Dibels and Easy Cbm How Are They Different

Mar 13, 2013

In an effort to gather some hard data on my students, I had to find a reliable standardized measurement tool. I've used DRA, PALS and DIBELS before, but they are no longer available to me (I'm tutoring). I almost went with AIMS/WEB but my wife recommended EASY Curriculum Based Measurement I guess it's published by Hughton Mifflin and came out of the University of Oregon.
The "lite" version is free, but it looks like it has everything I need. It's very similar to DIBELS - with 1 minute reading passages and, for the young ones, 1 minute letter naming and letter sound tests.

Gave my first ones today, and I liked it. Any experiences, opinions, suggestions?

Steve
Kat53 Devotee

Joined:

Mar 17, 2006

Messages:

1,071

Likes Received:

12

Mar 13, 2013

Does Dibels Next not offer the downloads for free? I know DIBELS 6th edition did but I haven't used the system in a year. If you can get them for free, you can still get good information. You will not get the Instructional Recommendation but you can still look at the individual measures. I've heard of Easy CBM but have never used it.
What about Quick Phonics Screeners? You can download those online.
ETA: just reread that you did use the Easy CBM's. does it give you a report?
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 13, 2013

There are a couple of strengths and weaknesses to both, but in general DIBELS should be free and well-accepted as everyone knows what it is. EasyCBM is less known, and because of that there may be questions about how they developed their probes. I'm not familiar with how they did. Another limitation is that there are only 9 probes per grade, which means you have to repeat probes if you are going to progress-monitor weekly. If you PMed weekly, you'd have to actually repeat the probes 4 times, which means you're running into the issue of practice effects, particularly after the 3rd and 4th times. With DIBELS, you have more probes.
Another issue with EasyCBM is norms. Theoretically, you should be able to use norms across CBM measures because CBM should be "curriculum independent," but without knowing exactly how EasyCBM probes were developed I'm not able to say. It may be on the website, but without knowing more it might be harder to use DIBELS (or AIMSweb) norms.

On the other hand, EasyCBM has both reading comprehension passages and math application passages (DIBELS doesn't have any math, and DIBELS also doesn't have reading comprehension). Oral reading fluency is actually a pretty good predictor of reading comprehension, so one theory is that you don't need reading comprehension indicators because you have reading fluency. Still, some folks find kids that are different in reading comprehension than fluency, so they like to be able to measure both. DIBELS doesn't offer that opportunity.

If you haven't made up your mind completely, I'd switch to DIBELS as its the standard and will be more accepted generally, and has more probes. Still, EasyCBM should work
Mar 14, 2013

Thanks EdEd,
I did try out EASY CBM yesterday with 4 kids and it seemed to go well. Of course, I have a unique situation in that I'm trying to compare their conventional vs unconventional test positioning.
For example, I needed to test Kyra on a 3rd grade passage, but needed to get results for her reading conventionally and her reading on a 90 degree angle. So I gave her the same passage to read both ways. I video-taped my administration of the test and would like your critique.

Steve
Mar 14, 2013

My old district used it as part of progress monitoring, but it wasn't the only reading test used. I never gave it as it was only offered in reading and math, and I taught writing.
MrsC Multitudinous

Joined:

Aug 8, 2005

Messages:

14,067

Likes Received:

1,884

Mar 14, 2013

Just a thought...if using the same passage both conventionally and PI, it could be argued that some of the improvement could be because the student has prior experience with the passage. Could you use two passages at the same level--do either of the tools you are using have more than one "form"?
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 14, 2013

Hey Steve - MrsC is right. You definitely don't want to use the same passage because of practice effects. Also, let me ask you this: with PI, do you suspect kids will get better and better because of PI specifically, or is the effect a one-time gain? If it's a just a one-time gain, you may not need to do longitudinal data collection, but just a simple pre-post. If you expect a student's reading to continuously improve specifically because of PI, you'd want to collect data either continuously or space out your pre-post so that the "post" phase would truly capture all the growth going on.
A few other thoughts:

1) Hide your score sheet (keep at 45 degree angle on your lap, e.g.) so kids can't see error marking.

