This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]

On: 14 October 2014, At: 17:03

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children

and Youth
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vpsf20

Oral Reading Fluency: Accuracy of Assessing Errors and

Classification of Readers Using a 1-Min Timed Reading Sample
a b c
Gail Coulter , Karen Shavin & Margaret Gichuru
a
Western Washington University
b
Educational Leadership Program, College of Notre Dame of Maryland
c
Educational Leadership Program, Murray State University, Idaho State University
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Gail Coulter , Karen Shavin & Margaret Gichuru (2009) Oral Reading Fluency: Accuracy of Assessing Errors and
Classification of Readers Using a 1-Min Timed Reading Sample, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth,
54:1, 71-76, DOI: 10.3200/PSFL.54.1.71-76

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.54.1.71-76

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by
Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary
sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,
in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Oral Reading Fluency: Accuracy of Assessing
Errors and Classification of Readers Using
a 1-Min Timed Reading Sample
Gail Coulter, Karen Shavin, and Margaret Gichuru
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:03 14 October 2014
ABSTRACT: Children in general education are classified by mea-
sures of oral reading fluency (ORF) to determine the level of sup-
port needed for reading. In addition, teachers use ORF measures
with children who receive special education services to determine
whether they are making progress toward their reading goals. In
this descriptive study, the authors examined the accuracy of scor-
ing for the 45 preservice teachers using the ORF subtest of the
Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (R. H. Good & R.
A. Kaminski, 2002) for 1st- and 6th-grade readers. Preservice teach-
ers correctly classified a 1st-grade reader by using cutoff points.
However, 48.8% of preservice teachers incorrectly classified the
6th-grade reader when an alternative classification was more appro-
priate. The authors make practical recommendations for teachers to
ensure accuracy of scoring with timed reading measurements.
KEYWORDS: curriculum-based measurement, cutoff points, first-
and sixth-grade readers, oral reading fluency, timed reading and
measurements
CURRICULUM-BASED MEASUREMENT of oral reading
fluency (ORF) is especially useful because it accurately pre-
dicts later reading success (Barger, 2003; Buck & Torgesen,
2003; Crawford, Tindal, & Stieber, 2001; Vander Meer, Lentz,
& Stollar, 2005; Wilson, 2005). Teachers who use this type of
assessment are then able to intervene with specific remediation
strategies in reading instruction at earlier stages, thus prevent-
ing later academic complications and possibly school failure.
Not only are brief ORF measures efficient and effective in
identifying children who need additional support (e.g., chil-
dren with disabilities), they also provide a means for moni-
toring the progress of children in general education who may
experience reading failure and children who receive special
education services as they learn to read (Johns, 2005; Meh-
rens, & Clarizio, 1993; Rodden-Nord & Shinn, 1991).
One type of ORF probe is a 1-min timed reading. The
child reads for 1 min while the teacher notes the number
of errors made during that time (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1993;
McCurdy & Shapiro, 1992; Speece & Ritchey, 2005). These
types of assessments are common throughout the United
71
States. One commercial system for tracking ORF measures
given by teachers is Aimsweb (Aimsweb, personal commu-
nication, January 22, 2008). The system reported scores of
ORF for approximately 680,000 unique students from first
grade through sixth grade for the 2006–2007 school year. It is
important to note that Aimsweb alone showed 61,000 users,
including school administrators and individual teachers. Fur-
thermore, assessments similar to this are used throughout
the country, and some are required in states in large and
small districts. The state of Idaho assessed 53,000 students
during the 2006–2007 school year using ORF measures
(Idaho Reading Indicator Assessment Coordinator, personal
communication, January 22, 2008). Although there are many
types of ORF measures including commercial products,
we selected the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002) because it is used
across the United States with more than 3 million children
from Grades K–6 representing 3,000 districts with 12,000
schools (DIBELS Support, personal communication, August
31, 2006). The DIBELS subtests use cutoff points to iden-
tify children as needing no further assistance beyond typical
classroom instruction; needing supplemental instruction; or
needing intensive instruction (i.e., low risk, some risk, and at
risk, respectively) in the areas of phonemic awareness, alpha-
betic principle, ORF, vocabulary, and comprehension.
Because of the number of children each year who
are assessed using some form of ORF, it is essential
that those people administering the assessments (namely,
the classroom teachers) know how to administer the
assessments according to the guidelines and how to use
the scores for determining instruction. ORF measures are
Address correspondence to Gail Coulter, Western Washington Uni-
versity, Woodring College of Education, 516 High Street, Belling-
ham, WA 98225, USA; gail.coulter@wwu.edu (e-mail). Copyright
© 2009 Heldref Publications
 72 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 1

