DIBELS
A Look at Reliability and Validity
Michelle Bakerson, M.A.
and June Gothberg
Western Michigan University
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Dynamic
Indicators of
Basic
Early
Literacy
Skills
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Background Information

DIBELS came into being through 15 years of research from the
University of Oregon.
Report of the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) and the
National Research Council (1998) highlighted the importance of
instruction and assessment in five domains of reading and
related skills*
-Phonemic awareness
-Phonics
-Fluency
-Vocabulary
-Comprehension
*these are used as requirements for the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLBA).

© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Reading Trajectories

Reading trajectories are established early.
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Readers stay on their trajectory

Readers on a low
trajectory tend to
stay on that
trajectory.
 Students on a low
trajectory tend to fall
further and further
behind.
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
This is why DIBELS is needed

The later children
are identified as
needing support,
the more difficult
it is to catch up!
 It measures earlier
than first grade
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Background Information
The DIBELS was developed by Dr. Roland Good III and
Dr. Ruth Kaminski. It measures the five critical areas of
literacy indicated by the National Reading Panel (2000)
and the National Research Council (1998).
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Adapted from Sopris West 2005
Purposes of DIBELS

Screening-to locate the at-risk children, to
track children’s progress

Progress Monitoring-to evaluate the results of
carefully planned and delivered intervention
at frequent intervals

Information obtained used to plan instruction
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Subtests and What they Measure

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
– Child’s skill in breaking words into individual phonemes
– Administration – 1 minute

Initial Sounds Fluency
– Emerging phonological awareness
– Administration - Approximately 3 minutes

Nonsense Word Fluency
– Sound-symbol knowledge by measuring phonic decoding
skills
– Timed task - 1 minute
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Subtests, cont.

Word Use Fluency
– Vocabulary assessment
– Newest test

Oral Reading Fluency
– Oral passage reading rate and accuracy is measured
– Timed task – 1 minute

Letter Naming Fluency
– Speed of letter naming
– Timed task - 1 minute

Oral Reading Retelling Fluency
– Fluency in retelling main ideas
– One minute task
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Subtest Benchmarks
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Adapted from Sopris West 2005
Advantages of the DIBELS




Efficient and economical
Simple to score
Scoring results are immediate
Utility for Screening,
Progress monitoring and
Diagnostic Tool
 Effects intervention
 Technically adequate
 Adequate reliability
– Sensitive to growth and
change over time on
normative groups
– Replicable

Predictive validity established
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
PDA edition from wirelessgeneration.com
Disadvantages of the DIBELS

Normative Data
– Not representative
of the population

No utility for
Outcome purposes
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Reliability and Validity

Validity and Reliability with standard
tests
– Three sub-tests
• Letter Naming Fluency
• Initial Sound Fluency
• Phonemic Segmentation Fluency
CTOPP
 Reliability – Alternative Form
 Validity – Criterion Related

© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)

Median of three alternate form probes:

Alternative-form reliability - .93
Concurrent Validity with the Woodcock-Johnson
Psycho-Educational Battery (WJPEB) readiness
score - .70 in kindergarten
Predictive validity of LNF in spring of
kindergarten with (WJPEB) in spring of first
grade is .65 Kindergarten, .71 with first grade oral
reading fluency (ORF) using Curriculum Based
Measurement (CBM).


© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Initial Sound Fluency (ISF)
There are 20 alternate forms
 Alternate reliability is .72
 Concurrent validity of ISF with the
readiness cluster score of the
WJPEB is .36, and correlation was
the same one year later.
 Predictive validity of ISF with CBM
ORF in spring of first grade is .45

© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)





There are 20 alternate forms
Alternate form reliability is .88 for kindergarten
Concurrent, criterion-related validity with the
readiness cluster of the WJPEB was .54 in the
spring of kindergarten
Concurrent validity estimates range from .43 to
.65 on other standard measures.
Predictive validity of spring kindergarten with
spring first grade WJPWB is .68 and with ORF is
.62
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
The Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Processing (CTOPP)
Standardized measure of early
literacy
 Norm-referenced test
 Has reliability and validity to
accurately measure phonological
processing

© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
COTPP

Coefficient alphas for sub-tests
– .74 to .93 (5 and 6 year olds)

Composite scores internal reliability coefficients
(age 5)
– .95, .84, and .87
– Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory and
Rapid Naming respectively