2) Try not to praise (e.g., "That was great) - tends to have an influence. You CAN comment on how hard they worked.

Also, in terms of structuring your assessments, if you are planning on just doing a one-time pre-post assessment with your students in terms of using PI and non-PI, I'd suggest doing 3 separate probes for both PI and non-PI (6 different ones in all), intersperse them, and then take the median score of PI administrations and non-PI.

If you're planning on collecting data over time, I'd suggest starting with administering 3 non-PI probes and taking the median, which will serve as your baseline. Then, implement 3 PI probes and take the median, but then every week (or month, etc) thereafter only administer one probe for the PI version. You could also do a single non-PI probe (a different one) as well and graph progress with time, which would be a really nice little control to rule out effects of other instruction. In other words, if the child's growth is demonstrated during both PI and non-PI administrations, you'd have a sense that there was a second variable (e.g., another reading intervention) influencing progress, or that PI was somehow having a transfer effect and causing reading even during non-PI administrations to grow.

Ideally in the future, Steve, I would implement at least one round (with 3 probes) of non-PI CBM before they're ever exposed to the concept of PI. That way, you'd have a true baseline.
Mar 14, 2013

I anticipated that argument, so I had her read PI (actually sideways to the left) first. That way, if there were any prior experience effect, it would have helped her with the conventionally read passage. Which means her performance conventionally would have been worse without the prior experience.
MrsC Multitudinous

Joined:

Aug 8, 2005

Messages:

14,067

Likes Received:

1,884

Mar 14, 2013

Unfortunately, while this may be true, you can't substantiate it. Using different passages at the same level will provide more validity.
Mar 14, 2013

Yes, this is what I've seen with just about all the kids. If PI is discontinued too soon, they go into a tailspin. It's what used to be referred to as "scaffolding".
All kids are different. Some need that support for only a month or two. Others, (like Tiger) need it long term.

Thanks for suggestions
Steve
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 14, 2013

Sure Steve, and that's a good idea about doing the PI intervention first and conventional reading second to deal with the issue of practice effects. Still, I agree with MrsC about using different passages for each administration.
Mar 14, 2013

Point taken.
Here's Jacob taking ECBM both conventionally and upside down. Jacob was reading far below grade level when he first began PI tutoring a year ago and had a formal diagnosis of dyslexia and dysgraphia from his public school.
He now reads and writes on a 5th grade level - conventionally.

Steve

PS His mom has given me permission to share his PR folder. I should be receiving it soon.
czacza Multitudinous

Joined:

Sep 30, 2001

Messages:

24,959

Likes Received:

2,116

Mar 14, 2013

Is there a retelling involved with this assessment?
czacza Multitudinous

Joined:

Sep 30, 2001

Messages:

24,959

Likes Received:

2,116

Mar 14, 2013

How are you assessing comprehension?
Mar 14, 2013

Here's Tiger taking his ECBM. I've been working with him off and on for the last 3 years. He seems to need the PI as a scaffold to allow him to improve conventionally.
When he stops reading PI (at least some of the time) his conventional reading suffers. His mom, (who is his teacher) constantly tries to get him to read and write upside down in class, but he would rather read and write like the other kids (and fail) than do it the way that's best for him.

Peer pressure is tough....

Steve
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 14, 2013

czacza it's pretty common to infer comprehension from oral reading fluency as orf is highly correlated with comprehension. Many schools don't do a separate measure of comprehension for benchmarking or progress monitoring because the reliability for those probes tends to be lower and not yield tons of great additional data, including retell, maze, cloze, etc. I do think those are helpful, but unless a child specifically is doing well with orf and teacher/academic performance indicates continued issues with comprehension, I generally won't do.
Also, EasyCBM is nice because it does offer CBM-style probes for reading comprehension that involve multiple choice questions, which allows for a bit more broad yet specific assessment of comprehension that you probably wouldn't get with retell.