particularly helpful for teachers in the classroom because Participants

they are used as a component in the problem-solving model
for the identification of children with disabilities and for
determining which children in a classroom need additional
support, thus preventing the need for identification if
intervention is successful. However, the usefulness of
the scores depends on the accuracy of the person who
administers the assessment. Little research is available
that examines the accuracy of the assessment. Accuracy in
the use of ORF measures is important particularly because
instructional aides, student teachers, and volunteers assist
in the administration of the fluency measures. Therefore,
the purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of
preservice teachers in scoring oral reading samples. We
explored the following specific questions:
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:03 14 October 2014
Table 1 shows the participants’ demographic informa-
tion for each group. Participants were 24 individuals (9
men, 21 women) in the instruction group and 24 individu-
als (8 men, 16 women) in the training group. The partici-
pants were chosen because they were similar to the type
of individuals who are trained to give ORF measures in
schools. The first group was the less experienced instruc-
tion group. The second group was the less experienced
training group. The groups were comparable in demo-
graphics and experience. Table 1 also includes the majors
for each of the participants and the procedures used for
each group. We did not randomize the participants accord-
ing to group membership.

1. What was the accuracy of preservice teachers’ scores on Procedures

1-min reading samples?
2. How accurately did the preservice teachers classify read- The training group followed Steps 1–5, whereas the
ers as needing additional support according to predeter- instruction group participated in Steps 1, 2, 3, and 5. During
mined cutoff points? Step 4—the 45-min training session—the instruction group
participated in normal class activity.
Method
Step 1: Timing mechanism. The researcher provided par-
Measures ticipants in both groups with timing mechanisms and
The oral reading subtest of the DIBELS (Good & Kamin- instruction on how to use them. Participants practiced
ski, 2002) comprises passages ranging in length and dif- starting, stopping, and clearing the timers. This activity
ficulty from first- to sixth-grade levels. An administration occurred for 5 min.
manual includes directions and examples of scoring. Step 2: Instructions. The participants in both groups read
The DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) subtest (Good the Directions for Scoring–Part 1: Oral Reading Fluen-
& Kaminski, 2002) has two test booklets for each level: one cy in the DIBELS Administration and Scoring Guide for
for the benchmark assessments and one for progress monitor- the Oral Reading Fluency (Good & Kaminski, 2002) to
ing. The benchmark book comprises nine passages divided learn how to administer the DIBELS and mark rules.
into groups of three parallel passages. One series of passages
is given during a fall administration, a second series is given
during the winter, and a third is given during the spring. A TABLE 1. Participant Demographic Information
child reads aloud for 1 min in each of the three parallel pas- and Procedures, by Group
sages while the tester marks the errors. The median score of
each administration is then recorded. Next, it is determined Variable Instruction Training
whether the child is at risk, some risk, or low risk for reading
difficulties on the basis of predetermined cutoff points. For Number of participants 21 24
example, a child ending the first grade who scores below the Gender
cutoff point of 20 correct words per minute (cwpm) is con- Male 9 8
Female 12 16
sidered to be at risk; a child who scores greater than 20 cwpm Race
and below the cutoff point of 40 cwpm is considered to be at Caucasian 20 22
some risk; and a child who scores at or greater than 40 cwpm African American 1 1
is considered to be at low risk. Thus by classifying children, Hispanic — 1
teachers have information to provide varying amounts of Age (years)
M 26 27
support for reading (i.e., intensive intervention, supplemental Range 21–48 21–46
instruction, and regular instruction, respectively). Experience
Setting Secondary education major 10 16
Elementary education major 10 8
The study occurred during regular class sessions at a Special education major 1 —
western university in the United States. The classes were Steps 1, 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
two lower division education classes.
 Fall 2009
Step 3: Practice test. The participants in both groups
listened to an audiotape of benchmark passages and
practiced scoring rules on a DIBELS hardcopy as they
listened to a first-grade child read orally on an audiotape
from a first-grade benchmark passage. They marked a
slash through an error when they heard one and marked
the end of 1 min. Then, they listened to an audiotape of
a graduate student who simulated a sixth-grade reader
reading a sixth-grade benchmark passage.
Step 4: Training. We used guidelines for the procedures
for training for ORF suggested by the Dynamic Mea-
surement Group (K. Fleming, personal communication,
September 28, 2006). We presented the most common
rules for scoring as they appeared in the administration
manual (e.g., self-corrects, hesitations, mispronounced
words, word order, omissions, and inserted words; Good
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:03 14 October 2014
& Kaminski, 2002). We described the rule and how to
score a reading selection by using the rule. Participants
in the training group then practiced scoring the selec-
tion incorporating the rule on an approximately 300-
word selection that had multiple opportunities to apply
the rule. The researcher did not train for hyphenated
words, numerals, articulation and dialect, and abbrevia-
tions. Passages were chosen for training and testing that
reflected the rules trained for and errors made by the
first- and sixth-grade readers.
Step 5: Test. All participants in both groups again listened
to an audiotape of benchmark passages. The passages
were passages similar to those used in the practice test.
For example, the child who read the first-grade passage
for the practice test also read a first-grade passage for the
test that was selected from the series of similar first-grade
passages from benchmark passages. Similarly, the reader
who read the sixth-grade passage for the practice test also
read a sixth-grade parallel passage for the test.
Results
What Was the Accuracy of Preservice Teachers’ Scores
on 1-Min Reading Samples?
Results for first-grade passage. Table 2 presents the means,
standard deviations, and ranges for the instruction and train-
TABLE 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Participants’ Correct Words
Per Minute
Instruction
Group M SD
First grade 46.80 1.47
Sixth grade 127.47 14.22
Coulter, Shavin, & Gichuru 73
ing groups. We expected that the variance for identification
of errors within that 1 min would be greater for those in
the instruction group (who only read the instructions) than
for those in the training group (who read the instructions
and received training on error identification and scoring).
However, the results were similar. The instruction group’s
mean was 46.80 (SD = 1.47), whereas the training group’s
mean was 47.16 (SD = 1.49). For the first-grade reader, the
actual cwpm was 46.
Results for sixth-grade passage. The sixth-grade reader had
a rate of 124 cwpm. Table 2 presents the means, standard
deviations, and ranges. The mean and standard deviation for
the instruction group were 127.47 and 14.22, respectively.
The standard deviation for the instruction group was greater
than that of the training group. However, the difference in
the standard deviation for the instruction group was the
result of only two outliers that were 3 SDs points beyond
the mean. Factoring out these two outliers, it appeared that
both groups—those who had only read the instructions (M =
123.15, SD = 3.98) and those who had read the instructions
and received 45 min of training (M = 123.41, SD = 5.42)—
produced comparable results. It is interesting that in factoring
out the outliers, we found that the standard deviation for the
instruction group was less than that of the training group.
How Accurately Did Preservice Teachers Classify
the Reader for the Need for Additional Support?
The researchers found that the farther away the score was
from the cutoff point, the more the preservice teachers cor-
rectly classified the readers. For example, the actual score
for the first-grade reader was 46 cwpm. The cutoff point for
low risk was 40 cwpm; therefore, the reader’s score was 6
cwpm higher than the cutoff point. The range of scores for
the instruction and training groups was 44–50 cwpm and
43–51 cwpm, respectively. The range did not affect the clas-
sification that teachers made for the first-grade reader.
This was not the case for the sixth-grade reader who had
a score of 124 cwpm. The cutoff point for sixth grade was
125 cwpm. The ranges of scores for the instruction and
training groups were 116–173 cwpm and 116–133 cwpm,
respectively. These ranges of scores reported by the teachers
Training
Range M SD Range
44–50 47.16 1.49 43–61
116–173 123.41 5.42 116–133
 74 Preventing School Failure
30 Low risk Some risk
25
Number of Participants
20
15
10
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:03 14 October 2014
5 rately. In addition, the first-grade reader made only two errors
0 the student is reading at a slower rate and has more consistent
Instruction group Training group
FIGURE 1. Comparison of participants who classified a
sixth-grade some-risk reader as a low-risk or some-risk
reader.
overlapped the cutoff points for the some-risk and low-risk
categories, thus leading to errors in classification of students.
We found that the closer the score of the reader was to the
cutoff point and the more words the reader read in 1 min, the
more participants classified the reader incorrectly.
This means that 100% of the participants categorized the
first-grade reader correctly as a reader who was performing
at low risk. Participants had much more difficulty in cor-
rectly categorizing the sixth-grade reader. Figure 1 shows a
comparison of the number of participants who identified the
sixth-grade reader as low risk and that of those who identi-
fied the sixth-grade reader as some risk for the instruction
and training groups. Only 47% of the instruction group
correctly classified the sixth-grade reader as some risk,