Age 6
– .96, .81, and .89

Test-retest reliability
– .74 to .97 for sub-tests
– .79, .92 and .70 for composites

Moderate to strong correlations between DIBELS
and COTPP
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Intercorrelations for Scores on the
DIBELS and CTOPP
Measure
ELI
LNF
RCN
BCW
SM
.45 .59
.38
ISF
.52 .21
PSF
.47 .08
RON
MD
NRW
PACom
PMCom
RNCom
.53 .59
.43
.44
.53
.52
.58
.51
.51 .24
.34
.44
.60
.46
.20
.63
.25 .14
.32
.33
.53
.39
.09
Note: LNF=letter naming fluency, ISF=initial sound fluency, and PSF=phoneme segmentation
fluency; ELI=Elision, RCN=rapid color naming, BLW=blending words, SM=sound matching,
RON=rapid object naming, MD=memory for digits, NWR=nonsense words repetition,
PACom=phonological awareness composite, PMCom=phonological memory composite, and
RNCom=rapid naming composite.
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Reliability of DIBELS
Measure
Alternate Form
Reliability
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
1 probe: .88
3 probes: .96
Initial Sound Fluency
1 probe: .92
3 probes: .98
Nonsense Word Fluency
1 probe: .65
5 probes: .90
Word Use Fluency
1 probe: .90
Oral Reading Fluency
.68 - .72
Letter Naming Fluency
Adapted from Whalen, A. 2006
1 probe: .93
3 probes: .98
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Validity of DIBELS
Measure
Criterion-Related
Validity
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
.73 - .91
Initial Sound Fluency
.84
Nonsense Word Fluency
.42 - .71
Word Use Fluency
.70-.80
Oral Reading Fluency
.73-.81
Letter Naming Fluency
.72 - .98
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Adapted from Whalen, A. 2006
Conclusion



“Ideally, an assessment system must be designed
to measure the skills that research has found to
be representative of phonological awareness,
predictive of early reading success, and aligned
with effective beginning reading instruction”
(Hintze, Ryan, & Stoner).
DIBELS measures the construct of early literacy
and is an instrument with moderate validity and
reliability.
DIBELS is useful for districts, schools and classwide screening purposes to identify early
intervention for individual students.
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Bibliographic Sources
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and
developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.
Blachman, B. A. (1991). Phonological awareness: Implications for pre-reading and early reading instruction. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler
(Ed.), Phonological processes in literacy (pp. 29-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read – A causal connection, Nature, 30,, 419-421.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of
Educational Review, 81, 313-321.
Diamond Canyon Schools (2005). DIBELS, Labels, AIMS, Terra Nova, what does it all mean? Retrieved March 22, 2006 from
http://diamondcanyon.dvusd.org/Parent_Nights/parent_night_dibels_nov1.ppt#268,11,Slide 11.
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (2006). Retrieved March 22, 2006 from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/
Eck, J. (2002). Assessment overview: Foundations of DIBELS. Colorado Reading First.
Ehri, L. C. (1987). Learning to read and spell words. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 5-31.
Francis, D.J., Santi, K.L., & Barr, C. (2005). Form effects on the estimation of students’ progress in oral reading fluency using CBM. CRESST.
Retrieved March 24, 2006 from http://www.tlc2.uh.edu/times/Presentations/2005/CRESST2005.pdf.
Good, R. H. & Kaminski, R. A. (2005). DIBELS: A reliable and valid reading assessment grades K-6 overview [Electronic version]. Sopris West.
Retrieved March 24, 2006 from http://www.dibelsassessment.com/Z188PO_8-04.pdf.
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
More Bibliographic Sources
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., ReMillard, A., Ebmeyer, C., & VanLoo, D. (2001). Using DIBELS in an outcomes driven model. Early
Childhood Research Institute. University of Oregon, College of Education. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from
http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ibr/ibr_present/2002/ch3_2.pdf.
Hintze, J.M., Ryan, A.L., & Stoner, G. Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the DIBELS/CTOPP 23 scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development.
National Research Council (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R. 1, 107th Cong. (2001).
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & DIBELS/CTOPP 24 Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive
profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for
distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 601-638.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED,Inc.
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.
Whalen, A. (2006). Universal screening and progress monitoring. Oregon Department of Education. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/initiatives/idea/monitoringpresent.pdf.
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg
Thank you for your time.
© 2006 Bakerson and Gothberg