Sophie Capmartin
Tulane University/Ecole Bilingue de la Nouvelle-Orléans
scapmart@tulane.edu
NCDLI 2019
Report on a study conducted in 2014-2015 on the
performance of first graders attending a French
Immersion (FI) school in New Orleans on the
DIBELS NEXT and the IDAPEL tests
Sophie Capmartin
Tulane University/Ecole Bilingue de la Nouvelle-Orléans
scapmart@tulane.edu
NCDLI 2019
1.
The origin of the study in the context of French immersion (FI)
education in Louisiana
2.
Literature review: importance of assessing early literacy skills
acquisition and cross-language transfer
3.
Method
> participants
> measures: DIBELS and IDAPEL
4.
Results
5.
Discussion
6.
Conclusion: practical input on reading interventions with at-risk
students in FI programs
ü
Lycée Français de la Nouvelle-Orléans, a French immersion charter
school founded in 2011
ü
ü
DIBELS (Dynamic indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) Next
IDAPEL (Indicateurs Dynamiques d’hAbiletés Précoces en Lecture)
ü
School year 2014-2015 (first graders)
ü
Compare the performances of a cohort of first graders attending a FI
program on the DIBELS Next and IDAPEL tests.
Determine whether there is a difference in the acquisition of early reading
skills between English and French, 1st and 2nd languages respectively
Make recommendations with regard to the usefulness of conducting
systematic early literacy formative assessments in both French and
English, using DIBELS Next and IDAPEL
ü
ü
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
ü
A French colony 1682-1804
ü
ü
A slow decline
State Constitution of 1921 forbids the use of French at school
Reconstitution of a 20th century school site in Vermilionville Folk life
park in Lafayette, Louisiana
ü
ü
1921: State Constitution forbids the use of French at school
1968: Creation of the Council for Development of French in
Louisiana (CODOFIL)
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
ü
ü
ü
ü
1921: State Constitution forbids the use of French at school
1968: Creation of the Council for Development of French in
Louisiana (CODOFIL)
1st state for FI programs in the US
In 2018-2019:
34 schools
5,279 students
200+ teachers (including 135 hired by the CODOFIL)
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
1921: State Constitution forbids the use of French at school
1968: Creation of the Council for Development of French in Louisiana
(CODOFIL)
1st state for FI programs in the US
In 2018-2019:
34 schools
5,279 students
200+ teachers
A 43% increase in enrolment since 2014 (25 schools; 3,687 students)
A need for formative tools to assess L2 proficiency in FI programs
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Why did you look for a French-language formative
assessment for your school/parish?
“To measure acquisition in the target
language and have data to support the
benefits of the program.”
Felise Williams, Principal of Evangeline elementary
in Lafayette
“To measure proficiency
overtime.”
Catherine Bricelj, Principal of the
French immersion school, Myrtle Place
elementary in Lafayette
“To have data on students in their
immersion language to make decisions
on students RTI and SPED placement.”
Tia LeBrun, World language and immersion
specialist at Lafayette Parish School System
IMPORTANCE OF EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND PREDICTORS OF
READING ABILITIES
ü
Reading proficiency linked to academic achievement
ü
Correlation between poor reading proficiency and attrition in immersion:
ü
The importance of early identification and targeted intervention:
ü
Three prerequisite skills, predictors of subsequent reading abilities:
oral proficiency
metalinguistic awareness
general cognitive development (Bialystok, Luk & Kwan, 2005)
“reading difficulties are one of the most important factors influencing parents to transfer their children,
and parental decisions to withdraw their children are typically made prior to the end of Grade 3” (Wise
and Chen, 2010).
“Early identification and targeted intervention have been found to maximize response to intervention
and to help prevent reading difficulties altogether”(Erdos, Genesee, Savage, and Haigh, 2010).
