technical report # 1702 - brtprojects.org · technical report # 1702 an update to compiled orf...

Technical Report # 1702

An Update to Compiled ORF Norms

Jan Hasbrouck

Gerald Tindal

University of Oregon

Published by

Behavioral Research and Teaching University of Oregon • 175 Education 5262 University of Oregon • Eugene, OR 97403-5262 Phone: 541-346-3535 • Fax: 541-346-5689 http://brt.uoregon.edu

Author Note

Jan Hasbrouck is an educational consultant, and holds a Courtesy Senior Research Associate I appointment in the Behavior Research and Teaching Program in the College of Education at the University of Oregon.

Gerald Tindal is a Castle-McIntosh-Knight Professor in the College of Education at the University of Oregon and the Director of Behavioral Research and Teaching Program.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the many people who provided valuable feedback on the creation of these new compiled ORF norms including Candyce Ihnot, Karen McKenna, and Karen Hunter from Read Naturally, Inc.; Michelle Hosp, University of Massachusetts Amherst; Doris Baker and Scott Baker, Southern Methodist University; and Deborah Glaser, author and consultant.

Copyright © 2017. Behavioral Research and Teaching. All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission.

The University of Oregon is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. This document is available in alternative formats upon request.

Hasbrouck, J. & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical Report No. 1702). Eugene, OR, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

Abstract

Thispaperdescribestheoriginsofthewidelyusedcurriculum-basedmeasureoforalreading

fluency(ORF)andhowthecreationanduseofORFnormshasevolvedovertime.Normsfor

ORFcanbeusedtohelpeducatorsmakedecisionsaboutwhichstudentsmightneed

interventioninreadingandtohelpmonitorstudents’progressonceinstructionhasbegun.ORF

normswereoriginallydevelopedattheschoolordistrictlevelsusingonlylocaldataobtained

fromspecificcurriculummaterialsorassessments.Two previous compilations of norms not

linked to any specific school, district, curriculum, or assessment have been published in the

professional literature.Usingdatafromthreewidely-usedcommerciallyavailableORF

assessments(DIBELS,DIBELSNext,andeasyCBM),anewsetofcompiledORFnormsforgrade

1-6arepresentedherealongwithananalysisofhowtheydifferfromthenormscreatedin

2006.

AnUpdatetoCompiledORFNorms

Oralreadingfluency(ORF)isoneofseveralcurriculum-basedmeasures(CBM)originally

developedintheearly1980sbyateamofresearchersattheUniversityofMinnesota(Deno,

1982;Tindal,2013).CBMmeasuresweredesignedtoserveasusefultoolsforteachersin

specialandgeneraleducation,allowingthemtomakeaccurateandtimelydata-driven

decisionsabouttheirstudents’progressinfunctionalliteracyandnumeracyskills.AlltheCBM

measuresweredesignedtobeinexpensive,timeefficient,easytoadminister,reliable,andable

tobeusedfrequentlyinmultipleforms(Deno,2003).Mostimportantly,CBMswerebasedon

standard,validassessmentsthat(a)measuresomethingimportant(b)presenttasksofequal

difficulty,(c)aretiedtothegeneralcurriculum,and(d)showprogressovertime(Deno&

Mirkin,1977).TeacherswerethentrainedtouseCBMsindecidingwhetherandwhento

modifyastudent’sinstructionalprogram(Deno,1985)andtoevaluatetheoveralleffectiveness

oftheinstructionalprogram(Tindal,2017).

OralReadingFluency(ORF)

OfthevariousCBMmeasuresavailableinreading,ORFislikelythemostwidelyused.

ORFinvolveshavingstudentsreadaloudfromanunpracticedpassageforoneminute.An

examinernotesanyerrorsmade(wordsreadorpronouncedincorrectly,omitted,readoutof

order,orwordspronouncedforthestudentbytheexamineraftera3-secondpause)andthen

calculatesthetotalofwordsreadcorrectlyperminute(WCPM).ThisWCPMscorehas30years

ofvalidationresearchconductedoverthreedecades,indicatingitisarobustindicatorofoverall

readingdevelopmentthroughouttheprimarygrades(Bakeretal.,2008;Fuchs,Fuchs,Hosp,&

Update to Compiled ORF Norms 1

Jenkins,2001;Tindal,2013;Wayman,Wallace,Wiley,Ticha,&Espin,2007;Wanzek,Roberts,

Linan-Thompson,Vaughn,Woodruff,&Murray,2010).

