Contemporary School Psychology

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 205–213 | Cite as

Validity of DIBELS Early Literacy Measures with Korean English Learners

  • Michael L. VanderwoodEmail author
  • Jeanie E. Nam
  • Jennifer W. Sun


The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of two Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) early literacy measures with first-grade Korean speaking English Learners (ELs). A total of 30 first-grade Korean ELs were screened three times during the year using early literacy measures from DIBELS. A sample of students was provided an empirically supported phonological awareness (PA) intervention to determine whether DIBELS measures were sensitive to growth caused by an intervention. Results suggest screening measures of phoneme segmentation fluency (phoneme segmentation fluency, PSF) were not predictive of reading performance at the middle and end of first grade. Measures of alphabetics (nonsense word fluency, NWF) were predictive of reading skills for this sample of first-grade Korean ELs. PSF and NWF were sensitive to change caused by an intervention, and appear to be able to be used to monitor the impact of a PA intervention. Implications and recommendations for the use of DIBELS with Korean speaking ELs are provided.


Early literacy English learners DIBELS Phonological awareness 


  1. APA, AERA, & NCME. (1999). Testing individuals of diverse linguistic backgrounds. In AERA/APA/NCME (Ed.), Standards for educational and psychological testing (pp. 91–97). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, S. K., & Good, R. H. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: a validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561–578.Google Scholar
  3. Cho, J. R., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Correlates of Korean Hangul acquisition among kindergartners and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edformation. (2007). AIMSweb growth tables. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from
  7. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fien, H., Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Smith, J. L., Kame’enui, E. J., & Beck, C. T. (2008). Using nonsense word fluency to predict reading proficiency in kindergarten through second grade for English learners and native English speakers. School Psychology Review, 37, 391–408.Google Scholar
  9. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.Google Scholar
  10. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: a review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28, 659–671.Google Scholar
  11. Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: a practice guide. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  12. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, M. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement.Google Scholar
  13. Haager, D. S., & Windmueller, M. P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English language learners at-risk for learning disabilities: student and teacher outcomes in an urban school. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Healy, K., Vanderwood, M., & Edelston, D. (2005). Early literary interventions for English language learners: support for an RTI model. The California School Psychologist, 10, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hopstock, P. J., & Stephenson, T. G. (2003). Special Topic Report #1: Native languages of LEP students. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from research/descriptivestudyfiles/native_languages1.pdf
  16. Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.Google Scholar
  17. Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000-2001 summary report. Retrieved from National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition website:
  18. Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Korean American Coalition-Census Information Center. (2003). Korean population in the United States, 2000. Retrieved from California State University, Center for Korean American and Korean Studies website: ckaks/census/ 7203_tables.pdf
  20. Lesaux, N. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005–1019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Reading 2009. National assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8. Retrieved from National Assessment for Educational Progress website: 2009 /nat_g4.asp.
  22. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2007). The growing numbers of LEP students: 2005-2006 poster. Retrieved April 9, 2008, from http://www.ncela.gwu edu/stats/2_nation.htm.
  23. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from
  24. O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Quiroga, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Riedel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary in urban first grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 546–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2010). Assessment in special and inclusive education (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  29. Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C., & Foorman, B. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: a longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shin, J., Deno, S. L., & Espin, C. A. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education, 34, 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shinn, M. R., & Shinn, M. M. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome measurement. Retrieved February 10, 2007 from
  32. Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., Knutson, N., Tilly, W. D., & Collins, V. L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement reading fluency: a confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459–479.Google Scholar
  33. Snow, C. E., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Cramer, B. B. (1984). Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children. Issues of task comparability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor, I., & Taylor, M. M. (1995). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vanderwood, M. L. (2004). Phonemic Awareness and Vocabulary Intensive Intervention (PAVII) Version 1.0. Unpublished manual, Graduate School of Education, University of California-Riverside, Riverside, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Vanderwood, M. L., & Nam, J. (2008). Best practices in using a response to intervention model with English language learners. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  39. Vanderwood, M. L., Linklater, D., & Healy, K. (2008). Predictive accuracy of nonsense word fluency for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 37, 5–17.Google Scholar
  40. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1998). The case for early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Laughon, P., Simmons, K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1993). The development of young readers’ phonological processing abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiley, H. I., & Deno, S. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M., & Sapru, S. (2003). Policy report: summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP students. Retrieved from Scholar

Copyright information

© California Association of School Psychologists 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael L. Vanderwood
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeanie E. Nam
    • 1
  • Jennifer W. Sun
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California-RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations