are on track to
be rated Basic or above on NAEP.
• We used the Group Reading Assessment and
Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) in our initial research to
provide an initial approximation of adequate reading
skills.
San Francisco, CA
N ti (public)
Nation
( bli ) percentt
of fourth grade students
from diverse
backgrounds scoring
below
(pp. 54 & 57)
Proficient Proficient represents solid
academic performance.
Students reaching this level
have demonstrated
competency over challenging
subject matter.
Goal: Adequate Reading Skills
February 25, 2011
Skill level definition
National
N
ti l (public
( bli
school) percent
of fourth grade
students scoring
below
(pp. 16, 52-53)
Beginning of Year
Benchmark
Beginning of Year
Cut Point for Risk
Sep
15
February 25, 2011
Oct
At or Above Benchmark
Odds are 80% to 90%
g Subsequent
q
of Achieving
Early Literacy Goals
Below Benchmark
Odds are 40% to 60%
of Achieving Subsequent
Early Literacy Goals
Well Below Benchmark
Odds are 10% to 20%
of Achieving Subsequent
Early Literacy Goals
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
San Francisco, CA
Apr
End of Year
Benchmark Goal
End of Year
Cut Point for Risk
May
16
Evidence Base, Score Level,
Likely Need for Support
Outcome:
Looking back
DIBELS Composite Scores
Provided the Framework
Screening:
Looking forward
• DIBELS Composite Scores formed the backbone of the
system of benchmark goals and cut points for risk
risk.
• First, linked end of year DIBELS Composite Score to the
end of year GRADE.
• Second, linked middle of year DIBELS Composite Score
to the end of year DIBELS Composite Score.
• Third,
Third linked beginning of year DIBELS Composite Score
to the middle of year DIBELS Composite Score.
• Fourth, linked individual measures to the next DIBELS
Composite Score.
– For example, individual beginning of year measures
were linked to the middle of year DIBELS Composite
Score.
Odds off achieving
Odd
hi i
Lik l need
Likely
d for
f supportt to
t
subsequent early
achieve subsequent early
literacy goals
Score level
literacy goals
Likely to Need Core Support
80% to 90%
At or Above Benchmark
scores att or above
b
th
the
benchmark goal
Likely to Need Strategic Support
40% to 60%
Below Benchmark
scores below the
b
benchmark
h
k goall and
d att or
above the cut point for risk
Likely to Need Intensive Support
10% to 20%
Well Below Benchmark
scores below the cut point
f risk
for
i k
The fundamental rationale for benchmark goals and screening decisions
i b
is
based
d on th
the odds
dd off achieving
hi i subsequent
b
t early
l lit
literacy goals.
l
February 25, 2011
17
San Francisco, CA
DIBELS Composite Score
For Example
p Third Grade. Benchmark Goal: 220
DORF Words Correct
99
39
16
78
64
• DIBELS Composite
Score explains
more variance in
reading outcomes
than DORF Words
Correct alone.
• Median 9% more,
range 3% to 17%.
• DORF Words
Correct alone is
good, DIBELS
Composite Score is
better.
104
345
San Francisco, CA
19
February 25, 2011
18
San Francisco, CA
DIBELS Composite
Score Research
Rationale
98
February 25, 2011
February 25, 2011
Grade and Time of Year
Grade 1 Middle of Year
Grade 1 End of Year
Grade 2 Beginning of Year
Grade 2 Middle of Year
Grade 2 End of Year
Grade 3 Beginning of Year
Grade 3 Middle of Year
Grade 3 End of Year
Grade 4 Beginning of Year
Grade 4 Middle of Year
Grade 4 End of Year
G d 5B
Grade
Beginning
i i off Y
Year
Grade 5 Middle of Year
Grade 5 End of Year
Grade 6 Beginning of Year
Grade 6 Middle of Year
Grade 6 End of Year
San Francisco, CA
DORF
Words
Correct
Predicting
GRADE
Total
0.64
0.75
0.69
0.76
0.73
0.66
0.67
0 66
0.66
0.76
0.76
0.75
0 69
0.69
0.64
0.66
0.64
0.59
0.61
DIBELS Additional
Composite Variance
Score Explained
Predicting by DIBELS
GRADE Composite
Total
Score
0.70
8%
0.77
4%
0.75
8%
0.80
5%
0.75
3%
0.73
10%
0.78
15%
0 75
0.75
13%
0.80
5%
0.80
6%
0.80
8%
0 76
0.76
11%
0.76
17%
0.77
17%
0.71
9%
0.68
12%
0.73
16%
20
Primary Design Specifications for
DIBELS Goals and Cut Points for Risk
DIBELS Composite Score
Ed
Educational
ti
l Rationale
R ti
l
99
39
16
78
64
98
104
345
•
Reading at an
adequate rate.