InterpretingORFScores

ORFisusedfortwoprimarypurposes:Screeningandprogressmonitoring.WhenORFis

usedtoscreenstudents,thedrivingquestionsare,first:“Howdoesthisstudent’sperformance

comparetohis/herpeers?”andthen:“Isthisstudentat-riskofreadingfailure?”Toanswer

thesequestions,thedecision-makersrelyonORFnormsthatidentifyperformancebenchmarks

atthebeginning(fall),middle(winter),andend(spring)oftheyear.Anindividualstudent’s

WCPMscorecanbecomparedtothesebenchmarksanddeterminedtobeeithersignificantly

abovebenchmark,abovebenchmark,attheexpectedbenchmark,belowbenchmark,or

significantlybelowbenchmark.Thosestudentsbeloworsignificantlybelowbenchmarkareat

possibleriskofreadingdifficulties.Theyaregoodcandidatesforfurtherdiagnosticassessments

tohelpteachersdeterminetheirskillstrengthsorweaknesses,andplanappropriatelytargeted

instructionandintervention(Hasbrouck,2010).

WhenusingORFforprogressmonitoringthequestionstobeansweredare:“Isthis

studentmakingexpectedprogress?”and“Istheinstructionorinterventionbeingprovided

improvingthisstudent’sskills?”.WhenORFassessmentsareusedtoanswerthesequestions,

theymustbeadministeredfrequently(weekly,bimonthly,etc.),theresultsareplacedona

graphforeaseofanalysis,andagoaldetermined.Thestudent’sgoalcanbebasedon

establishedperformancebenchmarksorinformationonexpectedratesofprogress.Overa

periodofweeks,thestudent’sgraphcanshowsignificantormoderateprogress,expected


progress,orprogressthatisbeloworsignificantlybelowexpectedlevels.Basedonthese

outcomes,teacherscandecidewhetherto(a)makesmallormajorchangestothestudent’s

instruction,(b)continuewiththecurrentinstructionalplan,or(c)changethestudent’sgoal

(Hosp,Hosp,&Howell,2007).

CreatingORFNorms

OriginalguidelinesforcreatingORFnorms.IntheearlyyearsofCBM,thenormsand

benchmarksneededtointerpretstudents’scoreswerecreatedattheschoolordistrictlevel.

Theperformanceofasignificantproportion(orsometimesall)ofthestudentsinthatschoolor

districtwereassessed,andpercentilerankingsofstudents’scorescreated.Thestudents’rate

ofgrowthacrossaschoolyearwasdeterminedfromthesedata.

Anobviousconcernaboutusingthisstrategytocreatenormsariseswhentheacademic

skillsofthestudentpopulationinaschoolordistrictislowerthanwhatwouldbeconsidered

average,typical,oroptimal.Iftheperformanceoflow-skilledstudentsisusedtoestablish

benchmarksordeterminegoalsforprogress,ananticipatedoutcomecouldbethatteachers

mightnotinstructstudentswithsufficientrigororintensitytoimprovetheirskillstoa

meaningfullevelbutratherjustenoughtomeetthelowbenchmark.Studentsat-riskfor

academicfailuremaybeidentifiedaslowriskwhentheirperformanceiscomparedtonormsof

otherlowperformingstudents.

CreatingcompiledORFnorms:1992.Asanalternativetolocallycreatednorms,Jan

HasbrouckandGeraldTindalestablishedasetofORFnormscreatedbycompilingschooland

districtnormsfromseveraldifferentsites(1992).SeeTable1.


