Monitoring early reading development in first grade: word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency.
Curriculum-based measurement Curriculum-based measurement, or CBM, is an assessment method used in schools to monitor student progress by directly assessing basic academic skills in reading, spelling, writing, and mathematics. (CBM CBM Commodore Business Machines
CBM Coalbed Methane
CBM Christoffel Blindenmission
CBM Condition Based Maintenance
CBM Confidence-Building Measures
CBM Curriculum Based Measurement (education)
CBM Cubic Meter ) provides teachers with reliable, valid, and efficient indicators of academic competence with which to gauge individual student standing at one point in time or to index student progress across time (Deno, 1985). CBM is the most widely studied form of classroom assessment, with more than 150 studies in peer-reviewed journals establishing its psychometric psy·cho·met·rics
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The branch of psychology that deals with the design, administration, and interpretation of quantitative tests for the measurement of psychological variables such as intelligence, aptitude, and tenability ten·a·ble
1. Capable of being maintained in argument; rationally defensible: a tenable theory.
2. and its instructional utility. Given the strength of the existing literature, CBM is becoming a signature feature associated with effective special education (McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997; President's Commission, 2002).
At the same time, in reading, most CBM research has focused on the passage reading fluency flu·ent
a. Able to express oneself readily and effortlessly: a fluent speaker; fluent in three languages.
b. task, which becomes appropriate for most students sometime during the second semester se·mes·ter
One of two divisions of 15 to 18 weeks each of an academic year.
[German, from Latin (cursus) s of first grade. Additional research is needed to examine the tenability of reading tasks that address an earlier phase of reading, developmentally appropriate for most children during the first half or (depending on the child) much of first grade. This study compared two CBM measures for this beginning phase of first-grade reading development. In this introduction, we provide background information on CBM, review the literature on the two measures on which we focus the present study, and clarify the purpose and importance of the present study.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON CBM
CBM differs from most forms of classroom assessment in several ways (Fuchs & Deno, 1991) including these two features: First, CBM is standardized so that the behaviors to be measured and the procedures for measuring those behaviors are prescribed pre·scribe
v. pre·scribed, pre·scrib·ing, pre·scribes
1. To set down as a rule or guide; enjoin. See Synonyms at dictate.
2. To order the use of (a medicine or other treatment). , with documented reliability and validity. Second, CBM's focus is long-term so that the testing methods and the testing content remain constant, with equivalent weekly tests spanning much, if not all, of the school year. The reason for long-term consistency is so that progress can be monitored systematically over time.
In using the CBM passage reading fluency task, the teacher relies on established methods to identify passages of equivalent difficulty; each equivalent passage represents the material students should be comfortable reading at year's end. The teacher administers CBM by having the student read aloud a different passage for each assessment, each time for 1 min, and the weekly score is the number of words read correctly. Each assessment produces an indicator of reading competence because it requires a multifaceted performance. This performance entails, for example, a reader's skill at automatically translating letters into coherent sound representations, unitizing those sound components into recognizable wholes and automatically accessing lexical representations, processing meaningful connections within and between sentences, relating text meaning to prior information, and making inferences to supply missing information. As competent readers translate text into spoken language, they coordinate these skills in an obligatory, seemingly seem·ing
Outward appearance; semblance.
seeming·ly adv. effortless ef·fort·less
Calling for, requiring, or showing little or no effort. See Synonyms at easy.
effort·less·ly adv. manner (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001).
Because the CBM passage reading fluency task reflects this complex performance, it can be used to characterize reading expertise and to track its development in the primary grades (e.g., Biemiller, 1977-1978; Fuchs & Deno, 1991). To characterize reading expertise, CBM is interpreted in a norm-referenced or criterion-referenced framework. Within a normative nor·ma·tive
Of, relating to, or prescribing a norm or standard: normative grammar.
nor framework, practitioners designate des·ig·nate
tr.v. des·ig·nat·ed, des·ig·nat·ing, des·ig·nates
1. To indicate or specify; point out.
2. To give a name or title to; characterize.
3. reading difficulty by comparing CBM performance levels between individuals. For example, with local CBM norms, students performing below the third percentile are identified as reading disabled and entitled en·ti·tle
tr.v. en·ti·tled, en·ti·tling, en·ti·tles
1. To give a name or title to.
2. To furnish with a right or claim to something: to intensive reading instruction. Within a criterion-referenced perspective, CBM benchmarks specify the minimum performance levels associated with future reading success. For example, schools might establish that students who fail to attain a CBM score of 75 by the end of second grade have a poor probability of achieving a "proficient pro·fi·cient
Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
An expert; an adept. " score on their state's high-stakes fourth-grade reading assessment; therefore, students scoring below this benchmark at the end of second grade are candidates for intensive reading instruction.
Across these normative- and criterion-referenced perspectives, CBM is administered in a single timeframe to identify students who require special attention. By contrast, the major purpose for CBM is to monitor the development of academic competence. Progress monitoring requires an intra-individual framework, where CBM is collected frequently (weekly or monthly); student scores are graphed; a slope is derived from the graphed scores to quantify Quantify - A performance analysis tool from Pure Software. reading improvement; and the teacher applies decision rules to the slope to formulate formulate /for·mu·late/ (for´mu-lat)
1. to state in the form of a formula.
2. to prepare in accordance with a prescribed or specified method. instructional decisions.
These strategies for characterizing reading competence in one timeframe and for describing growth over time using CBM have been shown to be more sensitive to inter- and intra-individual differences than those offered by other commercial tests and by other classroom reading assessments (e.g., Marston, Fuchs, & Deno, 1986). In addition, CBM is sensitive to growth made under a variety of treatments (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1989b; Hintze & Shapiro, 1997; Hintze, Shapiro, & Lutz, 1994; Marston et al., 1986). In a related way, special educators' instructional plans, developed in response to CBM, incorporate a wide range of reading methods including, for example, decoding de·code
tr.v. de·cod·ed, de·cod·ing, de·codes
1. To convert from code into plain text.
2. To convert from a scrambled electronic signal into an interpretable one.
3. instruction, repeated readings, vocabulary instruction, story grammar exercises, and semantic mapping activities (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Ferguson, 1992). So, CBM is not tied to any particular reading instructional method.
Perhaps most important, however, studies indicate that CBM progress monitoring enhances special educators' capacity to plan programs for and effect achievement among students with serious reading problems. The methods by which CBM informs reading instruction rely on the graphed performance indicator. Decisions are based on a graph displaying time on the horizontal axis and performance (number of words read correctly from text in 1 min) on the vertical axis. If a student's growth trajectory Trajectory
The curve described by a body moving through space, as of a meteor through the atmosphere, a planet around the Sun, a projectile fired from a gun, or a rocket in flight. is judged to be adequate, the teacher increases the student's goal for year-end performance; if not, the teacher revises the instructional program. Research shows that these decision rules produce more varied instructional programs, which are more responsive to individual needs (Fuchs et al., 1989b), with more ambitious student goals (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1989a) and stronger end-of-year scores on commercial reading tests (e.g., Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; Wesson, 1991).
