CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 548Reading and Literacy DevelopmentEducational Assessment and ImprovementEarly Childhood Education and Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Importance and Decision-Making Utility of a Continuum of Fluency-Based Indicators of Foundational Reading Skills for Third-Grade High-Stakes Outcomes

Good, Roland H., Simmons, Deborah C., Kame'enui, Edward J.·2001·Scientific Studies of Reading
DOI 10.1207/s1532799xssr0503_4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Educational accountability and its counterpart, high-stakes assessment, are at the forefront of the educational agenda in this era of standards-based reform. In this article, we examine assessment and accountability in the context of a prevention-oriented assessment and intervention system designed to assess early reading progress formatively. Specifically, we explore the utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational early literacy skills to predict reading outcomes, to inform educational decisions, and to change reading outcomes for students at risk of reading difficulty. First, we address the accountability era, discuss the promise of prevention-oriented assessment, and outline a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and Curriculum-Based Measurement Oral Reading Fluency. Next, we describe a series of linked, short-term, longitudinal studies of 4 cohorts examining the utility and predictive validity of the measures from kindergarten through 3rd grade with the Oregon Statewide Assessment-Reading/Literature as a high-stakes reading outcome. Using direct measures of key foundational skills, predictive validities ranged from. 34 to. 82. The utility of the fluency-based benchmark goals was supported with the finding that 96% of children who met the 3rd-grade oral reading fluency benchmark goal met or exceeded expectations on the Oregon Statewide Assessment, a high-stakes outcome measure. We illustrate the utility of the measures for evaluating instruction, modifying the instructional system, and targeting children who need additional instructional support to achieve benchmark goals. Finally, we discuss the instructional and policy implications of our findings and their utility in an active educational accountability environment.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s1532799xssr0503_4

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. 10.1037//0033-2909.102.1.3 · DOI
  2. 10.1037//0022-0663.91.3.403 · DOI
  3. Drucker P. F., 1993, The Wilson Quarterly, 17, 52
  4. Green P. C., 1999, Journal of Special Education Leadership, 12, 21
  5. Johnson, D. S. (1996). Assessment for the prevention of early reading problems: Utility of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills for predicting future reading performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
  6. 10.1037//0022-0663.80.4.437 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Kame'enui, E. J. & Carnine, D. W. (Eds.). (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
  8. Kame'enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., Good, R. H. & Harn, B. A. (2001). The use of fluency-based measures in early identification and evaluation of intervention efficacy in schools. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 307-331). York Press.
  9. Laimon, D. E. (1994). The effects of a home-based and center-based intervention on at-risk preschool children's early literacy skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
  10. 10.1037//0033-295X.95.4.492 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1037//0033-295X.95.4.492 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Salvia, J. & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Assessment (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  13. 10.1037//0033-295X.84.2.127 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Simmons D. C., 2000, Oregon School Study Council (OSSC) Bulletin, 43, 3
  15. Thurlow M. L., 1999, Journal of Special Education Leadership, 12, 3
  16. Torgesen J. K., 1998, American Educator, 22, 32

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 548

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J.
Venue
Scientific Studies of Reading
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2001-07
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
257-288
ISSN
  • 1088-8438 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-799X
DOI
10.1207/s1532799xssr0503_4
OpenAlex
W2071051632
Cited by
545
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 35
FWCI
24.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Scientific Studies of Reading (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Oregon
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Improvement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
Keywords
early literacy, reading fluency, foundational reading skills, curriculum-based measurement, oral reading fluency, high-stakes testing, educational accountability, predictive validity, third grade, reading difficulties, instructional decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review