Table1.CompiledORFNorms1992*

Grade Percentile FallWCPM WinterWCPM SpringWCPM

2

75 82 106 124

50 53 78 94

25 23 46 65

3

75 107 123 142

50 79 93 114

25 65 70 87

4

75 125 133 143

50 99 112 118

25 72 89 92

5

75 126 143 151

50 105 118 128

25 77 93 100

*From:Hasbrouck,J.E.&Tindal,G.(Spring,1992).Curriculum-basedoralreadingfluencynormsforstudentsingrades2-5.

TeachingExceptionalChildren,24(3),41-44.


Inthisoriginalstudy,scoresfromapproximately45,000studentsingrades2to5wereobtained

fromschoolsthatcollectedtheORFdatausingpassagesfromtheircurrentorrecentcore

readingprograms,followingstandardizedCBMprocedures(seeHosp,Hosp,Howell,2007).

CreatingcompiledORFnorms:2006.In2006,HasbrouckandTindalagainpublisheda

setofcompiledORFnorms,thistimefromamuchlargersampleofapproximately250,000

studentsandexpandedtoincludescoresfromthemiddleofgradeonethroughtheendof

gradeeight.SeeTable2.Bythistime,mostschoolsanddistrictswereusingcommercially

availableCBMassessmentsincludingDIBELS®andAIMSweb®,ratherthanmaterialscreatedby

thedistrictsthemselves.The2006normsincludedORFscoresfromavarietyofsources,

primarilycommerciallyavailableassessments.

Table2.CompiledORFNorms2006


1

90 NA 81 11175 NA 47 8250 NA 23 5325 NA 12 2810 NA 6 15

2

90 106 125 14275 79 100 11750 51 72 8925 25 42 6110 11 18 31

3

90 128 146 16275 99 120 13750 71 92 10725 44 62 78710 21 36 48



4

90 145 166 18075 119 139 15250 94 112 12325 68 87 9810 45 61 72

5

90 166 182 19475 139 156 16850 110 127 13925 85 99 10910 61 74 83

6

90 177 195 20475 153 167 17750 127 140 15025 98 111 12210 68 82 93

7

90 180 192 20275 156 165 17750 128 136 15025 102 109 12310 79 88 98

8

90 185 199 19975 161 173 17750 133 146 15125 106 115 12410 77 84 97

CreatingcompiledORFnorms:2017.Now,25yearssincethefirststudywaspublished,

thecompiledORFnormshaveagainbeenupdated.Onechangethathadoccurredinthisperiod

wasthemeasuresbeingusedbyschoolstoassesstheirstudents’ORF.Severalpublishershave

createdstandardizedORFassessmentsandcompiledtheirownnormstobeusedwiththose

commerciallyavailablematerials.Many,ifnotmost,ofthepublishersofORFassessmentsalso

managethedatacollectedbytheschools.So,ratherthanseekingdatafromschoolsordistricts


forthisupdate,weinsteadsoughtaccesstopublisheddatadirectlyfromseveralvendorsof

commerciallyavailableORFmeasures.Insomecases,publishershaddirectaccesstothe

students’scores,whileotherscollaboratedwithasecond-partydatasupportservicetoaccess

andanalyzethescores.

WecontactedseveralpublishersofORFassessmentssothatabroadrangeofscores

couldbeincludedinthisupdatedcompilation.However,incontrasttoourprevious

experiencesinthefirsttwostudies,accesstostudentdatawassignificantlyrestrictedforthis

study.Infact,Pearson,Inc.,publisheroftheAIMSweb®CBMassessment,refusedtoprovide

accesstoanyoftheirdata“duetothechangesinstudentdataprivacylawsnationwide”(D.

Baird,personalcommunication,December13,2016).Thiswasdespiteourhavingcompleted

multipleresearchrequestandpermissionformsattherequestofthecompany,andour

assurancetothem,supportedbytheUniversityofOregon’sInternalReviewBoard’sapproval

ofourstudy,thatalldatawouldbehandledsecurelyandwithanonymity.Thisrefusalofaccess

wasunfortunatebutnotuncommon.Limitedaccesstostudentdatahasbecomeanoteworthy

problemtoeducationalresearchers(Sparks,2017).