Reading orally for
meaning.
•
Reading silently for
meaning.
With a high
degree of
accuracy.
•
Students who are at or above benchmark on the DIBELS
Composite Score are reading for meaning at an adequate
rate and with a high degree of accuracy
accuracy.
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
21
San Francisco, CA
22
• Other considerations
– Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (ROC)
analysis with large area under curve
– Other metrics for decision utility
• sensitivity,
• specificity,
• percent correct classification,
• kappa
– Coherent pattern of goals across measures and
grades.
• Marginal
g
p
percents for the p
predictor close to marginal
g
percents for the outcome.
– The sample for the Benchmark Goal Study was a
relatively
l ti l hi
high
h performing
f
i sample.
l
– We tried have them appear equally high performing
on DIBELS Next and the GRADE.
• Logistic Regression Analysis
– Logistic regression predicted odds of about 60% or
better at the exact goal score.
– Logistic regression predicted odds of about 40% or
below at the exact cut point for risk score.
score
San Francisco, CA
February 25, 2011
Other Considerations
DIBELS Goals and Cut Points
Secondary Specifications for
B
Benchmark
h
k Goals
G l and
dC
Cutt P
Points
i t
February 25, 2011
Primary Specification: At or Above Benchmark Decision on initial
(screening) DIBELS assessment should provide favorable odds
(80% -- 90%) of achieving subsequent reading outcomes.
outcomes
Benchmark Goal should provide a level where we are reasonably
confident the student is making adequate progress.
Below Benchmark Decision on initial DIBELS assessment should
provide 50 – 50 odds (40% -- 60%) of achieving subsequent reading
outcomes. Below the Benchmark Goal but above the Cut Point
should p
provide a zone of uncertainty
y where we don’t know if the
student is making adequate progress or not.
Well Below Benchmark Decision on initial DIBELS assessment
should p
provide low odds ((10% -- 20%)) of achieving
g subsequent
q
reading outcomes – unless intensive intervention is implemented.
Below the Cut Point should provide a zone where we are reasonably
confident the student will not make adequate progress -- unless we
provide additional support.
23
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
24
Setting Benchmark Goals and Cut
Points for Risk
Example Analysis Detail
1. Examine scatterplot illustrating the relation between the
screening assessment (earlier assessment or predictor) and
the outcome assessment (later assessment).
– DIBELS is a step-by-step
step by step model, so the outcome of one
step is the predictor of the next step.
2. Examine the table of counts for each zone of the scatterplot.
3 Primary:
3.
Pi
C
Consider
id odds
dd off students
t d t with
ith each
h screening
i
decision achieving goal.
4. Secondary: Consider marginal percents
5. Secondary: Consider logistic regression analysis
6. Other: Consider ROC curve and decision utility metrics
7 Other:
7.
Oth Consider
C
id the
th overallll pattern
tt
off goals
l and
d cutt points.
i t
25
San Francisco, CA
February 25, 2011
Third Grade DIBELS Composite Score for
Beginning (DCS3b) to Middle of Year (DCS3m)
Third Grade DIBELS Composite Score for
Beginning
g
g (DCS3b)
(
) to Middle of Year (DCS3m)
(
)
Likely to
need
intensive
support
608
508
At or Above
Benchmark
D
DCS3m
408
4
Likely to
need
strategic
support
Likely to
need core
support
22
324
DCS3b Screening Decision:
DCS3m Outcome:
At or Above Benchmark
Below Benchmark
308
Below
Benchmark
20
16
21
70
9
4
204
304
DCS3b
Well Below Benchmark
M i lT
Marginal
Total
t l
Likely to
need
intensive
support
4
20
70
94
Likely to
need
strategic
support
22
16
9
47
Likely to
need
core
support
Marginal
total
324
21
4
349
350
57
83
490
208
Well
108Below
Benchmark
• Primary
Pi
consideration:
id
i
Odd
Odds off achieving
hi i outcome goal.
l
• Secondary consideration: Marginal Percents
8
4
February 25, 2011
104
San Francisco, CA
404
504
27
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
28
Also Considered Marginal Percents
Primary consideration: Odds of achieving goal
DCS3b Screening Decision:
DCS3b Screening Decision:
Likely to
need
intensive
support
DCS3m Outcome:
Likely to
need
strategic
support
4
20
70
94
At or Above Benchmark
Below Benchmark
Well Below Benchmark
M i l Total
Marginal
T t l
22
16
9
47
Likely to
need
core
support
Marginal
total
At or Above Benchmark
324
21
4
349
350
57
83
490
Well Below Benchmark
DCS3m Outcome:
• Core support beginning of year screening decision:
324 of 349 students achieve the middle of year goal, or
93% odds.
• Strategic support: 22 of 47 students achieve the goal, or
47% odds.
• Intensive support: 4 of 94 students achieve the goal, or
4% odds.
San Francisco, CA
February 25, 2011
29
DCS3m
1
0.6
204
304
DCS3b
404
504
0.2
0
86
136
186
350
57
83
490
71%
12%
17%
30
San Francisco, CA
February 25, 2011
• Blue
diamonds are
moving
proportion
with
ith adequate
d
t
outcome.
• Red line is
logistic
regression
estimated
odds of
adequate
outcomes.
0.8
February 25, 2011
324
21
4
349
71%
Marginal
percent
Logistic Regression Estimates Odds of Adequate
O t
Outcomes
for
f each
h Score
S
208
104
22
16
9
47
10%
Marginal
total
• Percent At or Above Benchmark at beginning of year is
very close to the percent At or Above Benchmark in the
middle of the year.
• Desirable for the screening decision to identify about the
same percent of students that are expected on the
outcome.
308
0.4
4
20
70
94
19%
Marginal Total
408
4
Core
support
decision
Marginal Percent
508
8
Strategic
support
decision
Below Benchmark
608 Odds: Logistic
Moving
Regression
108
Intensive
support
decision
236
1
0.8
60% estimated odds of
adequate outcomes for
the score exactly at the
Benchmark Goal: higher
scores, higher odds
0.6
04
0.4
0.2
0
86
136
30% estimated odds of
adequate
d
t outcomes
t
ffor th
the
score exactly at the Cut Point
for Risk, lower scores, lower
186 odds.236
286
286
San Francisco, CA
31
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
32
DIBELS is a Step-by-Step Model:
Beginning
g
g to Middle;; Middle to End;;
•
•
End of Year Benchmark Goals
Mastering each step puts the odds in favor of mastering the next
step.
– At or Ab
Above B
Benchmark:
h
k Odds
Odd are generally
ll 80% tto 90%
of achieving subsequent benchmark goals and important
reading outcomes. Student is likely to make adequate
progress with effective core instruction
instruction.
– Below Benchmark: Odds are generally 40% to 60% of
achieving subsequent benchmark goals and important
reading outcomes
outcomes. Student is likely to need strategic
support to make adequate progress.
– Well Below Benchmark: Odds are generally 10% to 20% of
achieving subsequent benchmark goals and important
reading outcomes. Student is likely to need intensive
support to make adequate progress.
Contiguous Continuity.
Continuity Each step is a continuous process with a
strong linkage. Each step is contiguous with the next step.
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
40
33
28
--
58
13
47
90%
15
87
97%
27
100
97%
30
19
*Word Use Fluency—Revised (WUF-R) is available as an experimental measure from http://dibels.org/. For Nonsense Word Fluency, the first number is the
Correct Letter Sounds goal, and the second number is the Whole Words Read Goal. For DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency, the first number is the Words Correct
goal, the second number is the Accuracy goal, and the third number is the Retell goal. For example, at the end of second grade a student should be able to read
87 words with 97% accuracy and retell of 27 words relevant to the passage. Third grade benchmark goals are illustrated, benchmark goals for grades 4 through 6
are available.
34
Third Grade DIBELS Composite Score for Beginning
off Year
Y
(DCS3b) and
d Middle
Middl off Year
Y
(DCS3m)
(DCS3 )
• .91 correlation to DIBELS Composite Score at Middle of Year
4% Odds
47%
Odds
93% Odds
608
Middle of
Year Goal:
285
508
DCS3
3m
408
308
208
108
8
4
104
204
304
DCS3b
404
504
Beginning of Year Goal: 220
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
35
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
36
Third Grade DIBELS Composite Score for End of Year
(DCS3e) and GRADE Total Raw Score (gtotr3e)
Third Grade DIBELS Composite Score for Middle
off Year
Y
(DCS3
(DCS3m)) and
dE
End
d off Y
Year (DCS3
(DCS3e))
• .90 correlation to DIBELS Composite Score at End of
Year
43%
8% Odds
Odds
• .75 correlation to GRADE Total Raw Score at End of
Year
48%
91% Odds
7% Odds
Odds
90% Odds
40th
Percentile
on GRADE
612
End of Year
Goal: 330
512
97
87
DCSS3e
412
gtotr3e
77
312
67
212
57
112
47
12
37
12
212
DCS3m
412
612
50
150
250
350
DCS3e
Middle of Year Goal: 285
February 25, 2011
37
San Francisco, CA
We are troubled by
the terminology. We
think a “True
Positive” is actually a
student for whom we
were not effective in
ruining the
prediction. A “False
P iti ” iis a student
Positive”
t d t
for whom we have
changed the future.