In reading, the vast majority of CBM research centers on this passage reading fluency task. When considering the developmental span within the elementary school elementary school: see school. years, however, the CBM passage reading fluency task is incomplete. The focus of the present study is the early phase of first grade, when the CBM passage reading fluency task produces a floor effect for many students. These students may make progress toward becoming a reader even though performance on the CBM passage reading fluency task, which hovers around zero, indicates a lack of growth. For this reason, alternative tasks, which are sensitive to beginning first-grade reading development, are required.
RESEARCH ON CBM MEASURES FOR BEGINNING FIRST-GRADE READING DEVELOPMENT
Prior work provides the basis for supposing that two measures may be potentially useful for indexing and monitoring beginning first-grade reading development: word identification fluency and nonsense word fluency. Word identification fluency is one of the CBM measures investigated by Deno and colleagues (Deno, Mirkin, & Chiang, 1982) at the University of Minnesota (body, education) University of Minnesota - The home of Gopher.
Address: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. With word identification fluency, students have 1 min to read isolated words, presented in lists; the words are selected randomly from high frequency word lists. The score, the number of words read correctly, represents automatic word recognition skill, a hallmark of competent reading behavior. Deno et al. examined the concurrent validity concurrent validity,
n the degree to which results from one test agree with results from other, different tests. of word identification fluency with 66 children in Grades 1 to 6. The criterion measures were the reading comprehension comprehension
Act of or capacity for grasping with the intellect. The term is most often used in connection with tests of reading skills and language abilities, though other abilities (e.g., mathematical reasoning) may also be examined. subtest of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test and the phonetic pho·net·ic
1. Of or relating to phonetics.
2. Representing the sounds of speech with a set of distinct symbols, each designating a single sound. analysis and the inferential in·fer·en·tial
1. Of, relating to, or involving inference.
2. Derived or capable of being derived by inference.
in and literal In programming, any data typed in by the programmer that remains unchanged when translated into machine language. Examples are a constant value used for calculation purposes as well as text messages displayed on screen. In the following lines of code, the literals are 1 and VALUE IS ONE. reading comprehension subtests of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. When students read third-grade word lists, correlations with these four respective measures were .76, .68, .71, and .75; when they read sixth-grade word lists, respective correlations were .78, .71, .68, and .74.
Nonsense word fluency is the first-grade Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills, or DIBELS DIBELS Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills , measure developed more recently by Roland Good, Ruth Kaminski, and colleagues at the University of Oregon The University of Oregon is a public university located in Eugene, Oregon. The university was founded in 1876, graduating its first class two years later. The University of Oregon is one of 60 members of the Association of American Universities. (Good, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 2001). With nonsense word fluency, students have 1 min to read consonant-vowel-consonant pseudowords. The score is the number of sounds produced correctly, with credit earned either by saying individual sounds in the pseudowords or by phonologically recoding Noun 1. recoding - converting from one code to another
coding, steganography, cryptography, secret writing - act of writing in code or cipher the pseudo-words (with three sounds awarded for each correctly read pseudoword). The score indexes "letter-sound correspondence and the ability to blend letters into words in which letters represent their most common sounds" (pp. 272-273). As Good et al. showed with samples of 70 to 242 children, concurrent validity with the Woodcock-Johnson readiness cluster score (i.e., visual auditory learning Auditory learning is a style of learning in which a person learns most effectively by listening to information delivered orally, in lectures, speeches, and oral sessions. Auditory learners make up about 25% of the population. and letter identification) ranged between .35 in May to .59 in February (median coefficient coefficient /co·ef·fi·cient/ (ko?ah-fish´int)
1. an expression of the change or effect produced by variation in certain factors, or of the ratio between two different quantities.
2. = .52). The predictive validity In psychometrics, predictive validity is the extent to which a scale predicts scores on some criterion measure.
For example, the validity of a cognitive test for job performance is the correlation between test scores and, for example, supervisor performance ratings. coefficients from October of first grade to May of first grade were .71 with respect to CBM passage reading fluency and .52 with respect to the Woodcock-Johnson reading cluster score.
PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE PRESENT STUDY
Traditional concurrent and predictive validity, as demonstrated by the Deno et al. (1982) and Good et al. (2001) research groups, are important. By documenting correspondence between the CBM task and important criterion variables, criterion validity The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.
Please help [ improve the introduction] to meet Wikipedia's layout standards. You can discuss the issue on the talk page. verifies that a test measures relevant behaviors and helps establish that the measure can be used to identify students with serious reading problems. Yet, Deno et al.'s findings were restricted to concurrent validity and did not focus on first graders reading first-grade word lists, and the Good et al. concurrent validity coefficients' criterion measures did not involve reading. Moreover, although concurrent and predictive validity are necessary features of an adequate progress-monitoring task, they do not constitute sufficient evidence that a measure works well for the purpose of monitoring progress over time. Some measures may function well as correlates or predictors of important criterion outcomes (when those measures are collected at one point in time), but fail to represent reading improvement when administered frequently for progress monitoring.
At the same time, technical features of these early reading measures (word identification fluency and nonsense word fluency) have never been contrasted with the same sample using the same procedures. Therefore, direct comparisons of these two alternative CBM measures are not possible. In contrast, the CBM literature, by convention, offers direct comparisons of the tenability of alternative progress-monitoring tasks (e.g., Deno et al., 1982; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992) so that progress-monitoring measures may be compared and optimal measures identified. This is important because no absolute criterion exists for judging adequate criterion validity. Instead, "our basis for evaluating any one predictor is in relation to other possible predictors" (Thorndike & Hagen, 1969, p. 169). So, direct comparison between word identification fluency and nonsense word fluency is required.
We designed the present study to fill these gaps in the CBM literature on early progress monitoring in the area of reading. Toward that end, we contrasted the concurrent and predictive validity for the two alternative CBM early reading measures: word identification fluency and nonsense word fluency. For predictive validity, we investigated both CBM performance level and CBM slope of improvement. Whereas the predictive validity of performance level (in one timeframe) is relevant for judging the validity of a measure for screening, the predictive validity of slope (improvement over time) is necessary for evaluating the validity of a measure for progress monitoring.
We assessed a relatively large cohort cohort /co·hort/ (ko´hort)
1. in epidemiology, a group of individuals sharing a common characteristic and observed over time in the group.