Ontheotherhand,weweregivenaccesstoORFdatafromboththeCBMreading

(FastBridgeLearning,LLC)andBenchmarkAssessorLive®(ReadNaturally,Inc.)assessments,

butdidnotincludethosedatainourcompilednorms.TheORFscoresfromCBMreading®were

significantlydifferentfromthescoresfromtheotherassessmentsweanalyzed,perhapsdueto

thewayinwhichtheirpassageswereconstructed.Wedidn’tincludetheBenchmarkAssessor

Live®databecausethoseORFscoresaremostcommonlycollectedonlyfromstudents


alreadyidentifiedasat-risk,vulnerablereaders,ratherthanfromwholeclassroomsthatinclude

studentsfromallabilityandskilllevels.

ThesenewupdatedORFnormswereultimately compiledfromthreeassessments:

DIBELS6thedition©(usingdatafrom2009-2010),andDIBELSNext©(usingdatafrom

2010-2011),bothpublishedbyDynamicMeasurementGroupandavailablefromtheUODIBELS

DataSystemwithintheUniversityofOregonCenteronTeachingandLearningintheCollegeof

Education.WealsoincludedscoresfromtheeasyCBM©ORFassessment,publishedby

HoughtonMifflinHarcourtRiverside,alsoavailablefromtheUODIBELSDataSystemand

easyCBM.com.TheeasyCBM©datawerefromthe2013-2014schoolyear.

ThesenewORFdatafileswerecompiledfromtechnicaldocumentsestablishingasetof

normsspecifictoeachindividualassessment.Thethreesetsofassessment-specificnorms,

ratherthanrawscoresfromthosethreeassessments,werethenaveragedtocompilethisnew

setofORFnorms.Thedetailsofthemethodologyusedtoconstructthethreesetsofnorms

usedinthisstudywereavailableinseparatetechnicalreports:DIBELS®6thEditionin

Cummings,Otterstedt,Kennedy,Baker,andKame’enui(2011);DIBELSNext®inCummings,

Kennedy,Otterstedt,Baker,andKame’enui(2011);andeasyCBMinSaven,Tindal,Irvin,Farley,

andAlonzo(2014).Allthree reportshavebeenpublishedbytheCollegeofEducationatthe

UniversityofOregon.

Table3displaysthenumberofscoresusedforeachofthethreeassessmentsintheir

calculationoftest-specificnorms.NotethatthenumberofscoresfromboththeDIBELS6th

edition®andDIBELSNext®datarepresentedallthestudentsfromwhomORFdatawere


collectedduringthattestingperiod.TheeasyCBMdevelopersusedastratifiedrandom

samplingacrossgeographicregion,gender,andethnicityofthestudents.Thissamplingplan

resultedinnormsthataremoreaccuratethanifeveryscoreisused(Saven,Tindal,Irvin,Farley,

&Alonzo,2014).ThetotalnumberofORFscoresusedinthisupdatedstudywas6,663,423.

Table3:Numberofscoresusedforthenormsforthreeassessments

Note:D6=DIBELS®6thEdition;DN=DIBELSNext®;EZ=easyCBM®

CompiledORFNorms2017

LikethetwoprevioussetsofnormscompiledbyHasbrouckandTindal(1992,2006),all

threeoftheassessmentsbeginwithscoresfrompassagereadingORFassessmentsinthe

middleofthegradeoneyear.Unlikethe2006normshowever,theseupdatednormsdonot

includescoresforgrades7or8.Onlyoneofthethreeassessmentsincludedinthiscompilation,

easyCBM®,hasORFassessmentsforstudentinthosegrades.Therefore,thenormsforgrades7

and8werenotincludedbecausetheywouldhaveonlyrepresentedscoresforstudentswho

hadtakentheeasyCBM®assessment.SeeTable4.

