The third dependent variable was CWPM on a novel AIMSweb (https://aimsweb.
A secondary dependent variable was a comparison of the overall reading growth of participants measured by CWPM and correct maze responses on AIMSweb and CR passages to that of comparison peers.
Camine, & Silbert, 1979; Hasbrouck & Tindal, 1992; Koorland, Keel, & Ueberhorst, 1990; Shapiro, 1996), the CWPM and WPM criterion rates varied considerably (i.
The fluency criteria had a smaller variance ranging from 180 to 210 CWPM (Sweeny et al.
RFBA is a 1-minute assessment of oral reading fluency that establishes a student's reading rate through CWPM
Although not the focus of the current study, it should be noted that the benchmark for oral reading fluency of the longitudinal sample was higher, 52 CWPM, than that of the norming sample, 40 CWPM.
2006) that adding a fluency measure to the criteria reduces the percentage of students who meet the criteria, the benchmark of 40 CWPM is a commonly accepted end-of-first grade benchmark even for ELLs (Baker, 2003).
In the current investigation, the experimenter created individual goals based on an average of the two highest probes from the previous phase, and systematically changed each student's CWPM
criteria over multiple phases throughout the study.
First, participants read a passage until they reached 50% past their baseline mean of CWPM
, at which point they were stopped by the examiner who scored their initial prosody based on the first minute of reading.
with some variability in responding across sessions.
On the other hand, the second-grade passages were selected for assessment only, because it was an important goal for the participants to reach the DIBELS benchmark of 90 CWPM
on grade level passages, the lowest level that predicts success in third-grade reading (Good et al.
Third, students that read contextual words and students that read acontextual words were compared on their mean number of CWPM
obtained on the transfer passages.