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
METALINGUISTIC AWARENESS
Alphabetic principle
ü Alphabetic understanding
(letters represent sounds)
ü Phonological recoding
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Phonological
awareness
ü Ability to hear and
manipulate sounds
DIBELS NEXT AND IDAPEL
ü
DIBELS measures were created “to be economical and efficient indicators of
a student’s progress toward achieving a general outcome.” (Kaminski,
Cummings, Powell-Smith, and Good, 2008)
ü
DIBELS measures can be used to:
> identify at-risk students (benchmark testing)
> track progress (progress monitoring)
ü
Measures are administered three times a year
One-minute timed task
ü
Benchmark goals and cut points
for risk
ü
Dynamic Measurement Group, DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and
Composite Score, December 1, 2010.
DIBELS NEXT AND IDAPEL
ü
Dynamic Measurement Group (DMG) founded by Roland H. Good and Ruth
Kaminski (1980s, U.of Oregon)
ü
ü
ü
DIBELS initially released in 2002
DIBELS Next released in 2010
15,000 schools used DIBELS in 2012 (Morris, Trathen, Perney, and al., 2017)
ü
ü
ü
IDAPEL co-authored by Chantal Dufour-Martel and Roland H.Good
Released in 2011
To address the lack of early literacy assessment tools in French language for
FI programs in Canada
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
DIBELS NEXT AND IDAPEL
ü
ü
The foundational skills of reading
What is early reading according to the 2000 National Reading Panel and the National
Research Council:
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
DIBELS NEXT AND IDAPEL TASKS
Retell Fluency (RF)
Rapport du Récit
(ROR
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)
Facilité en Lecture Orale (FLO)
Nonsense Word
Fluency (NWF)
Facilité à
reconnaitre des
Non-Mots (FNM)
Phoneme
Segmentation
Fluency (PSF)
Facilité à Segmenter
des Phonèmes (FSP)
First Sound
Fluency (FSF)
Facilite a
reconnaitre le
Premier Son (FPS)
Letter Naming
Fluency (LNF)
Facilité à Dénommer
des Lettres (FDL)
Risk Indicator
Phonological
Awareness
Alphabetic Principle
and Phonics
Accuracy and
Fluency
Comprehension
How do we assess early literacy skills in a bilingual educational environment? Should formative
assessment be conducted in both languages?
ü
Positive transfer of literacy skills from one language to the other:
“The interdependence hypothesis would predict that in a bilingual program, reading instruction in
one language not only leads to literacy skills in that language, but also to a deeper conceptual and
linguistic proficiency, which is strongly related to literacy and general academic skill in the other
language” (Verhoeven, 1994).
ü
Cross-linguistic correlations between overall reading ability and component skills of reading
“significant and positive cross-linguistic correlations between overall reading ability as well as in
component skills of reading (such as phonological awareness, knowledge of letter-sound
relationships, and decoding) and, thus,learning to read in one language facilitates reading
acquisition in the other” (Savage, and al., 2017)
ü
Role of phonological awareness (PA) in L1 as a predictor for subsequent word-identification
ability in L2 (see Genesee and Jared, 2008 for a literature review on these studies for FI
students)
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
HYPOTHESIS:
All measures of the IDAPEL test will be positively correlated to the
DIBELS ones
PARTICIPANTS:
§ 103 first graders
§ Type II Charter school > priority enrollment for “economically
disadvantaged” students (up to 67% of available seats)
§ Average age 6.4