Grade Fall Winter Spring

D6 DN EZ D6 DN EZ D6 DN EZ1 660,404 4,612 500 651,275 4,495 5002 637,017 4,231 500 615,480 4,311 500 608,782 4,176 5003 523,144 3,855 500 502,368 3,889 500 496,638 3,777 5004 346,306 3,772 500 325,664 3,840 500 323,097 3,648 5005 288,493 2,409 500 264,345 2,435 500 264,536 2,393 5006 113,298 1,456 500 100,537 1,485 500 100,430 1,484 500

TOTAL 1,908,258 2,389,848 2,365,317


Figure4.CompiledORFNorms2017

Grade %ile FallWCPM*

WinterWCPM*

SpringWCPM*

1

90 97 11675 59 9150 29 6025 16 3410 9 18

2

90 111 131 14875 84 109 12450 50 84 10025 36 59 7210 23 35 43

3

90 134 161 16675 104 137 13950 83 97 11225 59 79 9110 40 62 63

4

90 153 168 18475 125 143 16050 94 120 13325 75 95 10510 60 71 83

5

90 179 183 19575 153 160 16950 121 133 14625 87 109 11910 64 84 102

6

90 185 195 20475 159 166 17350 132 145 14625 112 116 12210 89 91 91

*WCPM=wordscorrectperminute


ChangesinScoresfrom2006-2017

Table5comparestheORFscoresfrom2006to2017.Changesarereportedas

differenceinscorevaluesfromfivepercentilesranges(PR)for90th,75th,50th,25th,10thand

acrossthethreeassessmentperiodsforeachgrade.InfourPR-gradelevels,theWCPMscore

wasthesamein2006and2017:the50thpercentileofgrade4intheFall(94WCPM);the90th

percentilesforWinter(195WCPM)andSpring(204WCPM)ingrade6;andthe25thpercentile

intheSpringofgrade6(122WCPM).Ingrades1to5,the2017scoreswereallhigherthanthe

2006scores,exceptinonePR-gradelevel:the50thpercentilescoresforFallingrade2thescore

decreasedbyoneWCPMfrom51in2006to50in2017.Inthesefirstfivegradelevels,the

largestincreasewas26WCPMingrade3inthewinterforthe10thpercentile,changingfrom36

WCPMin2006to62WCPMin2017.

Differentpatternsofchangeemergedinthepercentilescoresreportedforgrade6.

Mostofthescoresreportedingrade6(8of15)increased(from5to21WCPM),butinfourPR-

levelsthescoresdecreasedin2017by1to4WCPMandthreeofthescoresremainedthe

same.Acrossallthreeassessmentperiodsthescoresforgrade6increasedonaverageby4

WCPMwhichwasthesmallestofallthegradelevelgains.OnaverageacrossallPRlevels,grade

oneincreasedby7WCPM,grade2by9,grade3by12,grade4by6,andgrade5by8.Across

allthesixgrades,theoverallincreaseinWCPMwas5.InthefivePR-levelsthescoresgainedan

averageof4WCPMinthe90thpercentile,5WCPMinthe75thand50thpercentiles,7WCPMin

the25thpercentileand9WCPMinthe25thpercentilesscores.Theseaveragegainsarewithin

theexpectedrangeofperformanceof5WCPMforlowergradesand9WCPMforupper

elementarygrades(Christ&Silberglitt,2007).AveragesareacrossallPRs.SeeTable6.


Table5.Comparisonofnormsfor2006and2017

%iles Grade1 F W S Grade2 F W S90 2017 97 116 2017 111 131 14890 2006 81 111 2006 106 125 142 Difference 16 5 Difference 5 6 675 2017 59 91 2017 84 109 12475 2006 47 82 2006 79 100 117 Difference 12 9 Difference 5 9 750 2017 29 60 2017 50 84 10050 2006 23 53 2006 51 72 89 Difference 6 7 Difference -1 12 1125 2017 16 34 2017 36 59 7225 2006 12 28 2006 25 42 61 Difference 4 6 Difference 11 17 1110 2017 9 18 2017 23 35 4310 2006 6 15 2006 11 18 31 Difference 3 3 Difference 12 17 12

%iles Grade3 F W S Grade4 F W S90 2017 134 161 166 2017 153 168 18490 2006 128 146 162 2006 145 166 180 Difference 6 15 4 Difference 8 2 475 2017 104 137 139 2017 125 143 16075 2006 99 120 137 2006 119 139 152 Difference 5 17 2 6 4 850 2017 83 97 112 2017 94 120 13350 2006 71 92 107 2006 94 112 123 Difference 12 5 5 Difference 0 8 1025 2017 59 79 91 2017 75 95 10525 2006 44 62 78 2006 68 87 98 Difference 15 17 13 7 8 710 2017 40 62 63 2017 60 71 8310 2006 21 36 48 2006 45 61 72 Difference 19 26 15 Difference 15 10 11