2. (n = 151) of at-risk children (the target group for progress monitoring) in the fall of first grade on the two early reading CBM measures and then again in the spring; at each time point, we administered criterion measures that directly involved reading (the Woodcock woodcock: see snipe.
Any of five species (family Scolopacidae) of plump, sharp-billed migratory birds of damp, dense woodlands in North America, Europe, and Asia. Reading Mastery Tests Word Identification and Word Attack subtests at both time points; the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery, which assesses passage reading fluency and comprehension, added in the spring). In addition, we assessed each of the 151 children for 20 weeks, once weekly for the first 7 weeks and twice weekly for the final 13 weeks, on the two alternative early reading CBM measures.
Findings are potentially important in helping school personnel identify useful measures for monitoring the progress of children as they enter and progress through first grade. As schools struggle with No Child Left Behind's requirement to monitor the reading progress of children in kindergarten kindergarten [Ger.,=garden of children], system of preschool education. Friedrich Froebel designed (1837) the kindergarten to provide an educational situation less formal than that of the elementary school but one in which children's creative play instincts would be through third grade, this topic takes on a sense of urgency. AS special educators strive to infuse in·fuse
1. To steep or soak without boiling in order to extract soluble elements or active principles.
2. To introduce a solution into the body through a vein for therapeutic purposes. greater accountability to the individualized education program In the United States an Individualized Education Program, commonly referred to as an IEP, is mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In Canada an equivalent document is called an Individual Education Plan. (IEP IEP
In currencies, this is the abbreviation for the Irish Punt.
The currency market, also known as the Foreign Exchange market, is the largest financial market in the world, with a daily average volume of over US $1 trillion. ) progress-monitoring mandate, findings are equally useful for special educators. Across general and special education, CBM users need to have confidence that the measures they use to identify students for expensive, intensive services, in fact, yield the students most at risk for poor reading outcomes. Practitioners also need to be assured that when students' CBM scores are increasing over time, those CBM slopes are associated with improved scores on high-stakes tests and other important outcomes that bespeak be·speak
tr.v. be·spoke , be·spo·ken or be·spoke, be·speak·ing, be·speaks
1. To be or give a sign of; indicate. See Synonyms at indicate.
a. To engage, hire, or order in advance. adequate end-of-first grade reading.
The sample for the present set of analyses was derived from an intervention study examining the effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) in first grade (McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, in press). For that study, eight schools were identified in a large, Southeastern, metropolitan public school system; in each school, at least three first-grade teachers volunteered to participate. Half the schools were high poverty (i.e., Title I), and half were designated as non-Title I. In these schools, we identified 33 teachers for participation and, blocking within school, randomly assigned teachers to control (one third of the teachers) or PALS (two thirds of the teachers). Children in the control classrooms were not included in the present database because we did not monitor their performance with either CBM measure; therefore, control students had no data to contribute to the analyses described in this article.
In PALS classrooms, we screened all children on whom we had parental consent using rapid letter naming (number of letters named in 1 min in response to 26 randomly displayed, lower-case letters). Using these scores, we designated the lowest 7 children per class (i.e., 154 children in all) as at risk for reading difficulties. We assessed these students in the spring and fall using the two CBM measures as well as a set of criterion reading measures. We also monitored these at-risk children for 20 weeks, once weekly for the first 7 weeks and twice weekly for the final 13 weeks, with the two CBM measures. The 151 children on whom we had complete data constituted the sample for the present analyses.
On average, the age of these children in October of first grade was 6.72 years (SD = 0.46). Of these 151 children, 74 were in Title I schools and 77 were in non-Title I schools; 89 received subsidized sub·si·dize
tr.v. sub·si·dized, sub·si·diz·ing, sub·si·diz·es
1. To assist or support with a subsidy.
2. To secure the assistance of by granting a subsidy. lunch; 79 were male; 26 were English language English language, member of the West Germanic group of the Germanic subfamily of the Indo-European family of languages (see Germanic languages). Spoken by about 470 million people throughout the world, English is the official language of about 45 nations. learners; 11 had IEPs (6 had speech/language disability, and 5 had a learning disability); 17 had been retained (7 in kindergarten and 10 in first grade); and 58 were African American African American Multiculture A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. See Race. , 53 were European American, 36 were Hispanic, and 4 were Asian. During the fourth 6-week marking period, 63 children had perfect attendance, 27 had 1 absence, 28 had 2 absences, 11 had 3 absences, 8 had 4 absences, 6 had 5 absences, 3 had 6 absences, 1 each had 7, 8, and 11 absences, and 2 had 13 absences.
Word Attack Subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised, Form G (Woodcock, 1987). This measure evaluates students' ability to pronounce pro·nounce
v. pro·nounced, pro·nounc·ing, pro·nounc·es
a. To use the organs of speech to make heard (a word or speech sound); utter.
b. pseudowords. It contains 45 nonsense words, ordered from most easy to most difficult. The test is discontinued dis·con·tin·ue
v. dis·con·tin·ued, dis·con·tin·u·ing, dis·con·tin·ues
1. To stop doing or providing (something); end or abandon: after six consecutive errors. Students earn 1 point for each correctly pronounced pseudoword. Scores range from 0 to 45. Split-half and test-retest reliabilities are .95 and .90, respectively, for first grade. Concurrent validity with respect to the Woodcock Johnson at first grade was .57 with Letter-Word Identification, .64 with Word Attack, .43 with Passage Comprehension, and .69 with Total Reading.
Word Identification Subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised, Form G (Woodcock, 1987). The Word Identification subtest requires children to read single words. It consists of 100 words ordered in difficulty. Testing is discontinued after six consecutive errors. Students earn 1 point for each correctly pronounced word. Scores range from 0 to 100. Split-half and test-retest reliabilities are .99 and .94, respectively, for first grade. Concurrent validity with respect to the Woodcock Johnson at first grade was .69 with Letter-Word Identification, .48 with Word Attack, .75 with Passage Comprehension, and .82 with Total Reading.
Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB crab, crustacean with an enlarged cephalothorax covered by a broad, flat shell called the carapace. Extending from the cephalothorax are the various appendages: five pairs of legs, the first pair bearing claws (or pincers), are attached at the sides; two eyes on ). The CRAB (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1989c) employs 400-word traditional folktales used in previous studies of reading comprehension (e.g., Brown & Smiley See emoticon.
smiley - emoticon , 1977; Jenkins, Heliotis, Haynes, & Beck, 1986). The folktales had been rewritten by Jenkins et al. to approximate a second- to-third-grade readability level (Fry, 1968), while preserving the gist of the stories. We rewrote them at a readability grade level of 1.5. Students first read aloud one folktale folktale, general term for any of numerous varieties of traditional narrative. The telling of stories appears to be a cultural universal, common to primitive and complex societies alike. for 3 min and then answer 10 comprehension questions. This is repeated on a second folktale. The questions, developed by Jenkins et al., require short answers, reflecting recall of information contained in idea units of high thematic the·mat·ic
1. Of, relating to, or being a theme: a scene of thematic importance.
2. importance. To generate the fluency score, examiners mark insertions, omissions, mispronunciations, hesitations of more than 4 s, and substitutions as errors (self-corrections are not considered errors). The score is the average number of correct words-read-across the two passages. In this study, we divided the score by 3 min to produce a words-read-correctly per-minute metric. Test-retest reliability ranges from .93 to .96; concurrent validity with the reading comprehension subtest of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) was .91 (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxwell, 1988). To generate the comprehension score, the tester records student answers to the comprehension questions. When the student makes five consecutively incorrect responses, questioning is terminated. The score is the average number of questions answered correctly across the two passages. For the number of questions answered correctly score, test-retest reliability was .92; the correlation with the SAT was .82 (Fuchs et al., 1988). On the present sample, correlations for the CRAB fluency score were .81 with Woodcock Word Identification and .58 with Woodcock Word Attack; for the CRAB comprehension score, .71 with Woodcock Word Identification and .59 with Woodcock Word Attack.
Word Identification Fluency. With word identification fluency, the child is presented with a single page of 50 high-frequency words. Alternate forms were generated by randomly sampling words, with replacement, from 100 high frequency words from the Dolch preprimer, primer prim·er
A segment of DNA or RNA that is complementary to a given DNA sequence and that is needed to initiate replication by DNA polymerase. , and first-grade-level lists. The student has 1 min to read words. If a student hesitated on an item for 4 seconds, the examiner prompted him/her to proceed to the next word. The alternate testform/stability coefficient from 2 consecutive weeks was .97; from 2 consecutive months, .91 (Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2004). As calculated on the current sample, alternate testform/stability from 2 consecutive weeks was .88.
Nonsense Word Fluency. With nonsense word fluency, the child is presented with a single page of 50 consonant-vowel-consonant or vowel-consonant pseudowords. Alternate forms were printed from the DIBELS Web site (http://dibels.uoregon.edu). The student has 1 min to say the sounds constituting the pseudowords or to read the pseudowords. If a student lingered on an item for 4 s, the examiner prompted him/her to proceed to the next item. The score is the number of correctly spoken sounds (with three sounds awarded for a correctly read pseudoword). The median alternate test-form/stability coefficient at 2-month intervals was .83 (Good et al., 2001). As calculated on the current sample, alternate testform/stability from 2 consecutive weeks was .87.
Data collectors were full-time master's students, full-time doctoral students, or full-time employees with master's degrees, all of whom had been trained to 100% accuracy in data-collection procedures prior to any data collection. They administered tests in quiet locations in the schools, working with one child at a time. Interscorer agreement, calculated on 20% of protocols by two independent scorers, ranged between 98% and 100%. The fall battery of criterion measures (Woodcock Word Identification and Word Attack) was administered in October. The spring battery of criterion measures (Woodcock Word Identification and Word Attack plus Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery) was administered in May. Progress-monitoring measures were administered for 20 weeks, once weekly for the first 7 weeks and twice weekly for the final 13 weeks, with word identification fluency and nonsense word fluency administered in the same session and with make-ups completed within 1 week of the targeted data-collection date.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
To obtain a level of performance on each progress-monitoring measure, two measurements were averaged for the fall (first two measurements) and for the spring (last two measurements). To obtain a slope of improvement on each progress-monitoring measure, an ordinary least-squares regression was calculated between calendar days and scores. That slope was converted to a weekly slope (by multiplying the derived slope by 7 days) to represent the weekly increase in score. Slopes were derived for fall (October through December), spring (January through May), and the year (October through May).
Means and standard deviations for these scores and for the criterion variables are shown in Table 1. Mean raw scores on the Woodcock measures correspond to near-average standard scores. This is surprising given that this at-risk sample represented the lowest third of the classrooms in an urban setting. An inflated normative profile at first grade on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests has, however, been documented elsewhere (e.g., Fuchs, et al., 2004; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2003), and evidence that this sample was, in fact, at risk is provided in other ways. That is, relative to a normative profile of 179 children representing the full range of first-grade performance (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2004), the fall CBM word identification fluency score in the present study is .85 standard deviations below the mean and the spring CBM word identification fluency score in the present study is 1.24 standard deviations below the mean. Moreover, the end-of-year CRAB fluency score is considerably below a benchmark performance of 40, even though these children participated in the research-validated PALS reading treatment.
We next ran a series of correlations between word identification fluency and the criterion variables and between nonsense word fluency and the criterion variables. Each pair of correlations (word identification fluency vs. nonsense word fluency) was compared using Walker and Lev's (1953) formula, which tested the difference between correlations calculated on dependent samples.
To index concurrent validity, we ran correlations between the fall progress-monitoring level and the fall criterion measures (Woodcock Word Identification and Word Attack) and between the spring progress-monitoring level and the spring criterion measures (Woodcock Word Identification and Word Attack; CRAB Fluency and Comp rehension). These correlations are reported in the top six rows of Table 2. As these t values in Table 2 reveal, correlations for the CBM word identification fluency measure were reliably higher than for nonsense word fluency for one of the two fall concurrent validity criterion variables and for three of the four spring concurrent validity criterion variables. Basically, comparisons favored word identification fluency except when the criterion variable was highly aligned with nonsense word fluency (i.e., Woodcock Word Attack). Even there, where we would expect the comparison to favor nonsense word fluency, concurrent validity for the two CBM measures was, in fact, comparable.
To index predictive validity, the following indices were correlated cor·re·late
v. cor·re·lat·ed, cor·re·lat·ing, cor·re·lates
1. To put or bring into causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relation.
2. with the spring criterion measures (Woodcock Word Identification and Word Attack; CRAB Fluency and Comprehension): fall progress-monitoring level (see rows 7-10 of Table 2), fall progress-monitoring slope (see rows 11-14 of Table 2), spring progress-monitoring slope (see rows 15-18 of Table 2), and the year's progress-monitoring slope (see rows 19-22 of Table 2). As with concurrent validity, the vast majority of predictive validity coefficients reliably favored word identification fluency over nonsense word fluency.
We then looked at how the predictive validity of the two CBM measures compared to the predictive validity of the two Woodcock measures. These correlations are shown in Table 3. When spring Woodcock Word Attack was the criterion variable, all four predictors performed comparably. Nonsense word fluency performed comparably to the Woodcock measure when predicting Woodcock Word Identification and when predicting CRAB comprehension, but outperformed both Woodcock measures when predicting CRAB fluency. By contrast, word identification fluency reliably outperformed both Woodcock measures in predicting Woodcock Word Identification, in predicting CRAB fluency, and in predicting CRAB comprehension.
