DIBELS Next National Norms

Transcription

1 DYNAMIC MEASUREMENT GROUP DIBELS Next National Norms Elizabeth N Dewey, M.Sc. Ruth A. Kaminski, Ph.D. Roland H. Good, III, Ph.D. Suggested Citation: Dewey, E. N., Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (2014). DIBELS Next National Norms (Technical Report No. 17). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.

2 Table of Contents Page Contents 2 Introduction 2 National and Local Norms 3 Description of the Sample 4 Weighting procedures 5 National Norms Percentile Rank Interpretation 5 Technical Adequacy of DIBELS Next 6 About the Authors of DIBELS Next 7 References 8 Table 1. Demographic Data for the DIBELS Next Normative Sample 9 Table 2. DIBELS Next Race/Ethnicity Weights 10 Tables 3-9. Grade- Level Summary Tables for DIBELS Next National Norms 17 Table 10. National Norms for DIBELS Next First Sound Fluency (FSF) 20 Table 11. National Norms for DIBELS Next Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) 25 Table 12. National Norms for DIBELS Next Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) 30 Table 13. National Norms for DIBELS Next Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) 34 Table 14. National Norms for DIBELS Next Nonsense Word Fluency Whole Words Read (WWR) 36 Table 15. National Norms for DIBELS Next Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct (DORF WC) 48 Table 16. National Norms for DIBELS Next Oral Reading Fluency Accuracy (DORF ACC) 52 Table 17. National Norms for DIBELS Next Retell 56 Table 18. National Norms for DIBELS Next Daze 59 Table 19. National Norms for DIBELS Next Composite Score (DCS) 1

3 Introduction The following report presents national norms for the DIBELS Next measures of early literacy skills for kindergarten through sixth grades. The results are presented by grade and time of year for which these measures are used for benchmark assessment (beginning-, middle-, and end- of- year). The DIBELS Next national norms are based on data entered into Dynamic Measurement Group s DIBELSnet data reporting service ( for the school year. National and Local Norms The DIBELS Next national norms presented in this report allow a school or district to compare a student s performance to other students across the United States. When examined in conjunction with local (school or district) norms, the DIBELS Next national norms can be used as an additional frame of reference for evaluating a student s skill level in early reading. The primary interpretation of DIBELS Next scores, however, should continue to be in respect to the benchmark goals. DIBELS Next benchmark goals are empirically derived, criterion- referenced target scores that represent adequate reading progress. If a student achieves a benchmark goal, then the odds are in favor of that student achieving later reading outcomes if the student receives instruction from a research- based core curriculum. In order for the odds to be in favor of future reading success, students need to score at or above the benchmark goal, regardless of where their score falls relative to national or local norms. For more information about the benchmark goals, see the DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and Composite Score document at In addition, we recommend prioritization of local norms over national norms when interpreting student performance. Local norms allow a school or district to compare an individual student s performance to other students in the same district. Local norms have the important advantage of being representative of the student s district, even if they are not necessarily representative of the national population. If the average achievement in a given district is below the national average achievement score, all percentile ranks would be affected. For instance, a student that scores 70 on DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct (DORF WC) at the middle of third grade would be well below the benchmark goal for the measure. This score would place the student at the 22nd percentile according to national norms, but may be at the 75th percentile on local norms, if the average achievement in the district is below the national average. When considering how to utilize limited resources for reading intervention services, this student's local percentile may indicate lower priority for limited support resources than a student whose scores indicate much lower performance according to local norms. There are times, however, when national norms can provide additional clarification regarding student performance. For example, this same student might appear to have average skills in the local context, but the national normative information clarifies that the student s skills are below average in a larger context (see Table A). Considering benchmark goals, local norms, and DIBELS Next national norms can provide a more complete and nuanced perspective on the student s skills and needs. It is also important to consider the characteristics of students in a particular district. For example, a local district may have a very high proportion of English- language learners. While the DIBELS Next national norms include English- language learners, the proportion may or may 2