%iles Grade5 F W S Grade6 F W S90 2017 179 183 195 2017 185 195 20490 2006 166 182 194 2006 177 195 204 Difference 13 1 1 Difference 8 0 075 2017 153 160 169 2017 159 166 17375 2006 139 156 168 2006 153 167 177 Difference 14 4 1 Difference 6 -1 -450 2017 121 133 146 2017 132 145 14650 2006 110 127 139 2006 127 140 150 Difference 11 6 7 Difference 5 5 -425 2017 87 109 119 2017 112 116 12225 2006 85 99 109 2006 98 111 122 Difference 2 10 10 Difference 14 5 010 2017 64 84 102 2017 89 91 9110 2006 61 74 83 2006 68 82 93 Difference 3 10 19 Difference 21 9 -2

Table6.AveragedifferencesinOPFacrossPRsforeachgradelevel

Difference Grade Fall Winter Spring Ave*1 41 30 72 32 61 47 93 57 80 39 124 28 30 36 65 43 31 38 86 54 18 -10 4

*AverageacrossallPRvalues.

Summary

Thecurriculum-basedmeasureoforalreadingfluency(ORF)hasbeenproventobea

reliable,useful,andpracticalmeasuretohelpdeterminewhichstudentsmightneedtobe

providedwithadditionalassistancetolearntoreadproficiently.SincethedevelopmentofCBM

measuresintheearly1980smanyadaptationsandchangeshaveappearedinthewaythese


variousmeasureshavebeendevelopedandused.Originallyschoolswereencouragedto

developtheirownassessmentsfromthelocalinstructionalmaterials.Normsandperformance

benchmarkswerealsocreatedlocally.Now,35yearslater,severalcommercialpublishershave

createdCBMassessmentmaterialsforschoolstopurchaseandmostofthosepublishershave

createdtheirownnormsandbenchmarksforusewiththeirspecificassessment.

Beginningin1992andthenagainin2006,HasbrouckandTindalcollaboratedtocreatea

setofnormscompiledfromavarietyofsources.Thesecompilednormswerepublishedto

preventalow-performingschoolordistrictfromsettingbenchmarkgoalsfortheirstudentsata

levelthatwaslowerthanitshouldbe.Compilednormsalsohavebeenusedbyeducators

interestedinassessingstudents’ORFperformanceoutsideofaspecificassessmentproduct.

Thisupdatedreportcontainsnormscompiledfromthreewidely-usedandcommercially

availableORFassessments,andrepresentsafarlargernumberofscoresthaneitherofthe

previousassessments.Andwhilethesecurrentscoresonlyprovidenormsthroughgrade6,itis

hopedthatthissetofthreestudies,conductedoveraperiodof25years,canalsogive

educatorsaperspectiveonthestabilityofORFscoresacrossmaterialsandgradesandnearly

threedecadesofreadinginstructioninschoolsintheUnitedStates.


References

Christ,T.J.,&Silberglitt,B.(2007).Curriculum-basedmeasurementoforalreadingfluency:The

standarderrorofmeasurement.SchoolPsychologyReview,36,130–146.

Cummings,K.D.,Kennedy,P.C.,Otterstedt,J.,Baker,S.K.,&Kame’enui,E.J.(2011).DIBELS

DataSystem:2010-2011PercentileRanksforDIBELSNextBenchmarkAssessments

(TechnicalReport1101).Eugene,OR:UniversityofOregonCenteronTeachingand

Learning.

Cummings,K.D.,Otterstedt,J.,Kennedy,P.C.,Baker,S.K.,&Kame’enui,E.J.(2011).DIBELS

DataSystem:2009-2010PercentileRanksforDIBELS6thEditionBenchmarkAssessments

(TechnicalReport1102).Eugene,OR:UniversityofOregonCenteronTeachingand

Learning.