Finally, I'm not sure Steve's intervention is really targeting comprehension. The idea behind PI is that visual processing with some kids hurts their ability to accurately and fluently read words on a page, not that PI assists with comprehension (except because improved fluency leads to improved comprehension). In other words, it's not really a variable.
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 14, 2013

I think Steve is looking for more quantitative data that can be used in a progress-monitoring format, or at least pre-post with high reliability. QRI has it's strengths though.
Mar 14, 2013

Trying not to spend any more money out-of-pocket. Working part-time now.
Thanks for the suggestion, though
Steve
Mar 14, 2013

I couldn't have said it better myself, EdEd.
PI is simply a way to jump-start a reader whose never really begun reading yet - or one who's stalled. The teacher doesn't have to change anything she normally does for instruction or assessment.

She just has to allow/encourage the child to hold the reading material at whatever angle is best for that student. It really couldn't be simpler and it doesn't cost one red cent.
Mar 14, 2013

An Interesting Note..
If you've seen the videos, you know I started PI with a Kindergarten boy in January. His version of the ECBM was simply naming the letters of the alphabet (LNF).

He has been making great progress reading everything on a 90 degree angle. When I administered the test, I did it sideways first and then conventionally. Here are the results:
Letters Named Correctly Conventionally (1 Min.) - 73
Letters Named Correctly at 90 Degrees (1 min.) - 29

HE'S READING 140% FASTER CONVENTIONALLY NOW!

Needless to say, I told the teacher that there's no reason for me to continue PI tutoring with him. He's up and running.

EKID - Every Kid Is Different

Steve
Mar 15, 2013

Now on the other hand, there's Tiger, who still reads better upside down than conventionally even after 3 years of tutoring. But that's OK. His progress is steady both ways.
Here he is taking the ECBM Word Reading Test. He reads the first five lines inverted, then skips down and reads reads the lines 9 through 13 conventionally.

Results: 35 CWPM inverted
23 CWPM conventional

He read about 50% more words PI than he did conventionally
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 15, 2013

Steve, this is a great start by sharing these data. I think folks will find these data compelling in a different way than the videos. Keep collecting those data, and it will be interesting when you can aggregate it across kids and over the course of time. Particularly when you can get some line graphs going and show growth trends with PI vs conventional reading, both for individual children and when aggregated. Also, having some of those baseline data - pre-PI - (for as long as possible) will be even more helpful for folks to make conclusions about your strategy.
czacza Multitudinous

Joined:

Sep 30, 2001

Messages:

24,959

Likes Received:

2,116

Mar 15, 2013

I've NEVER heard orf is related to comprehension despite being Teachers College trained, serving on curriculum writing committee, being a coach and highly effective teacher of reading and writing....
Regardless, reading IS MEANING. I can read legislative texts, medical journals, legal jargon with 100% accuracy in SEVERAL LANGUAGES...doesn't mean I understand a **** thing...and ultimately understanding is the meat of reading.
The one video I watched is so painful to listen to that I seriously doubt the student's ability to discuss his understanding deeply.
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 15, 2013

It's a pretty well-established research link, and really serves as the basis for using CBM/ORF as a general outcome indicator for overall reading ability, not just how fast and accurate one can read the passage. Here's a link to a Shinn article. If you google "oral reading fluency and reading comprehension" you'll see a list of "scholarly articles" provided by google, and I'm sure the Shinn article has some good references.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ480688
czacza Multitudinous

Joined:

Sep 30, 2001

Messages:

24,959

Likes Received:

2,116

Mar 15, 2013

So you think the kids in the videos are reading with fluency and comprehension?
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 15, 2013

Also, this is somewhat off-topic, but you often hear teachers talk about "word-callers," or kids who seem to read as fluently as peers, but whose comprehension is quite low. I do believe there are some cases of this, but the study below was a pretty important one in determining that most teachers' perceptions of kids reading fluency was actually inaccurate - that kids who performed lower on reading comprehension tasks (maze, cloze, retell, WJ-III subtests) actually were less fluent than similar kids, which is a seminal study in disconfirming the frequency of word-callers.
http://www.cbmnow.com/documents/wordcaller.pdf

The point of this is, of course, is that reading fluency tends to be highly aligned with reading comprehension, the point I was making before.
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 15, 2013