§ 57 girls / 46 boys
Race
Gender
Boys
45%
Asians
4%
Blacks
22%
Girls
55%
Whites
60%
Hispanics
14%
Instruction time ELA/FLA/French-medium (other topics)
400
350
300
250
200
180
315
150
120
100
50
60
45
0
K
1st
ELA
FLA
Other (French)
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
PROCEDURE AND MEASURES:
§ Two sets of measurements (DIBELS NEXT and IDAPEL) at beginning
of year (September), middle of year (January), and end of year (May)
§ All measures administered and collected by the school
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Retell Fluency (RF)
Rapport du Récit (ROR)
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)
Facilité en Lecture Orale (FLO)
Words Read Correctly
(ORF-WRC)
Accuracy (ORF-A)
Correct letter Sounds (NWF-CLS)
Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)
Facilité à reconnaitre des Non-Mots (FNM) Whole words Read (NWF-WWR)
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
(PSF)
Facilité à Segmenter des
Phonèmes (FSP)
Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)
Facilité à Dénommer des Lettres
(FDL)
BEGINNING OF YEAR
MIDDLE 2019
OF YEAR
S.Capmartin_NCDLI
END OF YEAR
DIBELS
Kindergarten Scoring Booklet
DIBELS Benchmark Assessment
Edited By:
Roland H. Good III
Ruth A. Kaminski
University of Oregon (2007)
Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)
Facilité à Dénommer des Lettres
(FDL)
BEGINNING OF YEAR
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/
materials/k_benchmark_6th_ed.pdf
MIDDLE OF YEAR
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
END OF YEAR
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
(PSF)
Facilité à Segmenter des
Phonèmes (FSP)
DIBELS
Kindergarten Scoring Booklet
DIBELS Benchmark Assessment
Edited By:
Roland H. Good III
Ruth A. Kaminski
University of Oregon (2007)
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/
materials/k_benchmark_6th_ed.pdf
BEGINNING OF YEAR
MIDDLE OF YEAR
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
END OF YEAR
§ NWF sub-measures:
> NWF-CLS (Correct Letter Sounds)
> NWF-WWR (Whole Word Read)
IDAPEL, Manuel de formation essential sur
l’administration et la notation des preuves, Chantal
Dufour-Martel, Roland Good, Ruth Kaminski (revised
sept. 2013)
Correct letter Sounds (NWF-CLS)
Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)
Facilité à reconnaitre des Non-Mots (FNM) Whole words Read (NWF-WWR)
BEGINNING OF YEAR
MIDDLE OF YEAR
END OF YEAR
IDAPEL, Manuel de formation essential sur l’administration et la notation
des preuves, Chantal Dufour-Martel, Roland Good, Ruth Kaminski (revised
sept. 2013)
Retell Fluency (RF)
Rapport du Récit (ROR)
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)
Facilité en Lecture Orale (FLO)
BEGINNING OF YEAR
MIDDLE OF YEAR
Words Read Correctly
(ORF-WRC)
Accuracy (ORF-A)
END OF YEAR
Ø There were significant positive relationships between IDAPEL and DIBELS
for all tests at all times of year
Ø p < 0.01
Ø 0.51 < r-values < 0.92
BOY
MOY
EOY
LNF
PSF
NWFCLS
NWFWWR
NWFCLS
NWFWWR
ORFWRC
ORF-A
NWFCLS
NWFWWR
ORFWRC
ORF-A
Person r
0.62
0.51
0.85
0.81
0.71
0.62
0.90
0.64
0.71
0.74
0.92
0.73
r2
0.38
0.26
0.72
0.66
0.50
0.38
0.81
0.41
0.51
0.54
0.85
0.53
P value
2.89E-‐12
3.09E-‐08
4.54E-‐30
1.76E-‐25
3.98E-‐17
2.96E-‐12
4.33E-‐39
2.80E-‐13
1.89E-‐17
7.10E-‐19
1.73E-‐44
1.71E-‐18
Table 1: Correlation between specific DIBELS measures and corresponding
IDAPEL measures
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Ø Most significant positive relationship is between the Nonsense word fluency
measures at the BOY and between the Oral reading fluency measures at
MOY and EOY.
BOY
MOY
EOY
LNF
PSF
NWFCLS
NWFWWR
NWFCLS
NWFWWR
ORFWRC
ORF-A
NWFCLS
NWFWWR
ORFWRC
ORF-A
Person r
0.62
0.51
0.85
0.81
0.71
0.62
0.90
0.64
0.71
0.74
0.92
0.73
r2
0.38
0.26
0.72
0.66
0.50
0.38
0.81
0.41
0.51
0.54
0.85
0.53
P value
2.89E-‐12
3.09E-‐08
4.54E-‐30
1.76E-‐25
3.98E-‐17
2.96E-‐12
4.33E-‐39
2.80E-‐13
1.89E-‐17
7.10E-‐19
1.73E-‐44
1.71E-‐18
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Ø Least significant relationship is between the phoneme segmentation
measure at the BOY
BOY
MOY
EOY
LNF
PSF
NWFCLS
NWFWWR
NWFCLS
NWFWWR
ORFWRC
ORF-A
NWFCLS
NWFWWR
ORFWRC
ORF-A
Person r
0.62
0.51
0.85
0.81
0.71
0.62
0.90
0.64
0.71
0.74
0.92
0.73
r2
0.38
0.26
0.72
0.66
0.50
0.38
0.81
0.41
0.51
0.54
0.85
0.53
P value
2.89E-‐12
3.09E-‐08
4.54E-‐30
1.76E-‐25
3.98E-‐17
2.96E-‐12
4.33E-‐39
2.80E-‐13
1.89E-‐17
7.10E-‐19
1.73E-‐44
1.71E-‐18
Table 1: Correlation between specific DIBELS measures and corresponding
IDAPEL measures
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Ø Statistical significance (p-values) of the correlation between all DIBELS and
all IDAPEL measures: strong relationships for most measures (p < 0.01)
DIBELS
BOY
LNF
IDAPEL
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
ORF-‐
WRC
EOY
ORF-‐A
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
ORF-‐
WRC
ORF-‐A
LNF
2.9E-‐12
3.3E-‐02
2.1E-‐10
4.9E-‐09
1.4E-‐07
8.9E-‐08
1.9E-‐09
1.7E-‐07
1.9E-‐13
3.6E-‐13
5.1E-‐11
1.1E-‐05
PSF
2.9E-‐02
3.1E-‐08
1.5E-‐01
4.5E-‐01
2.9E-‐02
3.8E-‐02
3.1E-‐01
1.5E-‐01
3.2E-‐03
4.1E-‐03
1.5E-‐01
1.2E-‐02
1.8E-‐08
1.1E-‐02
4.5E-‐30
1.2E-‐28
3.4E-‐17
9.4E-‐18
2.8E-‐29
3.4E-‐09
1.4E-‐14
2.2E-‐14
6.5E-‐29
8.5E-‐07
1.6E-‐07
5.1E-‐02
7.3E-‐24
1.8E-‐25
9.8E-‐15
1.1E-‐15
8.2E-‐27
1.5E-‐09
6.3E-‐13
2.9E-‐13
4.1E-‐28
2.8E-‐06
4.8E-‐09
1.4E-‐01
5.2E-‐24
3.6E-‐25
4.0E-‐17
3.9E-‐18
2.5E-‐24
1.5E-‐10
2.2E-‐19
4.1E-‐20
6.0E-‐30
1.5E-‐08
1.0E-‐05
2.9E-‐01
5.1E-‐17
1.4E-‐18
1.2E-‐11
3.0E-‐12
5.1E-‐17
2.6E-‐08
1.5E-‐12
1.6E-‐13
4.3E-‐19
3.0E-‐07
3.4E-‐10
7.6E-‐02
2.2E-‐36
3.7E-‐36
5.9E-‐20
2.5E-‐21
4.3E-‐39
5.2E-‐13
4.7E-‐18
2.8E-‐18
5.4E-‐43
1.3E-‐09
1.6E-‐06
7.1E-‐02
2.4E-‐08
1.9E-‐08
7.7E-‐09
3.8E-‐11
7.1E-‐09
2.8E-‐13
2.7E-‐14
2.2E-‐17
8.2E-‐14
4.9E-‐17
2.2E-‐06
5.3E-‐01
7.9E-‐09
4.4E-‐09
5.4E-‐09
2.0E-‐09
3.8E-‐09
2.9E-‐07
1.9E-‐17
7.7E-‐18
2.7E-‐14
1.3E-‐07
4.3E-‐07
6.4E-‐01
1.6E-‐09
3.1E-‐10
2.7E-‐09
6.6E-‐10
2.3E-‐10
1.9E-‐08
1.2E-‐17
7.1E-‐19
6.7E-‐16
2.1E-‐08
8.5E-‐11
2.1E-‐02
1.1E-‐25
1.1E-‐25