whereas just slightly more (54%) of the training group cor-
rectly classified the sixth-grade reader.
Limitations
The study had a relatively small number of participants.
In addition, the amount of time for training may have been
insufficient to affect the results overall. Furthermore, both
groups read the instructions and practiced with the timing
mechanism, and, therefore, training may not have been suf-
ficiently powerful to affect results.
Discussion
ORF measures are used throughout the country and have
been shown to be useful in identifying children who need fur-
ther assistance in learning to read before they have a chance
Vol. 54, No. 1
to fail. However, the information from these assessments is
only useful if it is accurate. That accuracy depends on the
skills of those who administer the assessment. The skills of
the administrators of the assessments are especially impor-
tant because the classification of children into the categories
of at risk, some risk, and low risk can have a substantial effect
on the amount and type of instruction provided to the student
in the general or special education setting. In addition, clas-
sification of children using these measures can result in the
allocation of resources across the school.
The results of this study showed that preservice teachers
correctly classified the first-grade reader as low risk. The
relatively constricted range of preservice teachers’ scores
may have been because of the slower reading speed of the
first-grade reader. The slower speed made it easier for par-
ticipants in both groups to follow the reader and score accu-
in those 46 cwpm. It may be that scoring is an easier task for
participants in assessing students with ORF measures when
errors. For example, the initial error in the selection for the
first-grade reader was a hesitation, which is relatively simple
to notice and score because the child stopped on the word and
did not continue the passage until the participant prompted
the child to continue by telling him or her the word. In turn,
this prompted the participant to record the error on the proto-
col. The second error was a misidentification in that the child
read the word held as helped. This particular misidentifica-
tion was difficult for participants to detect because the words
sounded similar. In addition, both words (i.e., held, helped)
made sense in the context of the passage, making it difficult
for participants to detect the error.
The sixth-grade passage appeared to be more difficult for
participants to score accurately because the student made a
variety of different types of errors (e.g., misidentifications,
self-corrections, repetitions, hesitations, omissions). In addi-
tion, the student read at a faster rate than the first-grade stu-
dent, thus making the task of tracking errors more difficult
for participants. For example, the sixth-grade reader read 124
cwpm, whereas the first-grade student read 46 cwpm. The
participants’ scores for the sixth-grade reader ranged from
116 to 173 cwpm.
Another common error was the use of the timing mecha-
nism. Although we had instructed all participants on when
to begin timing and they had practiced timing, many partici-
pants began timing when the student read the first word of
the title instead of when the student read the first word of the
passage. This error contributed to the wide range of cwpm
reported by the participants for the sixth-grade reader.
Misidentification
The most common type of error that participants made
was misidentification. Some of the misidentifications did
 Fall 2009
not change the meaning of the passage substantially. How-
ever, the administration guidelines specify that misidentifi-
cations are recorded as errors. The guidelines do not make
provisions for whether the misidentifications change the
meaning. Some of the common errors of confusion by the
participants were the following: (a) surely was mistaken for
assuredly, (b) saw was mistaken for spied, and (c) thank-
fully was mistaken for gratefully.
One other common error that surprised us was omission.
Some omissions were words that were meaning-related. How-
ever, most omissions were of small words (e.g., a, the, an, then).
Omissions, regardless of whether they were content or func-
tional words, were difficult for participants to detect and score.
Last, participants seemed to have difficulty scoring errors
when the erroneous word sounded similar to the word in
the passage (e.g., held and helped, though and through, far
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:03 14 October 2014
and for, wet and went). The readers did not appear to have
a dialect or any type of speech problem. This indicated the
level of attention that participants needed when listening for
errors. This also indicated the need for the participants to be
familiar with the text to ensure accurate scoring.
The accuracy of the participants’ scores for the readers
affected the reader’s classification as low risk, some risk, or
at risk. This classification can determine whether a student
receives additional assistance in reading. In this study, the
participants correctly classified the first-grade reader. Because
the scores fell well within the range of cutoff points, there was
little chance of the participants’ misclassifying the student.
However, a problem arose when the participants scored
the passage for the sixth-grade reader: The scores fell closer
to the cutoff point. The closer the scores were to the cutoff
point, the more difficulty the participants had in correctly
classifying the reader for additional assistance. The reliabil-
ity of the classification of the participants was compromised
as the degree of difficulty of the passages and the speed of
the reader increased.
Misclassifying a reader can have two consequences: A
student would receive unnecessary supplemental assistance
or intervention or would be denied needed assistance. In
addition, an error in classification may not be detected
for some time because students at benchmark would not
be tested again until the next benchmark assessment, thus
losing many valuable weeks of instruction. It is interesting
to note that the sixth-grade passage—which had the most
cwpm and the most errors in 1 min—also showed the great-
est difference in classification among participants.
Lessons Learned
Because ORF measures are frequently administered in
schools and can have a substantial effect on what kind of
reading instruction and progress monitoring is provided to
a student in general and special education settings, teach-
ers need to be aware of the challenges when administering
Coulter, Shavin, & Gichuru 75
these assessments, regardless of how simple they appear.
This is especially true when 1-min timed readings are
administered by those participants who have not received
extensive training and practice. We subsequently offer some
practical suggestions from lessons learned to teachers who
are likely to administer these measures or be responsible for
their administration.
Teachers need to recognize that a test such as the DIBELS
is different from most formative assessments. To get an
accurate assessment, the measures must be administered
consistently, following the standardization procedures. The
measurements are neither designed to elicit best perfor-
mance nor an opportunity to teach. Consequently, the deci-
sions on the basis of the results would only be accurate if
the administration and scoring is accurate.
Before testing, those teachers need to review the admin-
istration manual. In addition, it is helpful to preview each
reading passage that would be given. When giving the
assessment, teachers need to follow the presentation and
scoring rules, even when instructions seem redundant. In
addition, it is a good idea to practice with another adult who
can provide feedback on any administrative errors. Another
useful way to check reliability is to shadow score with a
partner and compare results. Results should be within 2
points of each other to be reliable.
In any administration of an assessment, there is room
for error. Therefore, the goal is to minimize the errors.
One way to reduce errors is to administer three probes and
use the middle score for making instructional decisions. If
there is still doubt that the assessment accurately reflects
the student’s skills, teachers should retest on a different day
using an alternate probe.
Mistakes in timing were among of the most common
types of error that we noted. For this reason, training for
those people who administer ORF measures should focus
on accurate use of timing mechanisms as well as on follow-
ing standardization procedures specifically related to tim-
ing. This is most important: Timing depends on the specific
ORF test. In some cases, timing begins when the student
reads the first word of the title. In other types of oral reading
measures of the DIBELS, timing begins when the student
reads the first word of the body of the passage. When to
begin the timing for each type of measure is designated in
the administration guideline. Further, using a stopwatch can
be distracting to the teacher as well as to the child. Those
administering the assessment would benefit from practicing
with the timing mechanism with a variety of contingencies.
If possible, the administrator should set the stopwatch for
1 min and let it count down, stopping automatically at the
end of the minute. This frees the administrator to focus on
the student response and not on the timer.
Students are likely to omit small words—especially before
content words—or to provide substitute words. It is important
 76 Preventing School Failure
to mark these errors, even if the error does not alter the meaning
of the passage. The purpose of this type of 1-min timed reading
is to assess accuracy and rate—not meaning—and so each
error needs to be counted. In the case of the DIBELS, cutoff
points for determining amount and quality of instruction
have been established on the basis of large norming samples.
Therefore, each error is important to note.
The faster the rate, the more likely there would be errors
made by both the reader and the test administrator. For the
administrator, it is more difficult to mark errors and fol-
low the reader as the rate increases. The difficulty is even
greater when there are numerous reader errors. If necessary,
teachers can audiotape a student who may read at a faster
rate and has frequent errors as they give the assessments and
refer to the audiotape for scoring. If there is any suspicion
that the assessment does not accurately reflect the skills of
Downloaded by [Colorado College] at 17:03 14 October 2014
the student, teachers should retest using alternate forms on
a different day.
Scores that are closer to the cutoff points are more likely