The hypothesis would be that, given the strong link between fluency and comprehension, kids who read fluently are most likely going to comprehend what they are reading, to a certain degree. Of course, not all kids will fit that profile, but it is generally NOT assumed that reading fluency has no predictive validity related to comprehension.
In terms of the videos, I haven't looked at them closely. You mentioned being concerned with reading fluency, including prosody and cadence, so I would not guess that those students would be categorized as "fluent," so there would probably be no discrepancy between their fluency and comprehension if comprehension were low, because fluency would also likely be low. In other words, they'd be in line.
czacza Multitudinous

Joined:

Sep 30, 2001

Messages:

24,959

Likes Received:

2,116

Mar 15, 2013

Studies by Rasinski et al point to reading Fluency being a 'gateway' to comprehension..but not equalling comprehension...let me reiterate: reading IS MEANING.
Mar 15, 2013

PI is an intervention for kids with dyslexia - that is, difficulty with reading (decoding).
Once kids can decode on level - no matter how they are positioning reading material - then they no longer fit that simple definition.
PI does not necessarily help comprehension, but it may.

Steve
Mar 15, 2013

The so-called "word callers" would not be considered dyslexic, so PI would not necessarily help them.
Steve
Mar 15, 2013

You've only watched one video?
Just curious - which video did you find painful?
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 15, 2013

I agree. I think it's important though to distinguish between the skill of reading fluency and reading fluency as an indicator of general reading ability. As a skill, yes - reading fluency is not the same skill as reading comprehension. However, from an assessment perspective, because they're so highly correlated we can use fluency as an indicator of comprehension.
As a side note, comprehension is also not a singular construct - it's not something you do or don't, do saying someone is "comprehending" is a matter of degree. So, while fluency indicates comprehension, it doesn't indicate a person comprehends all elements. It simply means, on average, that higher fluency tends to indicate higher comprehension.
czacza Multitudinous

Joined:

Sep 30, 2001

Messages:

24,959

Likes Received:

2,116

Mar 17, 2013

But PI kids could be just calling words...you wouldn't know if you didn't check comprehension.
Kat53 Devotee

Joined:

Mar 17, 2006

Messages:

1,071

Likes Received:

12

Mar 17, 2013

I'm not against checking comprehension, but before you even get to comprehension, you have to make sure the mechanics are in place. It makes total sense to me (PI or not) to deal with decoding before tackling comprehension. Comprehension could come after the student has word attack strategies in place.
czacza Multitudinous

Joined:

Sep 30, 2001

Messages:

24,959

Likes Received:

2,116
Mar 18, 2013

You are absolutely right - PI kids could be "word callers', and that would be where the classroom teacher would come in. She'd assess the PI kids exactly the same way she would her conventionally reading students and plan instruction accordingly.
Again, PI only gets them reading/decoding.
EdEd Aficionado

Joined:

Jan 12, 2011

Messages:

3,788

Likes Received:

251

Mar 18, 2013

Not sure if folks saw my link for "word callers" above, but may be interesting for some...
Mar 23, 2013

Had a very interesting discussion with Tiger's 3rd grade teacher. He's one of three PI kids in her classroom, two of whom have transitioned to doing everything conventionally. But I continue to work with Tiger to improve his fluency, and I mentioned that by improving his fluency it should help his comprehension.
Her response to me took me by surprise:
"There's really nothing wrong with Tiger's comprehension. In fact, he does better than most kids in the class, he just tends to go slower."

Wow... I didn't expect that.

Share This Page

test

donaghywhirds.blogspot.com

Source: https://forums.atozteacherstuff.com/index.php?threads%2Fhas-anyone-used-easy-cbm-for-assessment.171010%2F

Donaghy Whirds

Dibels and Easy Cbm How Are They Different

Kat53 Devotee

EdEd Aficionado

MrsC Multitudinous

EdEd Aficionado

MrsC Multitudinous

EdEd Aficionado

czacza Multitudinous

czacza Multitudinous

EdEd Aficionado

EdEd Aficionado

EdEd Aficionado

czacza Multitudinous

EdEd Aficionado

czacza Multitudinous

EdEd Aficionado

EdEd Aficionado

czacza Multitudinous

EdEd Aficionado

czacza Multitudinous

Kat53 Devotee

czacza Multitudinous

EdEd Aficionado

Share This Page

Menu Halaman Statis