The predictive utility of screening measures for forecasting math disability (MD) at the end of 2nd grade and the predictive and discriminant validity of math progress-monitoring tools were assessed. Participants were 225 students who entered the study in 1st grade and completed data collection at the end of 2nd grade. Screening measures were Number Identification/Counting, Fact Retrieval, Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Computation, and CBM Concepts/Applications. For Number Identification/Counting and CBM Computation, 27 weekly assessments were also collected. MD was defined as below the 10th percentile at the end of 2nd grade on calculations and word problems. Logistic regression showed that the 4-variable screening model produced good and similar fits in accounting for MD—calculation and MD—word problems. Classification accuracy was driven primarily by CBM Concepts/Applications and CBM Computation; CBM Concepts/Applications was the better of these predictors. CBM Computation, but not Number Identification/Counting, demonstrated validity for progress monitoring.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerS.GerstenR.FlojoJ.KatzR.ChardD.ClarkeB. (2002). Preventing mathematics difficulties in young children: Focus on effective screening of early number sense delays (Tech. Rep. No. 0305). Eugene, OR: Pacific Institutes for Research.
2.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.KimS. A.GerstenR. (2006, February). Three-tier mathematics intervention: Emerging model and preliminary findings. Poster presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
3.
CarpenterT. P.MoserJ. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179–203.
4.
ChardD. J.ClarkeB.BakerS.OtterstedtJ.BraunD.KatzR. (2005). Using measures of number sense to screen for difficulties in mathematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30 (2), 3–14.
5.
ClarkeB. (2005, June). Validity of screening measures in math at first grade. Paper presented at a working meeting of the National Center on Learning Disabilities, New York City.
6.
ClarkeB.ShinnM. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248.
7.
DalyE. J.WrightJ. A.KelleyS. Q.MartensB. K. (1997). Measures of early academic skills: Reliability and validity with a first grade sample. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 268–280.
8.
FletcherJ. M.FoormanB. R.BoudousquieA.BarnesM. A.SchatschneiderC.FrancisD. J. (2002). Assessment of reading and learning disabilities a research-based intervention-oriented approach. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 27–63.
9.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.PaulsenK.BryantJ. D.HamlettC. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513.
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.StuebingK.FletcherJ. M.HamlettC. L.LambertW. E. (2006). Problem-solving and computational skill: Are they shared or distinct forms of mathematical cognition? Manuscript submitted for publication.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.PowellS. C.SeethalerP. M.CapizziA. M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 29–43.
12.
FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L. (2005). Number identification/counting. Unpublished instrument. (Available from L.S. Fuchs, 328 Peabody, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203).
13.
FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L.FuchsD. (1990). Curriculum-based math computation and concepts/applications. (Available from L. S. Fuchs, 328 Peabody, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203).
14.
FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L.PowellS. R. (2003). Fact fluency assessment. (Available from L. S. Fuchs, 328 Peabody, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203).
15.
GerstenR.JordanN. C.FlojoJ. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304.
16.
GinsburgH. P.BaroodyA. J. (1990). Test of Early Mathematics Ability (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
17.
Gross-TsurV.ManorO.ShalevR. S. (1996). Developmental dyscalculia: Prevalence and demographic features. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 37, 906–914.
JenkinsJ. R. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the Conference on Response to Intervention as Learning Disabilities Identification, sponsored by the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.
20.
JenkinsJ. R.O'ConnorR. E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 99–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
JordanN. C.HanichL. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567–578.
22.
LembkeE.FoegenA. (2006, February). Monitoring student progress in early math. Paper presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
23.
LewisC.HitchG. J.WalkerP. (1994). The prevalence of specific arithmetic difficulties and specific reading difficulties in 9- to 10-year-old boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 283–292.
24.
MaglioccaL. A.RinaldiR. T.StephensT. M. (1979). A field test of a frequency sampling screening instrument for early identification of at risk children: A report on the second year pilot study. Child Study Journal, 9, 213–229.
25.
OkamatoY.CaseR. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children's conceptual structures in the domain of number. In CaseR.OkamotoY. (Eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 1–2), pp. 27–58. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
26.
RileyM. S.GreenoJ. G. (1988). Developmental analysis of understanding language about quantities and of solving problems. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 49–101.
27.
RileyM. S.GreenoJ. G.HellerJ. I. (1983). Development of children's problem-solving ability in arithmetic. The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153–196). Orlando: Academic Press.
28.
SimnerM. L. (1982). Printing errors in kindergarten and the prediction of academic performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 155–159.
29.
SteadmanH. J.SilverE.MonahanJ.ApplebaumP. S.RobbinsP. C.MulveyE. P. (2000). A classification tree approach to the development of actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 83–100.
30.
SwetsJ. A. (1992). The science of choosing the right decision threshold in high-stake diagnostics. American Psychologist, 47, 522–532.
31.
TeislJ. T.MazzoccoM. M.MyersG. F. (2001). The utility of kindergarten teacher ratings for predicting low academic achievement in first grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 286–293.
32.
TorgesenJ. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 565–613). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
TsienC. L.FraserH. S. F.LongW. J.KennedyR. L. (1998). Using classification tree and logistic regression methods to diagnose myocardial infarction. Medinfo, 9, 493–497.
34.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
35.
VanDerHeydenA. M.WittJ. C.NaquinG.NoellG. (2001). The reliability and validity of curriculum-based measurement readiness probes for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 30, 363–382.
36.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
37.
WalkerH. M.LevJ. (1953). Statistical inference. New York: Holt & Co.
38.
WilkinsonG. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test 3. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.
39.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