1.8E-‐21
8.4E-‐23
3.5E-‐33
7.6E-‐16
1.7E-‐24
2.7E-‐24
1.7E-‐44
3.2E-‐13
1.2E-‐05
3.6E-‐02
2.2E-‐06
1.6E-‐06
4.2E-‐09
3.0E-‐10
7.6E-‐08
1.1E-‐13
2.1E-‐14
2.4E-‐15
9.6E-‐13
1.7E-‐18
BOY
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
MOY
ORF-‐
WRC
ORF-‐A
EOY
PSF
MOY
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
ORF-‐
WRC
ORF-‐A
Table 2: Statistical significance (p-values) of the correlation between all DIBELS and all IDAPEL measures
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Ø PSF DIBELS as the least strong relationships with other IDAPEL measures
p-value > 0.1 (except when correlated to the PSF IDAPEL measure)
DIBELS
BOY
LNF
IDAPEL
BOY
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
ORF-‐
WRC
EOY
ORF-‐A
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
ORF-‐
WRC
ORF-‐A
LNF
2.9E-‐12
3.3E-‐02
2.1E-‐10
4.9E-‐09
1.4E-‐07
8.9E-‐08
1.9E-‐09
1.7E-‐07
1.9E-‐13
3.6E-‐13
5.1E-‐11
1.1E-‐05
PSF
2.9E-‐02
3.1E-‐08
1.5E-‐01
4.5E-‐01
2.9E-‐02
3.8E-‐02
3.1E-‐01
1.5E-‐01
3.2E-‐03
4.1E-‐03
1.5E-‐01
1.2E-‐02
1.8E-‐08
1.1E-‐02
4.5E-‐30
1.2E-‐28
3.4E-‐17
9.4E-‐18
2.8E-‐29
3.4E-‐09
1.4E-‐14
2.2E-‐14
6.5E-‐29
8.5E-‐07
1.6E-‐07
5.1E-‐02
7.3E-‐24
1.8E-‐25
9.8E-‐15
1.1E-‐15
8.2E-‐27
1.5E-‐09
6.3E-‐13
2.9E-‐13
4.1E-‐28
2.8E-‐06
4.8E-‐09
1.4E-‐01
5.2E-‐24
3.6E-‐25
4.0E-‐17
3.9E-‐18
2.5E-‐24
1.5E-‐10
2.2E-‐19
4.1E-‐20
6.0E-‐30
1.5E-‐08
1.0E-‐05
2.9E-‐01
5.1E-‐17
1.4E-‐18
1.2E-‐11
3.0E-‐12
5.1E-‐17
2.6E-‐08
1.5E-‐12
1.6E-‐13
4.3E-‐19
3.0E-‐07
3.4E-‐10
7.6E-‐02
2.2E-‐36
3.7E-‐36
5.9E-‐20
2.5E-‐21
4.3E-‐39
5.2E-‐13
4.7E-‐18
2.8E-‐18
5.4E-‐43
1.3E-‐09
1.6E-‐06
7.1E-‐02
2.4E-‐08
1.9E-‐08
7.7E-‐09
3.8E-‐11
7.1E-‐09
2.8E-‐13
2.7E-‐14
2.2E-‐17
8.2E-‐14
4.9E-‐17
2.2E-‐06
5.3E-‐01
7.9E-‐09
4.4E-‐09
5.4E-‐09
2.0E-‐09
3.8E-‐09
2.9E-‐07
1.9E-‐17
7.7E-‐18
2.7E-‐14
1.3E-‐07
4.3E-‐07
6.4E-‐01
1.6E-‐09
3.1E-‐10
2.7E-‐09
6.6E-‐10
2.3E-‐10
1.9E-‐08
1.2E-‐17
7.1E-‐19
6.7E-‐16
2.1E-‐08
8.5E-‐11
2.1E-‐02
1.1E-‐25
1.1E-‐25
1.8E-‐21
8.4E-‐23
3.5E-‐33
7.6E-‐16
1.7E-‐24
2.7E-‐24
1.7E-‐44
3.2E-‐13
1.2E-‐05
3.6E-‐02
2.2E-‐06
1.6E-‐06
4.2E-‐09
3.0E-‐10
7.6E-‐08
1.1E-‐13
2.1E-‐14
2.4E-‐15
9.6E-‐13
1.7E-‐18
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
MOY
ORF-‐
WRC
ORF-‐A
EOY
PSF
MOY
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
ORF-‐
WRC
ORF-‐A
Table 2: Statistical significance (p-values) of the correlation between all DIBELS and all IDAPEL measures