Baker,S.K.,Smolkowski,K.,Katz,R.,Fien,H.,Seeley,J.R.,Kame’enui,E.J.,&Beck,C.T.(2008).

Readingfluencyasapredictorofreadingproficiencyinlow-performinghighpoverty

schools.SchoolPsychologyReview,37,18–37.

Deno,S.L.(1985).Curriculum-basedmeasurement:Theemergingalternative.Exceptional

Children,52(3),219-232.

Deno,S.L.,&Mirkin,P.K.(1977).DataBasedProgramModification:AManual.reston,VA:

CouncilforExceptionalChildren.

Deno,S.L.,Mirkin,P.K.,&Chiang,B.(1982).Identifyingvalidmeasuresofreading.Exceptional

Children,49,36-43.

Deno,S.(2003).Developmentsincurriculum-basedmeasurement.TheJournalofSpecial

Education,37,184-192.doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/buroscurriculum/3.

Fuchs,L.,Fuchs,D.,Hosp,M.,&Jenkins,J.(2001).Oralreadingfluencyasanindicatorof

readingcompetence:Atheoretical,empirical,andhistoricalanalysis.ScientificStudiesof

Reading,5(3),239–256.

German,G.(2012).Implementingdata-basedprogrammodificationbigideas.InC.A.Epsin,K.

L.McMaster,S.Rose,andM.M.Wayman(Eds.),AMeasureofSuccess:TheInfluenceof


Curriculum-basedMeasurementonEducation(pp.79-87).Minneapolis:Universityof

MinnesotaPress.

Hasbrouck,J.(2010).EducatorsasPhysicians:UsingRTIDataforEffectiveDecision-Making.

Austin,TX:GibsonHasbrouck&Associates.www.gha-pd.com

Hasbrouck,J.E.&Tindal,G.(Spring,1992).Curriculum-basedoralreadingfluencynormsfor

studentsingrades2-5.TeachingExceptionalChildren,24(3),41-44.

Hasbrouck,J.,&Tindal,G.A.(2006).Oralreadingfluencynorms:Avaluableassessmenttoolfor

readingteachers.TheReadingTeacher.59(7),636–644.

Hosp,M.K.,Hosp,J.L.,&Howell,K.W.(2007).TheABCsofCBM:APracticalGuideto

Curriculum-basedMeasurement.NY:GuilfordPress.

Saven,J.L.,Tindal,G.,Irvin,P.S.,Farley,D.,&Alonzo,J.(2014).easyCBM2014Norms.

(TechnicalReport1409).Eugene,OR:UniversityofOregonBehavioralResearchand

Teaching.

Sparks,S.D.(August11,2017).Arestudent-privacylawsgettinginthewayofeducation

research?Retrievedfromhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/08/11/are-

student-privacy-laws-getting-in-the-way.html?cmp=eml-contshr-shr-desk

Tindal,G.(2013).Curriculum-basedmeasurement:Abriefhistoryofnearlyeverythingfromthe

1970stothepresent.ISRNEducation,2013,1–29.doi:10.1155/2013/958530

Tindal,G.(2017).OralReadingFluency:Outcomesfrom30YearsofResearch.(TechnicalReport

1701).Eugene,OR:UniversityofOregonCenterBehavioralResearchandTeaching.

Wayman,M.M.,Wallace,T.,Wiley,H.I.,Ticha,R.,&Espin,C.A.(2007).Literaturesynthesison

curriculum-basedmeasurementinreading.TheJournalofSpecialEducation,41,85–

120.

Wanzek,J.,Roberts,G.,Linan-Thompson,S.,Vaughn,S.,Woodruff,A.L.,&Murray,C.S.(2010).

DifferencesintheRelationshipofOralReadingFluencyandHigh-StakesMeasuresof

ReadingComprehension.AssessmentforEffectiveIntervention:OfficialJournalofthe

CouncilforEducationalDiagnosticServices,35(2),67–77.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1534508409339917


technical report # 1702 - brtprojects.org · technical report # 1702 an update to compiled orf...

Documents