.80
60
.60
.40
.20
BenchmarkGoalROC,AUC=.90
CutPointforRiskROC,AUC=.87
.00
00
.20
20
.40
40
.60
60
.80
80
Core
support
decision
True Negative
False Negative
True Positive
False Positive
Sensitivity
Specificity
Negative Predictive Pow er
Accurate Classification
Kappa
Screening Decision
Outcome
San Francisco, CA
38
At or Above
Well Below
Benchmark
B
h
k outcome
t
Benchmark
B
h
k outcome
t
Positive Predictive Pow er
1 00
1.00
Receiver Operator Characteristic
(ROC) curves.
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
February 25, 2011
Other Decision Utility Metrics
E d off Third
End
Thi d G
Grade
d
1.00
.00
550
End of Year DIBELS Composite
Score Goal: 330
Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve
• Larger
g area under the
curve indicates favorable
trade off of sensitivity and
specificity
specificity.
• Decision points in the
upper left bend of the
curve indicate a favorable
balance of sensitivity and
specificity
specificity.
450
39
February 25, 2011
Role
Variable
Predictor DCS3e
Criterion gtotr3e
Goal
330
83
123
14
37
13
.73
.90
.90
.74
.86
.63
Intensive
support
decision
134
26
25
2
.49
.99
.84
.93
.85
.56
Core
support
decision
132
5
18
32
.78
.80
.96
.36
.80
.39
Intensive
support
decision
154
6
17
10
.74
.94
.96
.63
.91
.63
Cut Point Description
280
DIBELS Composite Score, Grade 3, End of Year
71
GRADE Total Test, Grade 3, End of Year
San Francisco, CA
40
Caveats for Use:
Early
a y Intervention
te e t o a
and
d Prevention
e e to
are Active Ingredients
Caveats for Use
• DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for Risk
are specific to the DIBELS Next assessments
assessments, passage
difficulty, and readability.
– Alternative passages of a lower level of difficulty will
require higher benchmark goals.
– Alternative passages of a higher level of difficulty will
require a lower benchmark goal
goal.
• You cannot use DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals with
other progress monitoring passages. Each set of
passages must conduct their own research on
benchmark goals.
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
• Th
The effectiveness
ff ti
off the
th school-wide
h l id system
t
off
instruction can change the odds.
– Differences in the effectiveness of Tier 1 instruction
and Tier 2 & 3 intervention change the underlying
relation between screener and outcome.
– Less effective school-wide
school wide system Tier 1 instruction
can decrease the odds of achieving subsequent early
literacy goals for students who are at or above
benchmark.
– Increasing the effectiveness of Tier 2 & 3 intervention
can increase the odds of achieving subsequent early
literacy goals for students who are at risk
risk.
41
February 25, 2011
Building Futures
San Francisco, CA
42
Implications and Discussion
• Key Point: The student’s outcome is unknown and not
fixed at the time of the screening. Instead, the outcome is
the result of the targeted
targeted, differentiated instruction and
intervention we provide as a direct result of the screening
information.
• Our instructional goal is to ruin screening predictions
• For Example: If a child screens as at high risk on a
measure of early literacy skills in Kindergarten,
Kindergarten we know
they are likely to need additional instructional support to
be successful. Their later outcome, their reading skills in
first grade for example, are a direct result of the targeted,
differentiated instruction and early intervention that we
provide.
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
1. Using a composite is new way of using DIBELS Next
d t to
data
t improve
i
our d
decision
i i making
ki
• Understand where the cut points and goals come
from and what theyy mean
• Composites represent a more complete sample of
behavior, better at almost every grade and time of
year
• “The beauty of the DIBELS Composite score is
that it allows for easy and meaningful integration of
information”
• Represents accuracy, rate and meaning
43
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
44
Implications and Discussion, Cont’d
Cont d
Implications and Discussion, Cont’d
Cont d
2. Some caveats
• Still a screening measure
• use yep, yep, huh? test and validate as needed
• For instructional planning, look at individual test
scores (e.g., K, DORF)
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
3. How should we evaluate and think about screening
g
measures? our job in the schools is to “ruin” the
predictions for at risk students.
– How
H
would
ld we kknow th
the “t
“true”” sensitivity
iti it and
d
specificity of a measure?
– At a practical level, this highlights the importance of a
Tier Effectiveness Report or similar reports that track
students over time
45
February 25, 2011
Implications and Discussion, Cont’d
Cont d
San Francisco, CA
46
What Questions Are There?
4. Study
y bonus: Additional evidence of the strong
g
correlation between CBM/DIBELS type measures and
lengthier paper pencil measures of reading skills and
comprehension in this case the GRADE
comprehension,
– More Info: Technical Manual, NASP poster
– Personal Note: giving the GRADE in K was quite an
experience!
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
47
February 25, 2011
San Francisco, CA
48