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Ø PSF IDAPEL as the least strong relationships with other DIBELS measures
p-value > 0.1 (except when correlated to the PSF and EOY NWF measures)
DIBELS
BOY
LNF
IDAPEL
BOY
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
ORF-‐
WRC
EOY
ORF-‐A
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
ORF-‐
WRC
ORF-‐A
LNF
2.9E-‐12
3.3E-‐02
2.1E-‐10
4.9E-‐09
1.4E-‐07
8.9E-‐08
1.9E-‐09
1.7E-‐07
1.9E-‐13
3.6E-‐13
5.1E-‐11
1.1E-‐05
PSF
2.9E-‐02
3.1E-‐08
1.5E-‐01
4.5E-‐01
2.9E-‐02
3.8E-‐02
3.1E-‐01
1.5E-‐01
3.2E-‐03
4.1E-‐03
1.5E-‐01
1.2E-‐02
1.8E-‐08
1.1E-‐02
4.5E-‐30
1.2E-‐28
3.4E-‐17
9.4E-‐18
2.8E-‐29
3.4E-‐09
1.4E-‐14
2.2E-‐14
6.5E-‐29
8.5E-‐07
1.6E-‐07
5.1E-‐02
7.3E-‐24
1.8E-‐25
9.8E-‐15
1.1E-‐15
8.2E-‐27
1.5E-‐09
6.3E-‐13
2.9E-‐13
4.1E-‐28
2.8E-‐06
4.8E-‐09
1.4E-‐01
5.2E-‐24
3.6E-‐25
4.0E-‐17
3.9E-‐18
2.5E-‐24
1.5E-‐10
2.2E-‐19
4.1E-‐20
6.0E-‐30
1.5E-‐08
1.0E-‐05
2.9E-‐01
5.1E-‐17
1.4E-‐18
1.2E-‐11
3.0E-‐12
5.1E-‐17
2.6E-‐08
1.5E-‐12
1.6E-‐13
4.3E-‐19
3.0E-‐07
3.4E-‐10
7.6E-‐02
2.2E-‐36
3.7E-‐36
5.9E-‐20
2.5E-‐21
4.3E-‐39
5.2E-‐13
4.7E-‐18
2.8E-‐18
5.4E-‐43
1.3E-‐09
1.6E-‐06
7.1E-‐02
2.4E-‐08
1.9E-‐08
7.7E-‐09
3.8E-‐11
7.1E-‐09
2.8E-‐13
2.7E-‐14
2.2E-‐17
8.2E-‐14
4.9E-‐17
2.2E-‐06
5.3E-‐01
7.9E-‐09
4.4E-‐09
5.4E-‐09
2.0E-‐09
3.8E-‐09
2.9E-‐07
1.9E-‐17
7.7E-‐18
2.7E-‐14
1.3E-‐07
4.3E-‐07
6.4E-‐01
1.6E-‐09
3.1E-‐10
2.7E-‐09
6.6E-‐10
2.3E-‐10
1.9E-‐08
1.2E-‐17
7.1E-‐19
6.7E-‐16
2.1E-‐08
8.5E-‐11
2.1E-‐02
1.1E-‐25
1.1E-‐25
1.8E-‐21
8.4E-‐23
3.5E-‐33
7.6E-‐16
1.7E-‐24
2.7E-‐24
1.7E-‐44
3.2E-‐13
1.2E-‐05
3.6E-‐02
2.2E-‐06
1.6E-‐06
4.2E-‐09
3.0E-‐10
7.6E-‐08
1.1E-‐13
2.1E-‐14
2.4E-‐15
9.6E-‐13
1.7E-‐18
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
MOY
ORF-‐
WRC
ORF-‐A
EOY
PSF
MOY
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
WWR
ORF-‐
WRC
ORF-‐A
Table 2: Statistical significance (p-values) of the correlation between all DIBELS and all IDAPEL measures
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
BOY
LNF
P
(boy
vs
girl)
PSF
NWF-‐
CLS
MOY
NWF-‐
NWF-‐
NWF-‐CLS
ORF-‐WRC
ORF-‐A
WWR
WWR
EOY
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
ORF-‐WRC
ORF-‐A
WWR
8.2E-‐01
8.7E-‐01
7.0E-‐01
7.3E-‐01
4.3E-‐01
4.9E-‐01
9.3E-‐01
7.1E-‐01
9.6E-‐01
7.5E-‐01
7.7E-‐01
7.5E-‐02
Ø Non-significant relationship when comparing genders
p > 0.1 for most measures
p > 0.01 for all measures
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
BOY
LNF
P
(boy
vs
girl)
