Using Individual Growth and Development Indicators to Predict by eYhL5doH

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 25

									USING EARLY LITERACY
ASSESSMENTS TO PREDICT
READING ACHIEVEMENT



 Anna Michelle Gillard, PhD, NCSP
 NASP Annual Conference
 March 5, 2010
Early Literacy Assessment
 Essential to reading acquisition
 Early literacy skills include
      Phonological awareness
      Vocabulary skills
      Letter knowledge
 Purposes of assessment include:
      Progress monitoring
      Identification of struggling students
Why is this important?
 Monitor progress
 Identify struggling students
 Develop appropriate interventions
Individual Growth & Development
Indicators
 Early literacy measures created through collaboration
  between the Universities of Minnesota, Kansas, and Oregon
 Created to measure early childhood development, one area
  of which is early literacy
 Include three subtests
    Picture Naming
    Rhyming
    Alliteration
 Reliability and validity




   (McConnell, Priest, Davis, & McEvoy, 2000; Missal & McConnell, 2004)
 Picture Naming
 1 minute, timed
  fluency measure of
  expressive language
 Child is required to
  name pictures
 Rhyming
• 2 minute fluency
  measure of
  phonological
  awareness
• Child is required to
  identify the picture
  in a set of 3 that
  sounds like the
  target picture
 Alliteration
• 2 minute fluency
  measure of
  phonological
  awareness
• Child is required to
  identify the picture
  in a set of 3 that
  starts with the
  same sound as the
  target picture
DIBELS
 Measures of early literacy skills
    Phonological awareness
    Letter knowledge
 Timed, fluency measures
 Formerly mandated through the Reading First
  grant
 Research shows that DIBELS are predictive of
  reading achievement

 (Gillard, 2008; Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001; Kaminski &
  Good, 1996)
Florida Assessments In Reading (FAIR)

 New statewide reading assessment (K-12)
 Three levels of assessment:
     Broad Screening
     Targeted Diagnostics
     Progress Monitoring
 Primary measure for K-2: Probability of
  Reading Success (PRS)
Participants: Cohort 1 (2007-2008)
 95 students in five VPK classes
 Demographic make-up
 82 remaining in Kindergarten (08-09)
 75 remaining in First grade (09-10)
     However, FAIR data not available for all
      students
Participants: Cohort 2 (2008-2009)
 180 students in 11 VPK classes
 Demographic make-up
 165 included in this sample
     FAIR data not available for all students
Measures
• IGDIs
   – Administered Fall, Winter, & Spring
   – All measures attempted
• DIBELS
   – Only Cohort 1
   – ISF and LNF administered within first 30 days of school
   – Reading First schools given DIBELS three times
• FAIR
   – AP 1: Administered between 6th and 40th day of school
   – AP 2: Administered between 66th and 100th day of
     school
   – All students: Broad Screening, Broad Diagnostics
   – Some students: Targeted Diagnostics
Cohort 1 Results: FAIR

 ANOVA for PRS-AP1                     ANOVA for PRS-AP2

 Measurement                          Measurement
                 df   F       Sig.                    df    F       Sig.
 Time                                 Time

 Fall            3    .960    .417    Fall            3     1.541   .212

 Winter          3    4.208   .009    Winter          3     1.584   .201

 Spring          3    3.290   .026    Spring          3     2.665   .055

 •Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration included at each measurement
 period
Cohort 2 Results: FAIR

 ANOVA for PRS-AP1                     ANOVA for PRS-AP2

 Measurement                          Measurement
                 df   F       Sig.                    df    F       Sig.
 Time                                 Time
 Fall                                 Fall
                 3    7.540   .000                    3     9.741   .000

 Winter                               Winter
                 3    12.138 .000                     3     5.337   .002

 Spring                               Spring
                 3    17.620 .000                     3     13.874 .000

 •Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration included at each measurement
 period
Cohort 1 Results: FAIR
   Coefficients for PRS-AP1
   Model        t       Sig.