Finally, we performed dominance analysis (Budescu, 1993; Schatschneider, Francis, Fletcher, & Foorman, 2004), which is an extension of multiple regression. Dominance analysis involves the pairwise comparison of all predictors (i.e., fall nonsense word fluency level, full-year nonsense word fluency slope, fall word identification fluency level, full-year word identification fluency slope) as they relate to a spring criterion (i.e., Woodcock Word Identification, Woodcock Word Attack, CRAB fluency, CRAB comprehension). With dominance analysis, a variable is considered dominant over another if the predictive ability of that variable exceeds the other--both alone and in the presence of all other predictors in the model. Dominance analysis uses asymptotic confidence limits to test differences in the unique effects among pairwise comparisons. These pairwise comparisons are not a test of the amount of unique variance each predictor contributes, but instead are a direct comparison of the differing amounts of unique variance attributed to the two predictors as they relate to the spring criterion.
In Table 4, we show the asymptotic confidence intervals for each of the six pairs of predictors. Each row shows the pair of variables compared. Each column shows results of the dominance analysis for one spring outcome variable. Under each spring outcome variable, three statistics for the dominance analysis are displayed: [R.sup.2]D is the difference between the squared multiple correlations; asymptotic SE is the standard error of the differences; p indicates whether the lower and upper bounds of the 95% asymptotic confidence interval confidence interval,
n a statistical device used to determine the range within which an acceptable datum would fall. Confidence intervals are usually expressed in percentages, typically 95% or 99%. include zero (see Budescu, 1993; Hedges & Olkin, 1981). If a confidence interval does not include zero, the difference in unique variances is significant at an alpha level of .05 (Budescu). For example, the first cell in Table 4 (i.e., first row and first column) compares the unique variance that nonsense word fluency level accounts for above and beyond word identification fluency level (-3%) in the presence of all four predictor variables. The negative sign indicates that word identification fluency accounts for more unique variance than nonsense word fluency (if the reverse were true, then the sign would be positive), but the p value indicates that this difference is not significant. Therefore, in predicting Woodcock Word Identification, word identification fluency level does not dominate nonsense word fluency level. In Table 4, we have highlighted the cells where the difference in unique variances are significantly different from zero and, in those cases, highlighted the predictor variable Noun 1. predictor variable - a variable that can be used to predict the value of another variable (as in statistical regression)
variable quantity, variable - a quantity that can assume any of a set of values that accounts for more unique variance.
With these analyses, we were interested in whether word identification fluency dominated nonsense word fluency. We were also interested in examining whether slope provided additional predictive value pre·dic·tive value
The likelihood that a positive test result indicates disease or that a negative test result excludes disease.
a measure used by clinicians to interpret diagnostic test results. over performance level indices. Word identification fluency dominated nonsense word fluency in 10 of 16 comparisons (see rows 1, 3, 4, and 6 of Table 4); word identification fluency slope provided additional predictive value over performance level indices in 4 of 8 comparisons (see rows 3 and 5 of Table 4); nonsense word fluency slope provided additional predictive value over performance level indices in 2 of 8 comparisons (see rows 2 and 4 of Table 4); and word identification fluency slope dominated nonsense word fluency slope in 3 of 4 comparisons (see last row of Table 4).
To identify optimal progress-monitoring tasks, direct comparison of various measures is necessary because no absolute criterion exists for judging adequate criterion validity. Instead, the basis for evaluating a predictor is in relation to other possible predictors (Thorndike & Hagen, 1969). Toward that end, this study compared two potentially useful CBM measures for monitoring early reading development in first grade: word identification fluency and nonsense word fluency. For these measures, we examined (a) concurrent validity for CBM level at fall and spring; (b) predictive validity for CBM level from fall to spring; and (c) predictive validity for fall CBM slope to spring final status, for spring CBM slope to spring final status, and for full-year CBM slope to spring final status. Almost all comparisons favored word identification fluency.
To explore concurrent validity near the beginning of first grade, we ran correlations between the two CBM measures and Woodcock Word Identification (which requires students to read words in untimed fashion) and Woodcock Word Attack (which requires students to decode (1) To convert coded data back into its original form. Contrast with encode.
(2) Same as decrypt. See cryptography.
(cryptography) decode - To apply decryption. pseudowords in untimed fashion). Given the nature of the two CBM measures, one might expect word identification fluency to correlate more strongly with Woodcock Word Identification and expect nonsense word fluency to correlate more strongly with Woodcock Word Attack. This was only partly true. The correlation with Woodcock Word Identification was, in fact, statistically significantly higher for word identification fluency than for nonsense word fluency (.77 vs. .58). Contrary to expectations, however, the correlations for the two CBM measures with Woodcock Word Attack were comparable (.59 for word identification fluency vs. .50 for nonsense word fluency). So, even at the beginning of the year, when one might assume a lower floor (and therefore greater range) for nonsense word fluency (which awards credit for saying sounds without requiring decoding), greater validity was demonstrated for the CBM word identification fluency measure.
At spring, where we included a better variety of criterion measures, tapping text reading fluency and comprehension with the CRAB, findings again supported word identification fluency over nonsense word fluency, this time even more strongly. Across Woodcock Word Identification, CRAB fluency, and CRAB comprehension, correlation coefficients ranged between .73 to .93 for word identification fluency; between .51 and .80 for nonsense word fluency. The one criterion measure for which correlations between the two CBM measures were comparable (.52 vs. .51) was the Woodcock Word Attack, where the task (reading pseudowords) is more similar to nonsense word fluency than to word identification fluency. Thus, at the end of first grade, the word identification fluency task remains a stronger concurrent correlate of important reading behaviors.
In a similar way, for predictive validity, results favored CBM word identification fluency over nonsense word fluency. Fall CBM word identification fluency scores demonstrated superior predictive validity with respect to the CRAB fluency and comprehension criterion measures. Consequently, for identifying children in October of first grade who are at risk for poor end-of-year reading outcomes, the CBM word identification fluency measure outperforms the nonsense word fluency task.
To supplement these analyses, we also asked whether we could predict spring outcomes just as well--simply by using fall Woodcock scores. The answer was no. In predicting spring Woodcock Word Identification, the fall CBM measures did comparably well to fall Woodcock Word Identification. Moreover, in predicting spring Woodcock Word Attack, both CBM measures outperformed the fall Woodcock Word Attack measure, and the significant differences in predictions of spring CRAB performance consistently favored the fall CBM measures over the fall Woodcock measures. So, in all cases, there was no advantage to using fall Woodcock scores to predict spring reading performance.
