This study evaluated the validity and reliability of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) using a sample of 30 special education students, grades 4 through 6. Results supported the reliability and validity of DIBELS compared to the Woodcock Johnson III (WJ III). DIBELS included four subtests: Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Initial Sound Fluency (ISF), and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF). These were compared to two subtests of the WJ III: Letter Word Identification and Word Attack. DIBELS showed significant correlations for LNF, PSF, NWF, and WJ III Word Attack, as well as between DIBELS LNF, PSF, and WJ III Word Identification. ISF showed no significant correlation with either subtest of the WJ III. The study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of DIBELS in special education, comparing it to the WJ III. It found strong correlations between DIBELS and WJ III scores, supporting DIBELS as a valid and reliable assessment. The study also examined test-retest reliability, confirming consistency in DIBELS scores. The results indicated that DIBELS is a valid and reliable formative assessment for special education students. The study concluded that DIBELS is a valid and reliable assessment tool for evaluating basic literacy skills in special education.This study evaluated the validity and reliability of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) using a sample of 30 special education students, grades 4 through 6. Results supported the reliability and validity of DIBELS compared to the Woodcock Johnson III (WJ III). DIBELS included four subtests: Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Initial Sound Fluency (ISF), and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF). These were compared to two subtests of the WJ III: Letter Word Identification and Word Attack. DIBELS showed significant correlations for LNF, PSF, NWF, and WJ III Word Attack, as well as between DIBELS LNF, PSF, and WJ III Word Identification. ISF showed no significant correlation with either subtest of the WJ III. The study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of DIBELS in special education, comparing it to the WJ III. It found strong correlations between DIBELS and WJ III scores, supporting DIBELS as a valid and reliable assessment. The study also examined test-retest reliability, confirming consistency in DIBELS scores. The results indicated that DIBELS is a valid and reliable formative assessment for special education students. The study concluded that DIBELS is a valid and reliable assessment tool for evaluating basic literacy skills in special education.