4 not be representative of the local district. A second consideration is the national distribution of demographic characteristics. National norms may be more representative of some states than others. Specific norms for a particular state may be less representative of the nation as a whole, but more representative of students in the state. It is important for district and school leaders to review the demographic information presented in this report in order to assess the relevance of the DIBELS Next national norms for their student population prior to making decisions about individual students or overall district performance. For norm- referenced interpretations with DIBELS, descriptors for levels of performance are provided in Table A. The performance descriptors are intended to describe the current level of skill for a student in comparison to other students in in the DIBELS Next national norm comparison group. They are not intended as statements of achievement and do not reflect what the student is capable of learning with targeted, effective instruction. Table A. Levels of Performance Percentile Rank Ranges 98th percentile and above 91st to 97th percentile 76th to 90th percentile 25th to 75th percentile 9th to 24th percentile 3rd to 8th percentile 2nd percentile and below Performance Descriptors: Compared to other students in the DIBELSnet sample, the student s performance is: Upper Extreme Well- Above Average Above Average Average Below Average Well- Below Average Lower Extreme Even when interpreting scores at the percentile level, the purposes of DIBELS Next are still as a screening and progress monitoring measure that can identify students that may need additional instructional support and monitor their progress toward meaningful goals. A student s future reading ability is unknown and not fixed at the time of the initial screening. Instead, reading outcomes are the result of both the student s initial skills and the targeted, differentiated instruction and intervention that are provided as a direct result of the screening information. If the initial screening predicts a less- than- adequate performance, then the instructional goal is to change the prediction for the better. For example, if a student's scores reflect Well- Below Average performance on the beginning- of- year kindergarten assessment, then he or she is likely to need additional instructional support to be successful. The goal is for the student to achieve improved outcomes, (i.e., Above Average scores in first grade), as a result of providing targeted, differentiated instruction and early intervention. Description of the Sample The percentile ranks for the DIBELS Next national norms are based on a large national sample of school- age children across the United States. This sample was collected and entered into DIBELSnet by school personnel at three benchmark assessment time points (fall or beginning- 3

5 of- year, winter or middle- of- year, and spring or end- of- year) during the school year. Data were exported from DIBELSnet in June Students with recorded data from all three benchmark assessments were retained. The final sample included approximately 265,000 students in kindergarten through sixth grade from 1,006 schools within 396 school districts, representing every census region in the United States. Demographic information for the DIBELSnet sample was aggregated at the school level from the National Center on Education Statistics website ( in December of NCES demographic data were based on the school year. Racial/ethnic proportions of the DIBELSnet sample were estimated at the school level using NCES demographic categories, and were estimated to be approximately 62% White, 22% Hispanic, and 8% Black with an average free and reduced- price lunch rate of 48%. Weighting the Sample to be Nationally Representative To achieve a nationally representative sample of students, the DIBELSnet exported sample was weighted by race/ethnicity at the school level. The NCES reported the following proportions for each race/ethnicity for the national population of students during the school year: 52% White, 24% Hispanic, 16% Black, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2.5% Two or More Races, and 1% Native American/Alaskan Native. The weights were estimated in a five- step process. 1) For each race/ethnicity category, the ratio of the proportion of students in the DIBELSnet sample to the NCES national proportion was calculated; e.g., the DIBELSnet sample was approximately 8% Black, the NCES reported national population was 16% Black, and thus the ratio of proportions for NCES to DIBELSnet is 2. 2) For each race/ethnicity category, the proportion of students was estimated for each school in the sample. For example, using NCES demographic data, School A reported 250 Black students out of 740 total students; i.e, approximately 34% of the school population is Black. In DIBELSnet, there were 613 students with recorded data from School A. Thus the estimated number of students who are Black for School A is 34% of 613 (208). 3) For each race/ethnicity category, the number of students estimated in step 2 was multiplied by the ratio calculated in step 1. The data was then evaluated for national demographic representation, which revealed a larger White population and a smaller Black population than nationally. 4) To correct for the oversampling from the White population and the undersampling from the Black population, the weights for the White and Black populations were decreased and increased, respectively. The increase and decrease was calculated by measuring the magnitude of the weight from 1; e.g., the estimated ratio of the White population in DIBELSnet to the national population was.82, which is.18 distance from 1. The weights for the White and Black populations were adjusted by increasing the distance of the weight by twice its distance from 1. For example, the White population in the 4

