Response to intervention (RTI) holds great promise for the early identification and prevention of reading disabilities. The success of RTI rests in part on the accuracy of universal screening tools used within this framework. Despite advancements, screening instruments designed to identify children at risk for reading disabilities continue to have limited predictive validity. In this study, the authors examined a common screening instrument for the presence of floor effects and investigated the impact that these effects have on the predictive validity of the instrument. Longitudinal data (kindergarten to third grade) from a large cohort of children were used. These data included children's performance on five measures from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and two reading achievement outcome measures. The results showed that DIBELS measures were characterized by floor effects in their initial administrations and that these effects reduced the predictive validity of the measures. The implications of these findings for early identification are discussed.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
2.
Barron, R.W. (1991). Proto-literacy, literacy, and the acquisition of phonological awareness. Learning and Individual Differences , 3, 243-255.
3.
Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Technical Report 1). Tallahassee: Florida Center for Reading Research.
4.
Burgess, S.R., Hecht, S.A., & Lonigan, C.J. (2002). Relations of the home literacy environment (HLE) to the development of reading-related abilities: A one-year longitudinal study . Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 408-426.
5.
Bus, A.G., van Ijzendoorn, M.H., & Pelligrini, A. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1-21.
6.
Carran, D.T., & Scott, K.G. (1992). Risk assessment in preschool children: Research implications for the early detection of educational handicaps. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 196-211.
7.
Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2004). Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition, 91, 77-111.
8.
Castles, A., Holmes, V.M., Neath, J., & Kinoshita, S. (2003). How does orthographic knowledge influence performance on phonological awareness tasks? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 445-467.
9.
Catts, H., Fey, M., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331-361.
10.
Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implementation . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38-50.
11.
Cavanaugh, C.L., Kim, A., Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Kindergarten reading interventions for at-risk students: Twenty years of research. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 9-21.
12.
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Bryant, J.D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures . Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394-409.
13.
Denton, C.A., & Mathes, P.G. (2003). Intervention for struggling readers: Possibilities and challenges. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.)., Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 229-251). Timonium, MD: York.
14.
Fletcher, J.M., Coulter, W.A., Reschly, D.J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304-331.
15.
Foorman, B.F., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
16.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Bouton, B., Caffrey, E., & Hill, L. (2007). Dynamic assessment as responsiveness to intervention: A scripted protocol to identify young at-risk readers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 58-63.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D.L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unified construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly , 25, 33-46.
18.
Glover, T.A., & Albers, C.A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117-135.
19.
Good, R.H., Cummings, K.D., & Powell-Smith, K.A. (2008, February). ROC done right? Part 3 DIBELS benchmark goals. Paper presented at the annual Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
20.
Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (2003). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.
21.
Good, R.H., Kaminski, R., Shinn, M., Bratten, J., Shinn, M., Laimon, L., et al. (2004). Technical adequacy and decision making utility of DIBELS (Technical Report No. 7). Eugene: University of Oregon.
22.
Good, R.H., Kaminski, R., Smith, M.R., & Bratten, J. (2001). Technical adequacy and second grade DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) passages (Technical Report No. 8). Eugene: University of Oregon .
23.
Gough, P.B., & Hillinger, M.L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179-196.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2003). Stanford Achievement Test (10th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
26.
Hintze, J.M., Ryan, A.L., & Stoner, G. (2003). Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. School Psychology Review , 32, 541-556.
27.
Hintze, J.M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372-386.
28.
Hogan, T.P., Catts, H.W., & Little, T.D. (2005). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading: Implications for the assessment of phonological awareness. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 36, 285-293.
29.
Jansky, J.J. (1978). A critical review of "some developments and predictive precursors" of reading disabilities. In A. L. Benton & D. Pearl (Eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge (pp. 377-394). New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
Jenkins, J.R. (2003, November). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the Conference on Response to Treatment as Learning Disabilities Identification, Kansas City, MO.
31.
Jenkins, J.R., Hudson, R.F., & Johnson, E.S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response-to-intervention (RTI) framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582-600.
32.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H., III. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215-227.
33.
Kingslake, B. (1983). The predictive (in)accuracy of on-entry to school screening procedures when used to anticipate learning difficulties. Special Education: Forward Trends, 10, 23-26.
34.
Kloo, A.M. (2006). The decision-making utility and predictive power of DIBELS for students' reading achievement in Pennsylvania's Reading First schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
35.
Koenker, R. (2005). Quantile regression. New York : Cambridge University Press.
36.
Lundberg, I., & Hoien, T. (1991). Initial enabling knowledge and skills in reading acquisition: Print awareness and phonological segmentation. In D. J. Sawyer & B. J. Fox (Eds.), Phonological awareness in reading: The evolution of current perspectives (pp. 74-95). New York: Springer-Verlag.
37.
Mann, V., & Wimmer, H. (2002). Phoneme awareness and pathways to literacy: A comparison of German andAmerican children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 653-682.
38.
Meehl, P.E., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin , 3, 195-216.
39.
Metz, C.E. (1978). Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 8, 283-298.
40.
Morais, J. (1991). Phonological awareness: A bridge between language and literacy. In D. J. Sawyer & B. J. Fox (Eds.), Phonological awareness in reading: The evolution of current perspectives (pp. 31-71). New York: Springer-Verlag.
41.
O'Connor, R.E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K., & Bell, K. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and child outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440-455.
42.
O'Connor, R.E., & Jenkins, J.R. (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159-197.
43.
Robertson, C., & Salter, W. (1997). The Phonological Awareness Test. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.
44.
Roehrig, A.D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S.M., Hudson, R., & Torgesen, J.K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343-366.
45.
Schatschneider, C., Petscher, Y., & Williams, K.M. (2008). How to evaluate a screening process: The vocabulary of screening and what educators need to know. In L. Justice & C. Vukelic (Eds.), Achieving excellence in preschool language and literacy instruction (pp. 304-316). New York: Guilford.
46.
Schatschneider, C., Wagner, R.K., & Crawford, E. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 310-315.
47.
Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304-325.
48.
Simmons, D.C., Coyne, M.D., Kwok, O., McDonagh, S., Harn, B., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158-173.
49.
Speece, D.L. (2005). Hitting the moving target known as reading development: Some thoughts on screening children for secondary interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 487-493.
Torgesen, J. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7-26.
52.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency . Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
53.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579-593.
54.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General. (2007, February). The department's administration of selected aspects of the Reading First program: Final audit report (ED-OIG/ A03G0006) . Available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a03g0006.pdf
55.
Vander Meer, C.D., Lentz, F.E., & Stollar, S. (2005). The relationship between oral reading fluency and Ohio proficiency testing in reading (Technical report). Eugene: University of Oregon.
56.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to intervention: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137-146.
57.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D.P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157-169.
58.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1 . New York: Plenum.
59.
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.
60.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
61.
Wilson, J. (2005). The relationship of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency to performance on Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) (Technical report). Eugene: University of Oregon.
62.
Wood, F.B., Hill, D.F., Meyer, M.S., & Flowers, D.L. (2005). Predictive assessment of reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 193-216.
