Two hundred and two (n = 202) sixth–grade students in social studies were administered a weekly vocabulary–matching curriculum–based measure (CBM) for 35 weeks. Students were also administered the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI), along with the annual state high–stakes test in Communication Arts. CBM scores were analyzed with respect to alternate form reliability, validity with criterion measures, and student growth over time. Results suggest that the vocabulary–matching CBM is reliable and valid with the SRI but not with the state test. Students showed an overall linear trend of growth, but this growth was flat in the middle of the semester. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaumannJ. F., Kame'enuiE. J., & AshG. E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, 2, 752–785.
2.
BeaverJ. M., & CarterM. A. (2006). The Developmental reading assessment, 2nd ed. (DRA–2). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
3.
BeyersS. J., LembkeE. S., & CursB. (2013). Social studies progress monitoring and intervention for middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 224–235.
4.
BoehmR., & ArmstrongD. (2002). Our world today: People, places, and issues. New York: Glencoe/McGraw Hill.
5.
BryantD. P., GoodwinM., BryantB. R., & HigginsK. (2003). Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 117–128.
6.
BuschT. W., & EspinC. A. (2003). Using curriculum–based measurement to prevent failure and assess learning in the content areas. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4), 49–58.
7.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum–based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192.
EdmondsM. S., VaughnS., WexlerJ., ReutebuchC., CableA., TackettK. K., & SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998
10.
EspinC. A., BuschT. W., ShinJ., & KruschwitzR. (2001). Curriculum–based measurement in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary–matching as an indicator of performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(3), 142–151.
11.
EspinC. A., & DenoS. L. (1995). Curriculum–based measures for secondary students: Utility and task specificity of text–based reading and vocabulary measures for predicting performance on content–area tasks. Diagnostique, 20, 121–42.
12.
EspinC. A., & DenoS. L. (1993). Performance in reading from content area text as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 47–59.
13.
EspinC. A., & FoegenA. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content–area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62(6), 497.
14.
EspinC. A., ShinJ., & BuschT. W. (2005). Curriculum–based measurement in the content areas vocabulary matching as an indicator of progress in social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 353–363.
15.
EspinC. A., BuschT. W., LembkeE. S., HamptonD. D., SeoK., & ZukowskiB. A. (2013). Curriculum–based measurement in science learning vocabulary–matching as an indicator of performance and progress. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(4), 203–213.
16.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum–based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188–192.
17.
HarmonJ. M., HedrickW. B., & WoodK. D. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in the content areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(3), 261–280.
18.
KamilM. L., BormanG. D., DoleJ., KralC. C., SalingerT., & TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2008–4027. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED502398
19.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., & GraetzJ. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 103–116.
20.
McCarthyA. M., & ChristT. J. (2010). Test review: Beaver, J. M., Carter, M. A. (2006). The developmental reading assessment, 2nd ed. (DRA–2). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(3), 182–185. http://doi.org/10.1177/1534508410363127
MooneyP., McCarterK. S., SchravenJ., & HaydelB. (2010). The relationship between content area general outcome measurement and statewide testing in sixth–grade world history. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(3), 148–158.
23.
National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The nation's report card: A first look: 2013 mathematics and reading (NCES 2014–451). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
24.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The nation's report card: U.S. history 2010 (NCES 2011–468). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
25.
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. Washington DC.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
26.
RobertsG., TorgesenJ. K., BoardmanA., & ScammaccaN. (2008). Evidence–based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 63–69.
27.
Scholastic Reading Inventory: Using the Lexile Framework, Technical Manual, forms A and B. (2007). New York: Scholastic, Inc.
