Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading (CBM-R)

Word Identification Fluency

Cost Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs Service and Support Purpose and Other Implementation Information Usage and Reporting

Cost for 1 school:
$20.00 for 30 probes, 30 word-count scoring sheets, and manual.

$35.00 fee to make copies of the materials.

There are no other costs. There are no continuing costs.

Testers will require 1-4 hours of training.

Paraprofessionals can administer the test.

Testing accommodations should be consistent with those specified on the student’s IEP for high-stakes testing and implemented consistently for every progress monitoring occasion across the school year.

Vanderbilt University
PMB # 228
110 Magnolia Circle, Suite 418
Nashville, TN 37203

Field-tested training manuals are available and provide all necessary implementation information.

For questions and to order CBM-R Word Identification Fluency, contact:

Lynn Davies
Phone: 615-343-4782
Lynn.a.davies@vanderbilt.edu
 

CBM-R Word Identification Fluency is a progress monitoring tool for individual first grade students, based on Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM).

Students are presented with a random set of 50 Dolch words, sampled from the 100 most frequent words. Students have 1 minute to read words. The score is the number of correct words. This measure is used as an indicator of reading competence at first grade.

The primary score, which is graphed over time, represents the student’s overall reading competence at the relevant grade.

The tool provides information on student performance in English.

Administration of the test takes 1 - 2.5 minutes per individual student, depending on the type of progress monitoring measure. Scoring takes an additional 2-5 minutes.

30 alternate forms are available.

Raw scores are number correct. Percentile scores and developmental benchmarks are also available.

 

Reliability of the Performance Level Score

Grade1
RatingFull bubble
Type of Reliability Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range
Stability /alternate form 1 151 0.97 17% ESL; 7% with IEPs; 59% subsidized lunch; 38% African American

 

Reliability of the Slope

Grade1
RatingFull bubble
Type of Reliability Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range median
HLM 1 151 0.75 - 0.90 0.86

17% ESL; 7% with IEPs; 59% subsidized lunch; 38% African American

Weekly assessments the first 7 weeks and twice weekly assessments for the next 13 weeks over 5 months (33 assessments per student; make-ups were completed within 1 week of the targeted week)

 

Validity of the Performance Level Score

Grade1
RatingFull bubble
Type of Validity Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Test or Criterion Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range median
Concurrent validity 1 151 0.77-0.82 0.80 Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT) Word Identification 17% ESL; 7% with IEPs; 59% subsidized lunch; 38% African American
Concurrent validity 1 151 0.52-0.59 0.56 WRMT Word Attack See above.
Concurrent validity 1 151 0.93   Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB): Passage Reading Fluency See above.
Concurrent validity 1 151 0.73   CRAB: Comprehension See above.
Predictive validity 1 151 0.63   WRMT-Word Identification See above.
Predictive validity 1 151 0.80   CRAB Passage Reading Fluency See above.
Predictive validity 1 151 0.66   CRAB Comprehension See above.

 

Predictive Validity of the Slope of Improvement

Grade1
RatingFull bubble
Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n (range) Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range median
Criterion validity 1 WRMT Word Identification, concurrent with end of progress monitoring 151 0.43-0.79 0.61

17% ESL; 7% with IEPs; 59% subsidized lunch; 38% African American

Weekly assessments the first 7 weeks and twice weekly assessments for the next 13 weeks over 5 months (33 assessments per student; make-ups were completed within 1 week of the targeted week)

Criterion validity 1 CRAB Passage Reading Fluency, Concurrent with end of progress monitoring 151 0.54-0.85 0.63 See above.
Criterion validity 1 CRAB Passage Reading Comprehension, Concurrent with end of progress monitoring 151 0.45-0.66 0.49 See above.
Also see Dominance Analysis in Fuchs, Fuchs & Compton, 2004.