   PN1        1.040     .302

   RHY1       -.261     .795

   ALL1       .963      .339

   PN2        1.367     .176

   RHY2       -.718     .475

   ALL2       2.610    .011*

   PN3        .494      .623

   RHY3       .359      .721

   ALL3       2.204    .031*
Cohort 2 Results: FAIR
Coefficients for PRS-AP1           Coefficients for PRS-AP2

Model           t          Sig.    Model           t          Sig.
PN1          2.424         .017*   PN1           2.393        .018*
RHY1         1.233         .220    RHY1          .747         .457
ALL1         1.878         .063    ALL1          1.419         .158
                                   PN2           3.473        .001*
PN2          3.476         .001*
                                   RHY2          1.112        .268
RHY2          .805         .422
                                   ALL2          1.130        .260
ALL2          2.311        .022*
PN3          4.172         .000*   PN3           4.174        .000*
RHY3         -.075          .940   RHY3          .459         .647
ALL3         3.503         .001*   ALL3          1.893        .060*
  Results: FAIR

Model Summary Cohort 1

Measurement Time               R2                  Adj. R2
Fall AP1                       .041                 -.002
Winter AP1                     .157                  .119
Spring AP1                     .130                  .091
Fall AP2                       .065                  .023
Winter AP2                     .066                  .024
Spring AP2                     .108                  .067


•Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration included at all measurement times
     Results: FAIR
Model Summary Cohort 2

Measurement
                          R2               Adj. R2
Time
Fall AP1                  .140               .121
Winter AP1                .197               .181
Spring AP1                .269               .253
Fall AP2                  .102               .083
Winter AP2                .163               .146
Spring AP2                .227               .210

      Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration included at all measurement
           times
Results: DIBELS

 ANOVA for DIBELS ISF              ANOVA for DIBELS LNF
 Measurement                       Measurement
 Time          df    F      Sig.   Time          df    F      Sig.

 Fall          3    3.003   .036   Fall          3    4.953   .003
 Winter        3    8.428   .000   Winter        3    9.116   .000
 Spring        3    4.603   .005   Spring        3    7.064   .000
Results: DIBELS
Coefficients for DIBELS LNF     Coefficients for DIBELS LNF
 Model          t        Sig.    Model           t       Sig.
PN1          2.893      .005*   PN1           2.707     .008*
RHY1          .235       .815   RHY1          -.063      .950
ALL1          .827       .411   ALL1          -.090      .929
PN2          3.346      .001*   PN2           2.608     .011*
RHY2         -.870       .387   RHY2         -1.452      .151
ALL2         2.581      .012*   ALL2          3.404     .001*
PN3          .726       .470    PN3            .593      .555
RHY3         1.128      .263    RHY3          -.026      .979

ALL3         2.771      .007*   ALL3         2.918      .005*
Results: DIBELS
Model Summary ISF              Model Summary LNF

Measurement                    Measurement
              R2     Adj. R2                 R2     Adj. R2
time                           time
Fall          .110    .073     Fall          .169    .135

Winter        .257    .227     Winter        .273    .243

Spring        .163    .127     Spring        .230    .197
Implications
 Results suggest preschool measures can be
  used to predict kindergarten and some first
  grade reading measures
 If the PRS score can be used to predict
  reading success as measured by the SAT-10,
  and the IGDIs can be used to predict PRS
  scores, then we may be able to predict, in
  preschool, which students are most likely to
  struggle on the SAT-10
References
 DIBELS- http://dibels.uoregon.edu/index.php
 Gillard, A.M. (2008). The Predictive Validity of Kindergarten
    Assessment
   Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui (2001).
   Kaminski, R.A. & Good, R.H. (1996). Toward a technology for
    assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25,
    215-227.
   McConnell, S. R., Priest, J. S., Davis, S. D., & McEvoy, M. A.
    (2002). Best practices in measuring growth and development for
    preschool children. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
    Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 1231– 1246). Bethesda,
    MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
   Missall, K. & McConnell, S.R. (2004). Psychometric characteristics
    of Individual Growth and Development Indicators: Picture Naming,
    Rhyming, and Alliteration
Questions?
Contact Information
 Anna Michelle Gillard, PhD, NCSP
     gillardm@stlucie.k12.fl.us

								
To top