Of course, the major purpose for CBM is progress monitoring, where the criterion validity of the CBM slope is more important than CBM level. With CBM progress monitoring, slope is a critical index because CBM slope is used to formulate decisions about whether reading progress is adequate. If the CBM slope indicates adequate progress, the instructional program remains intact; if not, the program is revised. So, the relevant technical question is: Does improvement on the CBM measure, as indexed with slope, reflect meaningful reading development, which predicts reading accomplishment at the end of the year?
Across the fall semester, CBM slopes correlated statistically significantly higher for word identification fluency than for nonsense word fluency with all four spring criterion measures. In fact, coefficients for the nonsense word fluency measure slopes were disappointingly low, ranging from -.04 to .16. Because nonsense word fluency is recommended for progress monitoring in the fall of first grade within the DIBELS system (Good et al., 2001), these findings raise serious concern. An increasing pattern of scores through the first semester of first grade on DIBELS nonsense word fluency appears to bear little relationship to students' end-of-year reading status. By contrast, for word identification fluency, fall slopes of improvement correlated more strongly, with coefficients of .43 with end-of-year Woodcock Word Identification, .54 with CRAB fluency, and .49 with CRAB comprehension. These correlations are modest, but fall in the range of many predictive measures (Jensen, 1981). And the correlations are noteworthy given the difficulty of achieving strong correlations when measures of change, such as slope, are used as predictors. At this time, therefore, fall word identification fluency slope appears to represent an acceptable index for predicting end-of-year reading outcome. Clearly, it represents a better alternative than fall nonsense word fluency slope.
As might be expected, given the more proximate proximate /prox·i·mate/ (prok´si-mit) immediate or nearest.
Closely related in space, time, or order; very near; proximal.
immediate; nearest. timeframe, spring slopes of improvement correlated with final reading status measures more strongly than did fall slopes. However, here again, coefficients for spring word identification fluency slopes were reliably stronger than for nonsense word fluency slopes. Perhaps most important, however, very large (and reliable) differences in the magnitude of correlations were observed for the flail-year slopes: Coefficients for full-year nonsense word fluency slopes ranged between .27 (with CRAB comprehension) to .58 (with CRAB fluency). By contrast, coefficients for full-year word identification fluency slopes ranged from .50 (with Woodcock Word Attack) to .85 (with CRAB fluency). In addition, the superiority of word identification fluency slope (over nonsense word fluency slope) was demonstrated even for Woodcock Word Attack, which seems more transparently related to nonsense word fluency than to word identification fluency.
Dominance analysis provided a supplementary and elegant method for exploring the predictive value of the two early reading progress-monitoring measures. In each case, word identification fluency, level, or slope, dominated nonsense word fluency. Word identification fluency level dominated nonsense word fluency level in predicting CRAB fluency and CRAB comprehension; word identification fluency slope dominated nonsense word fluency level in predicting all spring outcome variables except Woodcock Word Attack; word identification fluency level dominated nonsense word fluency slope in predicting CRAB comprehension; word identification fluency slope dominated word identification fluency level in predicting Woodcock Word Identification; and word identification fluency slope dominated nonsense word fluency slope in predicting all spring outcome variables except Woodcock Word Attack. These summative Adj. 1. summative - of or relating to a summation or produced by summation
additive - characterized or produced by addition; "an additive process" analyses not only corroborate To support or enhance the believability of a fact or assertion by the presentation of additional information that confirms the truthfulness of the item.
The testimony of a witness is corroborated if subsequent evidence, such as a coroner's report or the testimony of other the superiority of word identification fluency, but also suggest that collecting word identification fluency slope provides additional predictive value beyond simply collecting fall word identification fluency level data. This indicates the benefit of progress monitoring beyond initial screening for identifying students likely to experience reading difficulty.
In sum, results suggest that word identification fluency functions better than nonsense word fluency as a CBM tool for assessing early reading development in first grade. Because predictive validity with respect to end-of-year text-reading fluency and comprehension is stronger for word identification fluency than for nonsense word fluency, word identification fluency provides a stronger basis for formulating screening decisions in October of first grade. Moreover, the superiority of the word identification fluency over nonsense word fluency is most clearly demonstrated for progress monitoring decisions, where 11 of 12 correlations for CBM slope with respect to end-of-year outcomes were stronger for word identification fluency than for nonsense word fluency. Dominance analysis demonstrated how slope provides additional predictive value beyond one-time screening decisions in the fall. Dominance analysis also corroborates that word identification fluency, fall level, and full-year slope dominates nonsense word fluency, when both metrics metrics Managed care A popular term for standards by which the quality of a product, service, or outcome of a particular form of Pt management is evaluated. See TQM. for both CBM measures are entered simultaneously to predict spring outcomes. For these reasons, practitioners can have confidence that increases in word identification fluency over time reflect improved performance on important end-of-year reading outcomes. As our results suggest, the same is not true for DIBELS nonsense word fluency, and findings are particularly compelling because data were collected on the same group of children using the same methods.
Why is predictive validity for word identification fluency performance level and slope better than for nonsense word fluency? Although findings do not yield a direct answer to this question, we offer two possible explanations, which correspond to two difficulties with the nonsense word fluency task. First, on the nonsense word fluency task, two students with very different performance patterns may receive equal credit. That is, a student who says three separate sounds in response to a consonant-vowel-consonant pseudoword earns three points--the same score as a student who blends those three sounds into the pseudoword. Clearly, the student who blends the sounds has stronger reading capacity than the child who can only represent the separate sounds. Moreover, in our sample, we observed low-performing students who, when monitored with nonsense word fluency, were increasingly capable of saying many sounds very quickly, without achieving the alphabetic insight required for blending.
A second problem is that competent phonological pho·nol·o·gy
n. pl. pho·nol·o·gies
1. The study of speech sounds in language or a language with reference to their distribution and patterning and to tacit rules governing pronunciation.
2. decoding is, especially as the year progresses, better represented by the capacity to decode a variety of phonetic patterns. So, students who perform well on nonsense word fluency's consonant-vowel-consonant pseudowords may or may not be skilled at reading consonant-vowel-consonant -e words, r-controlled words, dual vowel vowel
Speech sound in which air from the lungs passes through the mouth with minimal obstruction and without audible friction, like the i in fit. The word also refers to a letter representing such a sound (a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y). words, multisyllabic words, etc. The restriction of the nonsense word fluency task to a single, easy phonetic pattern may reduce the correlation between nonsense word fluency and important criterion measures.