 

Bias Analysis Conducted

Grade1
RatingNo

Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data

Grade1
RatingNo

Alternate Forms

Grade1
RatingFull bubble

1. Evidence that alternate forms are of equal and controlled difficulty or, if IRT based, evidence of item or ability invariance:

For word identification fluency, each alternate form randomly samples 50 of the Dolch 100 most frequent words. The random sample of words is displayed in random order. Alternate form reliability is 0.95.

2. Number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty:

For word identification fluency, there are 30 alternate forms.

Rates of Improvement Specified

Grade1
RatingFull bubble

1. Is minimum acceptable growth (slope of improvement or average weekly increase in score by grade level) specified in manual or published materials?

Yes (Note: These norms are based on academically representative samples).

a. Specify the growth standards:

Normative Word Identification Fluency Data for RTI Decision Making at First Grade

Sample size Designating Risk Determining Response
Level 5-8 Week Slope Projected End-Year Benchmark Slope of Improvement
151 <10 <1.80 30 1.80

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth:

Norm-referenced

Normative profile:

Representation: National
Date: 1990-2000
Number of States: 6
Size: 1,723
Gender: 49% Male, 51% Female
SES: 36% Low, 43% Middle, 21% High
Race/Ethnicity: 39% White, 36% Black, 25% Unknown
ELL: 12%
Disability classification: 7%

End-of-Year Benchmarks

Grade1
RatingFull bubble

1. Are benchmarks for minimum acceptable end-of-year performance specified in your manual or published materials?

Yes (Note: These norms are based on academically representative samples).

a. Specify the end-of-year performance standards:

Normative Word Identification Fluency Data for RTI Decision Making at First Grade

Sample size Designating Risk Determining Response
Level 5-8 Week Slope Projected End-Year Benchmark Slope of Improvement
151 <10 <1.80 30 1.80

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable end-of-year performance:

Norm-referenced

c. Specify the benchmarks:

Normative Word Identification Fluency Data for RTI Decision Making at First Grade

Sample size Designating Risk Determining Response
Level 5-8 Week Slope Projected End-Year Benchmark Slope of Improvement
151 <10 <1.80 30 1.80

d. Basis for specifying these benchmarks?

Norm-referenced

Normative profile:

Representation: National
Date: 1990-2000
Number of States: 6
Size: 1,723
Gender: 49% Male, 51% Female
SES: 36% Low, 43% Middle, 21% High
Race/Ethnicity: 39% White, 36% Black, 25% Unknown
ELL: 12%
Disability classification: 7%

Sensitive to Student Improvement

Grade1
RatingFull bubble

1. Describe evidence that the monitoring system produces data that are sensitive to student improvement (i.e., when student learning actually occurs, student performance on the monitoring tool increases on average).

Slopes on the progress-monitoring tool are significantly greater than zero; the slopes are significantly different for learning disabled vs. low-achieving vs. average-achieving vs. high-achieving students; and the slopes are greater when effective practices (e.g., peer-assisted learning strategies) are in place.

Please note that this evidence is direct, based on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading: Word Identification Fluency. The pertinent references are: (1) Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (submitted). The Course of Reading and Mathematics Disability in First Grade: Identifying Latent Class Trajectories and Early Predictors; and (2) Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2008). Discriminating achievement status at first grade using CBM word identification fluency. Unpublished report.

Also, please note that we have direct evidence from randomized control trials that performance on these probes is sensitive to treatment effects (i.e., student learning), which are also revealed on other technically sound measures. The pertinent references are: (1) Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (submitted). The Course of Reading and Mathematics Disability in First Grade: Identifying Latent Class Trajectories and Early Predictors; and (2) Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., & Davis, G.C. (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal study at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing: A Contemporary Journal, 21, 413-436.

Decision Rules for Changing Instruction

Grade1
Ratingdash

Decision Rules for Increasing Goals

Grade1
Ratingdash

Improved Student Achievement

Grade1
Ratingdash

Improved Teacher Planning

Grade1
Ratingdash