6 DIBELSnet sample was decreased by.36 to.46. Conversely, the weight for the Black population in the DIBELSnet sample was increased from 2 to 4. 5) Once the final race/ethnicity category weights were calculated, the weighted number of students across all race/ethnicity categories within each school was totaled and divided by the number of students reported by NCES for that school resulting in the final school weight. For example, the weighted total for the School A was 1093 divided by the total students with recorded data in DIBELSnet (613) equals the final school weight of Thus, every student in School A, regardless of race, counted 1.78 times in the normative sample. This achieved a higher proportion of students from more racially diverse schools than what was currently present in the DIBELSnet sample.the final weighted DIBELSnet sample differs from the estimated national population of students by less than 2% in each category of race/ethnicity. Demographic information for the unweighted sample is reported in Table 1 (page 8). Weighted race/ethnicity information is reported in Table 2 (page 9). Summaries of each measure's percentile score rankings for DIBELS Next are reported by grade in Tables 3 9 (pages 10-16). Exact percentile ranks for each score on each DIBELS Next measure are reported by measure in Tables (pages 17-59). National Norms Percentile Rank Interpretation The percentile that corresponds to each score or growth rate represents the nationally representative system- wide skill level of the DIBELSnet population, and can be used to compare the performance of individual students to a nation- wide sample population. For example, if a third grade student scored 110 on DORF Words Correct at the middle- of- year benchmark assessment, then, according to the summary Table 6 and the exact percentile rank Table 15, her score falls at the 65 th percentile rank. This means that, in addition to scoring above benchmark on the measure, the student performed as well as or better than approximately 65% of other students within the DIBELS Next national norms and was in the average range based on the performance descriptors in Table A. Alternatively, if the student scored 77 on DORF Words Correct, then her score falls in the average range. From Table 6, a score of 77 falls between the 25 th and 30 th percentile. Table 15 provides the exact rank of the 27th percentile. This means that 27% of other students within the DIBELS Next national norms scored as well as or lower than the student. Technical Adequacy of DIBELS Next Alternate- form reliability coefficients for the DIBELS Composite Score are.66 in kindergarten, and ranged from.91 to.97 in first- through sixth- grades. For inter- rater reliability for the DIBELS Next Composite Score, the percent- agreement in raters ranges from.94 to.99. Predictive validity coefficients for DIBELS Next Composite Score range from.48 to.80, and concurrent validity is.40 in kindergarten, and ranges from.73 to.80 in first through sixth grades. For more information about the reliability and validity of DIBELS Next, see the DIBELS Next Technical Manual, available from the DIBELS Next download page at 5

7 About the Authors of DIBELS Next Ruth A. Kaminski, Ph.D., is the Director of Research and Development for Dynamic Measurement Group and co- author of DIBELS. Dr. Kaminski s academic background includes degrees in Speech Pathology, Early Intervention, and School Psychology. For the past 20 years she has conducted research on assessment and preventative interventions for preschool and early elementary age children. Dr. Kaminski has extensive experience providing consultation to Head Start agencies and public schools throughout Oregon and the United States. In addition, she has over 10 years experience as a classroom teacher and speech/language clinician with preschool age children. In 2007, Dr. Kaminski was selected as the recipient of Pennsylvania State University's Excellence in Education Award, the highest honor bestowed on an alumnus of the College of Education. Roland H. Good, III, Ph.D., is President and Associate Director of Research and Development for Dynamic Measurement Group and co- author of DIBELS. Dr. Good completed his undergraduate degree in Elementary and Special Education, and he has two years experience as a teacher in elementary general education and special education classrooms. He earned his doctorate from Pennsylvania State University in School Psychology and served two years as a school psychologist. For the past 20 years, Dr. Good has led the program of research and development culminating in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Dr. Good provides DIBELS professional development to educators and administrators throughout the United States. He has also served on the editorial boards for School Psychology Review, School Psychology Quarterly, and the Journal of Special Education and has presented more than 100 papers at national conferences. In 2005, Penn State awarded Dr. Good its Excellence in Education Award in recognition of his contributions to the field of education. 6

8 References Good, R. H., III, Kaminski, R. K., Cummings, K., Dufour- Martel, C., Petersen, K., Powell- Smith, K., Stollar, S., & Wallin, J. (2011). DIBELS Next Assessment Manual. Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group. Available: Good, R. H., III, Kaminski, R. K., Dewey, E. N.,Wallin, J., Powell- Smith, K.A, Latimer, R., J., (2013). DIBELS Next Technical Manual. Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group. Available: Kena, G., Aud, S., Johnson, F., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Wilkinson- Flicker, S., and Kristapovich, P. (2014). Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools. In The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES ). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved on June 2, 2014 from 7

9 Table 1. Demographic Data for the DIBELS Next Normative Sample Average Proportion Locale Number of Schools Female Free/Red. Lunch Eligible Native American/ Alaskan Asian & Pacific Islander Hispanic Black White Two or more races Distant rural Distant town Fringe rural Fringe town Large city Large suburb Midsize city Midsize suburb Remote Rural Remote town Small city Small suburb Sample- Wide Note. Data reported from 1,006 schools in 396 school districts exported from Dynamic Measurement Group's DIBELSnet data reporting system. Demographic data aggregated at the school level by the U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

10 Table 2. DIBELS Next Race/Ethnicity Weights NCES 2011 DIBELSnet Weighted DIBELSnet Race/Ethnicity % N % Weight N % White Hispanic Black Asian & Pacific Islander Native American/ Alaskan Native Two or more races Note. Based on 1,006 schools. There were 445,295 students in the NCES population and 265,693 students in DIBELSnet. NCES 2011 % is the proportion of students in each race/ethnicity category reported by the NCES. The weights are the ratio of the DIBELSnet proportion to the nationally representative proportion. To correct for an oversampling from the white population and an undersampling from the black population, the magnitude of the weights were decreased and increased, respectively (please see text on page 4 for details). The weighted DIBELSnet N is the actual number of students in the DIBELSnet sample multiplied by the weight. 9

11 Table 3. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks Summary for All DIBELS Next Kindergarten Measures Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Percentile Rank FSF LNF DCS FSF LNF PSF NWF CLS NWF WWR DCS LNF PSF NWF CLS NWF WWR DCS Note. N = 52,079. Data exported from Dynamic Measurement Group's data reporting system DIBELSnet. Values reported are the lowest raw score at or above the corresponding percentile rank. FSF = First Sound Fluency. LNF = Letter Naming Fluency. PSF = Phoneme Segmentation Fluency. NWF CLS = Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds. NWF WWR = Nonsense Word Fluency Whole Words Read. DCS = DIBELS Composite Score. 10

12 Table 4. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks Summary for All DIBELS Next First- Grade Measures Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Percentile Rank LNF PSF NWF CLS NWF WWR DCS NWF CLS NWF WWR DORF WC Retell DORF ACC DCS NWF CLS NWF WWR DORF WC Retell DCS Note. N = 50,571. Data exported from Dynamic Measurement Group's data reporting system DIBELSnet. Values reported are the lowest raw score at or above the corresponding percentile rank. LNF = Letter Naming Fluency. PSF = Phoneme Segmentation Fluency. NWF CLS = Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds. NWF WWR = Nonsense Word Fluency Whole Words Read. DORF WC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct. DORF ACC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Accuracy. DCS = DIBELS Composite Score. DORF ACC 11

13 Table 5. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks Summary for All DIBELS Next Second- Grade Measures Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Percentile NWF NWF DORF DORF DORF DORF DORF DORF Rank CLS WWR WC Retell ACC DCS WC Retell ACC DCS WC Retell ACC DCS Note. N = 43,461. Data exported from Dynamic Measurement Group's data reporting system DIBELSnet. Values reported are the lowest raw score at or above the corresponding percentile rank. NWF CLS = Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds. NWF WWR = Nonsense Word Fluency Whole Words Read. DORF WC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct. DORF ACC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Accuracy. DCS = DIBELS Composite Score. 12

14 Table 6. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks Summary for All DIBELS Next Third- Grade Measures Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Percentile DORF DORF DORF DORF DORF DORF Rank WC Retell ACC Daze DCS WC Retell ACC Daze DCS WC Retell ACC Daze DCS Note. N = 39,593. Data exported from Dynamic Measurement Group's data reporting system DIBELSnet. Values reported are the lowest raw score at or above the corresponding percentile rank. NWF CLS = Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds. NWF WWR = Nonsense Word Fluency Whole Words Read. DORF WC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct. DORF ACC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Accuracy. DCS = DIBELS Composite Score. 13

15 Table 7. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks Summary for All DIBELS Next Fourth- Grade Measures Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Percentile DORF DORF DORF DORF DORF DORF Rank WC Retell ACC Daze DCS WC Retell ACC Daze DCS WC Retell ACC Daze DCS Note. N = 34,323. Data exported from Dynamic Measurement Group's data reporting system DIBELSnet. Values reported are the lowest raw score at or above the corresponding percentile rank. NWF CLS = Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds. NWF WWR = Nonsense Word Fluency Whole Words Read. DORF WC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct. DORF ACC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Accuracy. DCS = DIBELS Composite Score. 14

16 Table 8. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks Summary for All DIBELS Next Fifth- Grade Measures Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Percentile DORF DORF DORF DORF DORF DORF Rank WC Retell ACC Daze DCS WC Retell ACC Daze DCS WC Retell ACC Daze DCS Note. N = 30,056. Data exported from Dynamic Measurement Group's data reporting system DIBELSnet. Values reported are the lowest raw score at or above the corresponding percentile rank. NWF CLS = Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds. NWF WWR = Nonsense Word Fluency Whole Words Read. DORF WC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct. DORF ACC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Accuracy. DCS = DIBELS Composite Score. 15