Present findings are reminiscent of earlier work demonstrating the superiority of word identification fluency over nonsense word fluency with a different sample of first graders with more severe reading difficulties (Fuchs, 2003). For that sample of 36 at-risk students who received one-to-one tutoring across the second semester of first grade, nonsense word fluency slopes failed to reliably discriminate dis·crim·i·nate
v. dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates
a. student performance on key indicators of reading competence at the end of first grade. In that study, a median split was performed on the slopes of these 36 children, creating a group of children with the top 18 slopes and another group with the bottom 18 slopes. The average effect size comparing these two groups of children on end-of-year indicators of reading competence and on fall-to-spring reading growth was .4 standard deviations, and the difference in the performance of these two groups was statistically significantly different on only one of the eight criterion measures. By contrast, when top versus bottom groups were formed on the basis of word identification fluency slopes, the average effect size comparing the groups exceeded 1 standard deviation, and the performance of students with the top-half slopes versus those with bottom-half slopes were statistically significantly different on all eight year-end indicators of reading competence and fall-to-spring reading growth. Current findings corroborate those earlier findings, showing how improvement across time on word identification fluency functions better than nonsense word fluency for forecasting end-of-first-grade reading status (as well as reading improvement).
It is important to note that this study employed a restricted sample of at-risk pupils and that we might expect correlations generally to be higher if we were to conduct the study with a greater range of performance. Of course, this renders the large correlations for word identification fluency even more impressive, but as with any study, results should be corroborated cor·rob·o·rate
tr.v. cor·rob·o·rat·ed, cor·rob·o·rat·ing, cor·rob·o·rates
To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain. See Synonyms at confirm. with additional samples.
Nevertheless, findings are particularly timely given the press to implement the progress-monitoring component of No Child Left Behind and as special educators ratchet up the IEP progress-monitoring requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, , biased or otherwise objectionable.
v. re·con·sid·ered, re·con·sid·er·ing, re·con·sid·ers
1. To consider again, especially with intent to alter or modify a previous decision.
2. nonsense word fluency in favor of upon the side of; favorable to; for the advantage of.
See also: favor the CBM word identification fluency measure. Clearly, as schools select measures for monitoring the reading progress of children with and without disabilities in the early stages of reading development, results provide a strong basis for selecting word identification fluency over nonsense word fluency. Findings also indicate that monitoring student progress frequently with word identification fluency can contribute importantly, beyond the simple collection of fall screening data, to the identification of students likely to experience difficulty in learning to read in the first grade.
TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations (n = 151) Occasions Fall Spring Year Variable X (SD) X (SD) X (SD) Criterion Variables WRMT-R WID 9.01 (7.98) 30.92 (11.43) NA WRMT-R WAT 3.27 (4.37) 11.64 (6.87) NA CRAB Fluency NA 29.65 (22.17) NA CRAB Comp NA 1.33 (1.58) NA CBM Level NWT 31.29 (14.47) 52.17 (24.07) NA WIF 10.11 (9.26) 29.72 (19.96) NA CBM Slope NWF 1.92 (2.04) 1.49 (1.23) 1.24 (0.82) WIF 0.90 (0.90) 1.31 (0.95) 1.02 (0.68) Note: WRMT-R is Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised; WID is the Word Identification subtest; WAT is the Word Attack subtest CRAB is the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery; Fluency is number of words read correctly aloud per minute; Comp is comprehension questions answered correctly; WIF is word-identification fluency; NWF is nonsense word fluency. TABLE 2 Concurrent and Predictive Validity for Word Identification Fluency Versus Nonsense Word Fluency in First Grade (n = 151) CBM Measure Validity WIF NWF t(148) (a) Concurrent Validity Fall CBM Level WRMT-R WID .77 .58 4.93 *** WRMT-R WAT .59 .50 1.12 Spring CBM Level WRMT-R WID .82 .64 3.82 *** WRMT-R WAT .52 .51 0.21 CRAB Fluency .93 .80 2.72 ** CRAB Comprehension .73 .54 3.23 ** Predictive Validity Fall CBM Level WRMT-R WID .63 .57 1.26 WRMT-R WAT .45 .46 0.19 CRAB Fluency .80 .64 4.27 *** CRAB Comprehension .66 .50 5.79 *** Fall CBM Slope WRMT-R WID .43 .05 3.96 *** WRMT-R WAT .27 -.03 2.93 ** CRAB Fluency .54 .16 4.27 *** CRAB Comprehension .49 -.04 5.71 *** Spring CBM Slope WRMT-R WID .61 .35 3.52 *** WRMT-R WAT .32 .27 0.79 CRAB Fluency .63 .49 2.08 * CRAB Comprehension .45 .27 2.13 * Year CBM Slope WRMT-R WID .79 .38 8.18 *** WRMT-R WAT .50 .28 3.83 *** CRAB Fluency .85 .58 6.84 *** CRAB Comprehension .66 .27 6.80 *** Note: WIF is word-identification fluency; NWF is nonsense word fluency; WRMT-R is Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised; WID is the Word Identification subtest WAT is the Word Attack subtest CRAB is the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery. (a) To test the difference between correlations calculated on the same sample, we relied on Walker and Lev's (1953) formula. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. TABLE 3 Predictive Validity for Fall Woodcock Versus Fall CBM Measures in First Grade (n = 151) Fall Predictor t(148) (a) WRMT-R Spring Criterion WID WAT WIF NWF WID v. WID v. WAT v. WAT v. WIF NWF WIF NWF WRMT-R WID .60 .44 .63 .57 0.71 0.53 3.30 1.98 WRMT-R WAT .46 .49 .45 .46 0.20 0.00 0.63 0.43 CRAB-F .63 .47 .80 .64 5.01 0.19 7.46 2.76 CRAB-C .59 .55 .66 .66 1.70 0.18 2.05 0.76 Note: WRMT-R is Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised; WID is the Word Identification subtest WAT is the Word Attack subtest; WIF is word-identification fluency; NWF is nonsense word fluency; CRAB is the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery; F is the CRAB passage reading fluency score; C is the CRAB comprehension score. (a) Using Walker and Lev's (1953) formula, these t tests compare correlations between the top fall predictor versus the bottom fall predictor in the relevant column with respect to spring criterion in the relevant row (e.g., the first t test compares the correlation between fall WRMT-R WID and spring WRMT-R WID to the correlation between fall word identification fluency and spring WRMT-R WID). For 148 degrees of freedom, the t value associated with p < .05 is 1.976; the t value associated with p < .01 is 2.61; and the t value associated with p < .001 is 3.36. Any t value associated with p < .05 is bolded. TABLE 4 Dominance Analysis of the Predictors of Word Recognition, Word Attack, Passage Reading Fluency, and Comprehension (n = 151) Outcome WRMT-WID WRMT-WAT Predictors [R.sup.2] D Asy. SE p [R.sup.2] D Asy. SE p NWF-L v. WIF-L -.03 .02 ns .01 .03 ns NWF-L v. NWF-S -.00 .04 ns .02 .05 ns NWF-L v. WIF-S -.21 -.05 <.05 .03 .05 ns -.13 WIF-L v. NWF-S -.03 .02 ns .01 .02 ns WIF-L v. WIF-S -.18 .05 <.05 -.03 .04 ns NWF-S v. WIF-S -.21 .04 <.05 -.05 .03 ns Outcome CRAB-F CRAB-C Predictors [R.sup.2] D Asy. SE p [R.sup.2] D Asy. SE p NWF-L v. WIF-L -.12 .02 <.05 -.13 .04 <.05 NWF-L v. NWF-S -.01 .02 ns -.03 .04 ns NWF-L v. WIF-S -.21 .03 <.05 -.14 .06 <.05 WIF-L v. NWF-S .11 .02 <.05 .10 .04 <.05 WIF-L v. WIF-S -.01 .04 ns -.01 .06 ns NWF-S v. WIF-S -.12 .03 <.05 -.11 .04 <.05 Note: WRMT-R is Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised; WID is the Word Identification subtesr WAT is the Word Attack subtest; CRAB-F is the passage reading fluency score of the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery; CRAB-C is the comprehension score of the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery. [R.sup.2]D is the difference between the squared multiple correlations; Asy. SE is the standard error of the differences; p indicates whether the lower and upper bounds of the 95% asymptotic confidence interval included zero. NWF is nonsense word fluency; WIF is word-identification fluency; L is fall level; S is full-year slope. Significant differences are bolded.
Biemiller, A. (1977-1978). Relationship between oral reading rates for letters, words, and simple text in the development of reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 223-253.
Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of meta-cognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1-8.
Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542-551.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
Fry, E. B. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 513-516.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2004). Identifying students with learning disabilities using a response-to-instruction approach in first grade. Manuscript in preparation.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1992). Limitations of a feel-good approach to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3(2), 93-97.
Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172-186.
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic See paradigm. distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488-501.
Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449-460.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989a). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 55, 429-438.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989b). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial REMEDIAL. That which affords a remedy; as, a remedial statute, or one which is made to supply some defects or abridge some superfluities of the common law. 1 131. Com. 86. The term remedial statute is also applied to those acts which give a new remedy. Esp. Pen. Act. 1. and Special Education, 10(2), 43-52.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989c). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 103-111.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Ferguson, C. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement, using a reading maze maze, detail of landscape gardening based on the Greek labyrinth, consisting of intricate paths or alleys lined with high hedges and having a center and exit difficult to find. It was a prominent feature in the formal English gardens of the 17th and 18th cent. task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436-450.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20-29.
Good, R. H., III, Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1981). The asymptotic distribution In mathematics and statistics, an asymptotic distribution is a hypothetical distribution that is in a sense the "limiting" distribution of a sequence of distributions. A distribution is an ordered set of random variables
for i of commonality components. Psychometrika, 46, 331-336.
Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1997). Curriculum-based measurement and literature-based reading: Is curriculum-based measurement meeting the needs of changing reading curricula? Journal of School Psychology, 35, 351-375.
Hintze, J. M., Shapiro, E. S., & Lutz, G. (1994). The effects of curriculum on the sensitivity of curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 188-202.
Jenkins, J. R., Heliotis, J., Haynes, M., & Beck, K. (1986). Does passive learning account for disabled readers' comprehension deficits in ordinary reading situations? Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 69-75.
Jensen, A. R. (1981). Straight talk about mental tests mental tests: see intelligence; psychological tests. . New York New York, state, United States
New York, Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Free Press.
Marston, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1986). Measuring pupil progress: A comparison of standardized achievement tests and curriculum-related measures. Diagnostique, 11, 77-90.
McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
McMaster, K. N., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L S. & Compton, D. L. (in press) Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing re·vi·tal·ize
tr.v. re·vi·tal·ized, re·vi·tal·iz·ing, re·vi·tal·iz·es
To impart new life or vigor to: plans to revitalize inner-city neighborhoods; tried to revitalize a flagging economy. special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
Schatschneider, C., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., & Foorman, B. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal lon·gi·tu·di·nal
Running in the direction of the long axis of the body or any of its parts. comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265-282.
Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. (1969). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley John Wiley may refer to:
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. (2003, December). Response to intervention In education, Response To Intervention (commonly abbreviated RTI or RtI) is a method of academic intervention that is designed to provide early, effective assistance to children who are having difficulty learning as part of the process of diagnosing learning disabilities. as a vehicle for distinguishing between reading disabled and non-reading disabled children: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first grade intervention. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Response-To-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City Kansas City, two adjacent cities of the same name, one (1990 pop. 149,767), seat of Wyandotte co., NE Kansas (inc. 1859), the other (1990 pop. 435,146), Clay, Jackson, and Platte counties, NW Mo. (inc. 1850). , MO.
Walker, H. M., & Lev lev-,
pref See levo-. , J. (1953). Statistical inference Inferential statistics or statistical induction comprises the use of statistics to make inferences concerning some unknown aspect of a population. It is distinguished from descriptive statistics. . New York: Holt holt
A wood or grove; a copse.
[Middle English, from Old English.]
the lair of an otter [from & Co.
Wesson, C. L. (1991). Curriculum-based measurement and two models of follow-up consultation. Exceptional Children, 57, 246-257.
Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tern (Rev. ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Inquiries should be addressed to Lynn S. Fuchs, 328 Peabody, Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University, at Nashville, Tenn.; coeducational; chartered 1872 as Central Univ. of Methodist Episcopal Church, founded and renamed 1873, opened 1875 through a gift from Cornelius Vanderbilt. Until 1914 it operated under the auspices of the Methodist Church. , Nashville, TN 37203.
The research described in this paper was supported in part by Grant #H324C000022 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, and Grant HD 15052 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Vanderbilt University. Statements do not reflect the position or policy of these agencies, and no official endorsement by them should be inferred.
Manuscript received October 2003; accepted January 2004.
LYNN B. FUCHS (CEC (Central Electronic Complex) The set of hardware that defines a mainframe, which includes the CPU(s), memory, channels, controllers and power supplies included in the box. Some CECs, such as IBM's Multiprise 2000 and 3000, include data storage devices as well. #185), Nicholas Hobbs Professor; DOUGLAS FUCHS (CEC #185), Nicholas Hobbs Professor; and DONALD L. COMPTON (Tennessee Federation), Assistant Professor, Special Education, Peabody College Peabody College was founded in 1875 when the University of Nashville, located in Nashville,Tennessee, split into two separate educational institutions. The preparatory school, Montgomery Bell Academy separated from the college, which was originally called of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee “Nashville” redirects here. For other uses, see Nashville (disambiguation).
Nashville is the capital and the second most populous city of the U.S. state of Tennessee, after Memphis. .