The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
Open accessAbstract
This study evaluated the validity and reliability of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) using a sample of 30 special education students, fourth through sixth grade. Results support the reliability and validity of DIBELS when compared to the Woodcock Johnson III (WJ III). The DIBELS consisted of four subtests: Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Initial Sound Fluency (ISF), and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF). These subtests were compared to two subtests of the Woodcock Johnson III: Letter Word Identification and Word Attack. DIBELS produced significant correlations for LNF, PSF, NWF, and WJ III Word Attack and between DIBELS LNF, PSF, and WJ III Word Identification. ISF exhibited no significant correlation when compared to either subtest of the WJ III.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Review of Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
SITGREAVES, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology: A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 11,425
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5764 · Cited by 6,847
Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children
(1998) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/6023 · Cited by 5,337
Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print
Cairns, C., & Adams, M. J. (1991) · Language · doi:10.2307/415121 · Cited by 4,376
Langenberg, D. N. (2000) · Cited by 4,305
Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2 · Cited by 3,841
Toward an instance theory of automatization.
Logan, G. D. (1988) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.4.492 · Cited by 3,466
Educational measurement, 3rd ed.
Linn, R. L. (1989) · Cited by 2,857
Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.7.3.238 · Cited by 2,387
Cited by
Responding to Nonresponders: An Experimental Field Trial of Identification and Intervention Methods
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005) · Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/001440290507100404 · Cited by 292
Does Music Training Enhance Literacy Skills? A Meta-Analysis
Gordon, R. L., Fehd, H. M., & McCandliss, B. D. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01777 · Cited by 256
GERSTEN, R., & DIMINO, J. A. (2006) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1598/rrq.41.1.5 · Cited by 226
Does growth rate in oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement?
Kim, Y.-S., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., & Foorman, B. (2010) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0019643 · Cited by 216
Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Kim, J. S., & Santoro, L. E. (2010) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831209361208 · Cited by 198
Quinn, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2015) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/0022219413508323 · Cited by 172
Denton, C. A., Barth, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Romain, M., & Francis, D. J. (2011) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888431003623546 · Cited by 140
Fantuzzo, J., & Perlman, S. (2007) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.11.003 · Cited by 119
Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention
Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. V. (2005) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.09.003 · Cited by 111
KIEFFER, M. J., BIANCAROSA, G., & MANCILLA-MARTINEZ, J. (2013) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716411000920 · Cited by 105
Roehrig, A. D., Duggar, S. W., Moats, L., Glover, M., & Mincey, B. (2008) · Remedial and Special Education · doi:10.1177/0741932507314021 · Cited by 82
Smythe-Leistico, K., & Page, L. C. (2018) · Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) · doi:10.1080/10824669.2018.1434658 · Cited by 79
Beginning reading interventions for children and adolescents with intellectual disability
Reichow, B., Lemons, C. J., Maggin, D. M., & Hill, D. R. (2019) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011359.pub2 · Cited by 49
Graney, S. B., Missall, K. N., Martínez, R. S., & Bergstrom, M. (2009) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.12.001 · Cited by 48
Pre‐service Teachers’ Interpretation of CBM Progress Monitoring Data
Wagner, D. L., Hammerschmidt‐Snidarich, S. M., Espin, C. A., Seifert, K., & McMaster, K. L. (2017) · Learning Disabilities Research & Practice · doi:10.1111/ldrp.12125 · Cited by 44
Monitoring Reading Growth: Goal Setting, Measurement Frequency, and Methods of Evaluation
Jenkins, J., & Terjeson, K. J. (2011) · Learning Disabilities Research & Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00322.x · Cited by 43
Linklater, D. L., O'Connor, R. E., & Palardy, G. J. (2009) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.08.001 · Cited by 40
Logistics of Behavior Screenings: How and Why Do We Conduct Behavior Screenings at Our School?
Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., Cox, M. L., & Messenger, M. (2014) · Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth · doi:10.1080/1045988x.2014.895572 · Cited by 37
Assessing Letter Sound Knowledge: A Comparison of Letter Sound Fluency and Nonsense Word Fluency
Ritchey, K. D. (2008) · Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/001440290807400405 · Cited by 36
Within-year oral reading fluency with CBM: a comparison of models
Nese, J. F. T., Biancarosa, G., Anderson, D., Lai, C.-F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9304-0 · Cited by 33
Technical Adequacy for Response to Intervention Practices
Barnett, D. W., Elliott, N., Graden, J., Ihlo, T., Macmann, G., Nantais, M., & Prasse, D. (2006) · Assessment for Effective Intervention · doi:10.1177/15345084060320010401 · Cited by 26
An Analysis of Consistency Between Team Decisions and Reading Assessment Data Within an RTI Model
Shapiro, E. S., Hilt-Panahon, A., Gischlar, K. L., Semeniak, K., Leichman, E., & Bowles, S. (2012) · Remedial and Special Education · doi:10.1177/0741932510397763 · Cited by 24
Strategies for Minimizing Variability in Progress Monitoring of Oral Reading Fluency
Bundock, K., O’Keeffe, B. V., Stokes, K., & Kladis, K. (2018) · TEACHING Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/0040059918764097 · Cited by 6
Reed, D. K. (2015) · RMLE Online · doi:10.1080/19404476.2015.11462119 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Venue
- The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications, Inc.
- Published
- 2018
- OpenAlex
- W2460937302
- Cited by
- 1,051
- References
- 70
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.