PSF
NWF-‐
CLS
MOY
NWF-‐
NWF-‐
NWF-‐CLS
ORF-‐WRC
ORF-‐A
WWR
WWR
EOY
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
ORF-‐WRC
ORF-‐A
WWR
8.2E-‐01
8.7E-‐01
7.0E-‐01
7.3E-‐01
4.3E-‐01
4.9E-‐01
9.3E-‐01
7.1E-‐01
9.6E-‐01
7.5E-‐01
7.7E-‐01
7.5E-‐02
Ø Non-significant relationship when comparing genders p > 0.1 for most
measures
BOY
LNF
P
(white/black)
PSF
NWF-‐
CLS
MOY
NWF-‐
NWF-‐
NWF-‐CLS
ORF-‐WRC
ORF-‐A
WWR
WWR
EOY
NWF-‐
CLS
NWF-‐
ORF-‐WRC
ORF-‐A
WWR
2.1E-‐01
8.9E-‐01
3.9E-‐01
6.9E-‐01
7.5E-‐01
8.9E-‐01
2.7E-‐01
7.0E-‐01
9.1E-‐01
9.3E-‐01
2.7E-‐01
6.5E-‐01
P
(white/hispanic
2.4E-‐01
9.4E-‐01
1.0E-‐01
4.2E-‐01
3.5E-‐01
5.8E-‐01
6.3E-‐01
7.8E-‐01
9.2E-‐01
6.9E-‐01
9.0E-‐01
5.4E-‐01
P
(black/hispanic)
9.6E-‐02
8.7E-‐01
5.3E-‐02
2.3E-‐01
4.8E-‐01
6.9E-‐01
2.6E-‐01
9.6E-‐01
9.7E-‐01
7.8E-‐01
4.6E-‐01
4.6E-‐01
Ø Non-significant relationship when comparing races p > 0.1 for most
measures
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
ü Strong correlation between the two assessments
ü Especially strong relationship between all ORF measures
> De Ramirez and Shapiro (2007) for Spanish/English ORF
> Pasquarella and al. (2015) for English/Chinese ORF
ü Particularly strong relationship between DIBELS NWF in the beginning of
the year and IDAPEL ORF in the middle and end of the year
> Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, and Lacroix (1999)
> Haigh, Savagem Erdos, and Genesee (2011)
> Wise, D’Angelo, and Chen (2015)
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Practical implications of this study:
ü Redundancy of conducting both tests to assess ORF
ü Redundancy of conducting both tests to assess NWF
ü Valuable input for PSF
Limitations:
ü Not enough data to measure the statistical significance of RF > further
research to assess cross-language transfer for reading comprehension
ü Data limited to first grade measures > would similar correlations be
observed in other grade levels?
ü DIBELS measures
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
ü Instead of doubling testing > spending more time on differentiated
instruction and/or targeted interventions
ü Benefits of receiving intervention in two languages
ü Importance of creating efficient tools for targeted intervention in an
immersion setting
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Merci
Questions/Feedback:
scapmart@tulane.edu
sophie.camartin@ebnola.com
S.Capmartin_NCDLI 2019
Sophie Capmartin