Hi,
 
I'd also recommend the following references for thinking about how to
assess and think about fluency measures with adult learners.  The first
two are actually from the 4th grade special studies of Oral reading
conducting by the NAEP.  The reason to look at them is to see how the
authors constucted the fluency/prosody/expressiveness subscale and to
understand a bit about the distinctions between rate (words per minute),
accuracy (percentage correct), and words correct per minute.  As the
Wayman report points out, 4th grade is a key developmental year for the
strength of the relationship between oral reading and comprehension in
children. The national sampling is sound. The Wayman article introduces
all the variations of oral reading tasks and what aspects might matter
in choosing one.  One can also read nearly anything by Tim Shanahan.
 
DIBELS has been an exemplar of a Curriculum-based Measures (CBM)
approach.  The goal of that research had been to use fluency-type
measures as a proxy for predicting reading comprehension.
Interestingly, the focus has been less on the subgoal/subskill of
improving children's reading fluency.  The DIBELS technical reports
still provide some useful benchmarks for thinking about the development
of reading rate and fluency, but as the previous post notes, be cautious
about applying any rules as is with adults. They do continue to improve
the technical aspects.
 
Of course, we continue to recommend you look at the NCES Basic Skills
report that was just published, as we gave a national sample of  some
19000 adults two passages -- one at about 2nd-6th grade level another at
7th-8th grade level.  While we cannot at present create a normative
scale for those particular passages, as we develop further reports, the
results can be a guide to expectations for adult readers.  Our research
team here is also conducting research on adult reading fluency, though
we don't have particular assessments to recommend at this time.
Hopefully, we'll have more helpful reports out there for you soon.
 
I think one of the main purposes in reading fluency assessments with
adults is to monitor the improvement of accuracy, rate, and
fluency/prosody/expressiveness (I think referred to here as chunking for
syntax, grammar) over time with texts of increasing challenge.  So, it
is the repeating of the activity over time and the recording of rates
and accuracy and ease to see if there is improvement.   I don't trust
readability formulas for equating texts - don't expect any two texts
with the same readability index to be of equal difficulty in terms of
reading rate for any adult.  However, adults and most readers are
roughly consistent in their reading rates across a relatively wide
variety of texts - until they get so difficult that the individual is
struggling with every word.  I actually prefer picking easy texts
relative to the adults word reading ability when monitoring continuous
text reading fluency.  There are separate measures one can use for word
recognition and decoding. 
 
Finally, McShane's report applies this to adults.
 
John
 
 
Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje,
A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study
of oral reading (No. NCES 2006-469). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Education, Institution of Education Sciences, National Center for
Educational Statistics.

Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wikxson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough,
P. B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Data
from NAEP's Integrated Reading Performance Record (IRPR) at grade 4 (No.
NAEP-23-FR-04; NCES-95-726). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Samuels, S. J. (2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In S. J.
Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency
instruction (pp. 24-46). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A.
(2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading.
The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85-120.

 

McShane, S. (2005). Applying Research in Reading Instruction for Adults:

First Steps for Teachers. Washington, DC: National Center for Family
Literacy, National Institute for Literacy.

 


________________________________

From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov]
On Behalf Of SALandrum at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:53 AM
To: assessment at nifl.gov
Subject: [Assessment 1926] Re: DIBELS


I may be wrong but I don't think it has been scaled for adults. Below is
from their webpage.
 

The DIBELS were developed as criterion-based measures; but national
norms have been developed. 

DIBELS are criterion-referenced because each measure has an empirically
established goal (or benchmark) that changes across time to ensure
students' skills are developing in a manner predictive of continued
progress. The goals/benchmarks were developed following a large group of
students in a longitudinal manner to see where students who were
"readers" in later grades were performing on these critical early
literacy skills when they were in Kindergarten and First grade so that
we can make predictions about which students are progressing adequately
and which students may need additional instructional support. This
approach is in contrast with normative measures which simply demonstrate
where a student is performing in relation to the normative sample,
regardless of whether that performance is predictive of future success. 

For your convenience, district-level norms or percentiles are generated
at each benchmark data collection period so schools/districts can make
decisions about student performance in relation to the local context of
students who have received, generally, the same type of instructional
experiences. National norms, generated with all the students in the
DIBELS Data System as of 2002, are also posted within the Technical
Reports section of the website in Technical Report #9. 

You can see how the benchmark goals are used by going to our Technical
Reports <https://dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/index.php>  page and
downloading the following report: 

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. S., Kame'enui, E. J., Kaminski, R. A., &
Wallin, J. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic,
and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through
third grade (Technical Report No. 11). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.


 
Susan Landrum
Certified Barton Tutor
Central Georgia Technical College
slandrumcgtcedu at gmail.com 
 
In a message dated 5/28/2009 6:42:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jmarrapodi at applestar.org writes:

	

	I'm going out on a limb here.

	Lots of folks in the K-5 world use DIBELS (
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/ ) for reading assessment in the primary
grades. It is fairly granular. Is there any history or applicability for
use with adult low literacy learners? It's fairly intensive to learn to
administer, but it does measure a lot of the subskills we are looking at
with alphabetics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary. In the teacher
discussions on teachers.net one of their complaints was the timing
issues for young children, which I can see could create undue stress for
some tasks. Often elementary materials are problematic for adults, but
this one comes well researched.

	 

	I'm just wondering about it, so I thought I'd toss it into the
mix this week to see what you all thought.

	 

  <http://www.applestar.org/> 


Jean Marrapodi, PhD, CPLP

teacher by training, learner by design
jmarrapodi at applestar.org <mailto:rejoicer at aol.com> 
mobile: 401.440.6165
<http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?lang=en&src=jj_signature&To=401%2E44
0%2E6165&Email=rejoicer at aol.com> 
www.applestar.org <http://www.applestar.org/>  

 

	

	 

	 



	-------------------------------
	National Institute for Literacy
	Assessment mailing list
	Assessment at nifl.gov
	To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go
to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment
	Email delivered to salandrum at aol.com
	


________________________________

We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will
you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com
<http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000004> .

--------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information.
It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly.
If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute,
or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from
your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.
--------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20090528/d2d4467e/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4093 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
Url : http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20090528/d2d4467e/attachment.jpe