This study examined the reading growth rates of 7,544 students in Grades 2–6, measured over 1 year using Reading—Curriculum-Based Measurement (R—CBM) benchmark assessments administered in the fall, winter, and spring. The authors used hierarchical linear modeling to establish and compare student rates of growth within each grade level based on initial level of performance. Results suggest that growth rates vary significantly, conditional on initial level of performance, with much lower rates of growth for students at the bottom and top of the distribution. Implications for using R—CBM in a response-to-intervention model are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
4.
CaseL. P.SpeeceD. L.MolloyD. E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557–582.
5.
ChallJ. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw Hill.
6.
ChristT. J.SilberglittB. (2007). Estimates of the Standard Error of Measurement for Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading Fluency. School Psychology Review, 36 (1), 130–146.
7.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
8.
DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18 (3), 157–171.
12.
FuchsL. S. (1986). Monitoring progress among mildly handicapped pupils: Review of current practice and research. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (5), 5–12.
13.
FuchsL. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18 (3), 172–186.
14.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500.
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13 (3), 204–219.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.WalzL.GermannG. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?. School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.
17.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204–217.
18.
HintzeJ. M.OwenS. V.ShapiroE. S.DalyE. J. (2000). Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G theory to curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 52–68.
19.
HintzeJ. M.PetitteH. A. Pelle (2001). The generalizability of CBM oral reading fluency measures across general and special education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19 (2), 158–170.
20.
HintzeJ. M.ShapiroE. S. (1997). Curriculum-based measurement and literature-based reading: Is curriculum-based measurement meeting the needs of changing reading curricula?. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 351–375.
21.
HintzeJ. M.ShapiroE. S.ConteK. L.BasileI. M. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Criterion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level assessment. School Psychology Review, 26, 535–553.
22.
HintzeJ. M.SilberglittB. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R—CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372–386.
23.
HoweK. B.ScierkaB. J.GibbonsK. A.SilberglittB. (2003). A school-wide organization system for raising reading achievement using general outcome measures and evidence-based instruction: One education district's experience. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 59–72.
24.
HoweK. B.ShinnM. M. (2002). Standard reading assessment passages (RAPs) for use in general outcome measurement: A manual for describing development and technical features. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
25.
MarstonD. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.
26.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.
27.
PearsonP. D.JohnsonD. D.ClymerT.IndirsanoR.VenezkyR. L.BaumannJ. F. (1989). Silver, Burdett, and Ginn. Needham, MA: Silver, Burdett, and Ginn.
28.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
30.
ShinnM. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
31.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002). Administration and scoring of Reading-Curriculum Based Measurement for use in general outcome measurement (Technical Manual). Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
32.
SilberglittB.HintzeJ. M. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23 (4), 304–325.
33.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (4), 360–407.
34.
StanovichK. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.