to be misclassified, possibly affecting instruction. In those
circumstances, a second administration would be in order.
It is better to err in providing more instructional support
than in assuming that the student is low risk. Students who
are identified as having some risk or being at risk are moni-
tored more frequently, providing additional opportunities
to check reading progress. The additional support for a few
more weeks is a safeguard.
Last, teachers are instructors, not researchers. They make
judgments about a child’s skill level on the basis of (a) their
knowledge of the child and (b) assessment results. It is not
natural for them to adhere to strict test administration guide-
lines. By contrast, brief ORF measures can only be useful
when the results are accurate. At stake is both the type of
instruction the child receives and the ability to measure the
effectiveness of that instruction. If the assessment is not
administered correctly, it is difficult to know whether the
change in score is a result of (a) the child’s growth due to
instruction or (b) inaccurate test administration. The first
critical training need is for teachers and school adminis-
trators to understand why a simple 1-min timed measure
requires such care.
The aforementioned practical advice provided to teachers
represents only some of the lessons that we learned. Con-
sidering the ramifications regarding instructional program-
ming and the possibility of unintended consequences and
how often ORF is used across the United States, we urge
educators to meticulously follow the standardization pro-
cedures for timed oral reading measures for identification
of reading difficulty or progress monitoring toward goals.
Furthermore, we urge training developers to ensure that the
content of the trainings for those people who administer the
assessments is comprehensive and incorporates multiple
opportunities for practice under a variety of conditions.
Vol. 54, No. 1
Information derived from oral timed reading measures can
lead to high-quality educational programming only if it is
administered accurately.
AUTHOR NOTES
Gail Coulter is an assistant professor in special education at
Western Washington University. Her research interests are reading
(including assessment and interventions) and students who are at
risk for school failure. Karen Shavin is a doctoral student in the
educational leadership program at the College of Notre Dame of
Maryland. For the past 5 years, she has worked with the Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, providing technical
assistance throughout Maryland. Margaret Gichuru is a lecturer
in interdisciplinary early childhood education at Murray State
University and a doctoral student in the educational leadership
program at Idaho State University. Her research interest is recruit-
ment and retention of college students.
REFERENCES
Barger, J. (2003). Comparing the DIBELS oral reading fluency
indicator and the North Carolina end-of-grade reading assess-
ment (Tech. Rep.). Asheville, NC: North Carolina Teacher
Academy.
Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2003). The relationship between perfor-
mance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance
on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCRR Tech.
Rep. No. 1). Tallahassee: Florida Center for Reading Research.
Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Stieber, S. (2001). Using oral reading
rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement
tests. Education Assessment, 7, 303–323.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1993). Formative evaluation of aca-
demic progress: How much growth can we expect? School
Psychology Review, 22(1), 27–49.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indi-
cators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR:
Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
Available from http://dibels.uoregon.edu
Johns, J. L. (2005). Fluency norms for students in grades one
through eight. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 33(4), 3–8.
McCurdy, B. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1992). A comparison of teach-
er-, peer-, and self-monitoring with curriculum-based measure-
ment in reading among students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Special Education, 26, 162–181.
Mehrens, W. A., & Clarizio, H. F. (1993). Curriculum-based
measurement: Conceptual and psychometric considerations.
Psychology in the Schools, 30, 241–254.
Rodden-Nord, K., & Shinn, M. R. (1991). The range of reading
skills within and across general education classrooms: Contri-
butions to understanding special education for students with
mild handicaps. Journal of Special Education, 24, 441–453.
Speece, D. I., & Ritchey, K. D. (2005). A longitudinal study of
the development of oral reading fluency in young children at
risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38,
387–399.
Vander Meer, C. D., Lentz, F. E., & Stollar, S. (2005). The rela-
tionship between oral reading fluency and Ohio proficiency
testing in reading (Tech. Rep.). Eugene: University of Oregon.
Wilson, J. (2005). The relationship of Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) oral reading fluency to perfor-
mance on Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS).
Tempe, AZ: Tempe School District No. 3.