17 Table 9. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks Summary for All DIBELS Next Sixth- Grade Measures Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Percentile DORF DORF DORF DORF DORF DORF Rank WC Retell ACC Daze DCS WC Retell ACC Daze DCS WC Retell ACC Daze DCS Note. N = 15,610. Data exported from Dynamic Measurement Group's data reporting system DIBELSnet. Values reported are the lowest raw score at or above the corresponding percentile rank. NWF CLS = Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds. NWF WWR = Nonsense Word Fluency Whole Words Read. DORF WC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct. DORF ACC = DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Accuracy. DCS = DIBELS Composite Score. 16

18 Table 10. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS First Sound Fluency (FSF) Percentile Rank FSF SCORE Beginning- of- Year Middle- of- Year

19 Table 10. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS First Sound Fluency (FSF) Percentile Rank FSF SCORE Beginning- of- Year Middle- of- Year > > > >

20 Table 10. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS First Sound Fluency (FSF) Percentile Rank FSF SCORE Beginning- of- Year Middle- of- Year 54 > > > > > > >99 97 Note. N = 52,

21 Table 11. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) Kindergarten First Grade LNF SCORE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year

22 Table 11. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) Kindergarten First Grade LNF SCORE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year

23 Table 11. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) Kindergarten First Grade LNF SCORE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year > > > > > > > > > > > >

24 Table 11. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) Kindergarten First Grade LNF SCORE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year 82 > > > > >99 > >99 > >99 > >99 >99 98 >99 90 >99 >99 99 >99 91 >99 >99 99 >99 92 >99 >99 99 >99 93 >99 >99 99 >99 94 >99 >99 99 >99 95 >99 >99 99 >99 96 >99 >99 >99 >99 97 >99 >99 >99 >99 98 >99 >99 >99 >99 99 >99 >99 >99 > >99 >99 >99 > >99 >99 >99 > >99 >99 >99 > >99 >99 >99 > >99 >99 >99 > >99 >99 >99 > >99 >99 >99 > >99 >99 >99 > >99 >99 >99 > >99 >99 >99 >99 23

25 Table 11. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) Kindergarten First Grade LNF SCORE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year 110 >99 >99 >99 >99 Note. Sample sizes by grade: Kindergarten = 52, 079; first grade = 50,

26 Table 12. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) Kindergarten First Grade PSF SCORES Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year

27 Table 12. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) Kindergarten First Grade PSF SCORES Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year

28 Table 12. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) Kindergarten First Grade PSF SCORES Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year > > >99 99 >99 Note. Sample sizes by grade: Kindergarten = 52, 079; first grade = 50, 571, second grade = 43,

29 Table 13. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade CLS Scores Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year <1 <1 < <1 <1 < <1 <1 < <1 <1 < <1 <1 < <1 <1 < <1 <1 < <1 < <1 < < < <

30 Table 13. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade CLS Scores Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year

31 Table 13. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade CLS Scores Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year

32 Table 13. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade CLS Scores Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year > > > > > > >

33 Table 13. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade CLS Scores Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year 110 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >99 99 > >99 99 >

34 Table 13. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade CLS Scores Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year 138 >99 99 > >99 99 > >99 99 > >99 99 > > > > > Note. Sample sizes by grade: kindergarten = 52,079; first grade = 50,571; second grade = 43,

35 Table 14. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Whole Words Read (WWR) WWR Scores Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year

36 Table 14. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Whole Words Read (WWR) WWR Scores Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Beginning of Year > > > > > > > > > > > > >99 99 > >99 99 > >99 99 > >99 99 > >99 >99 > >99 >99 > Note. Sample sizes by grade: kindergarten = 52,079; first grade = 50,571; second grade = 43,

37 Table 15. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct (DORF WC) DORF First Grade Second Grade Third grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Sixth Grade WC MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3 1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 36

38 Table 15. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct (DORF WC) DORF First Grade Second Grade Third grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Sixth Grade WC MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 1 <1 < <1 <1 1 <1 < <1 1 <1 < <1 1 1 < < <

39 Table 15. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct (DORF WC) DORF First Grade Second Grade Third grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Sixth Grade WC MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY

40 Table 15. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct (DORF WC) DORF First Grade Second Grade Third grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Sixth Grade WC MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY

41 Table 15. DIBELS Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct (DORF WC) DORF WC First Grade Second Grade Third grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Sixth Grade MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY