We examined the idea that leaner schedules of progress monitoring (PM) can lighten assessment demands without undermining decision-making accuracy. Using curriculum-based measurement of reading, we compared effects on decision accuracy of 5 intermittent PM schedules relative to that of every-week PM. For participating students with high-incidence disabilities—all receiving special education reading instruction (N = 56)—intermittent schedules of PM performed as well as every-week PM. These findings signal a need for research on the relative accuracy and timeliness of curriculum-based measurement decision making for intermittent and weekly PM.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaluR.ZhuP.DoolittleF.SchillerE.JenkinsJ.GerstenR. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE Publication No. 2016-4000). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
2.
ChristT. J.ZopluogluC.MonaghenB. D.Van NormanE. R. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Multi-study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset quality on progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 19–57. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.001
3.
ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L.PowellS. L.CapizziA.MorganP. (2006, February). Are CBM passages comparable? Examining the effects of set, grade, child characteristics, and passage characteristics on oral reading fluency?Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Research Conference, Coronado, CA.
4.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232. doi:10.1177/004005998702000109
5.
DenoS. L. (2003). Curriculum-based measurement: development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3), 3–12. doi:10.1177/004005998702000109
6.
DenoS. L. (2014). Reflections on progress monitoring and data-based intervention. In CookB.TankersleyM.LandrumT. (Eds.), Special education past, present, and future: Perspectives from the field. (pp. 171–194). Bingley, England: Emerald.
7.
DenoS. L.FuchsL.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurements to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (1995). What’s “special” about special education?Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 522–530. Retrieved from http://pdkintl.org/
10.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460. doi:10.3102/00028312021002449
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 43–52. doi:10.1177/074193258901000209
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.FergusonC. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement, using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436–450. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ecx
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258800900206
15.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE Publication No. 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
16.
JenkinsJ. R.FuchsL. S.van den BroekP.EspinC.DenoS. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719– 729. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719
17.
JenkinsJ. R.GraffJ. J.MigliorettiD. L. (2009). Estimating reading growth with inter-mittent CBM progress monitoring. Excep-tional Children, 75, 151–164. doi:10.1177/001440290907500202
18.
JenkinsJ. R.JewellM. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421–432. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ecx
19.
JenkinsJ. R.ZumetaR.DupreeO.JohnsonK. (2005). Measuring gains in reading ability with passage reading fluency. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 245–253. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00140.x
20.
JonesE. D.KrouseJ. P. (1988). The effectiveness of data-based instruction by student teachers in classrooms for pupils with mild handicaps. Teacher Education and Special Educational, 11, 9–19. doi:10.1177.0888460648801100102
21.
MarstonD. B. (1989). 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, NY: Guilford.
22.
MirkinP. K.DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.WessonC.TindalG.MarstonD.KuehnleK. (1981). Procedures to develop and monitor progress on IEP goals. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI—A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001
29.
RobertsG.WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2012). How curriculum-based measurement progress monitoring contributes to the alignment of instruction and state-adopted standards and assessments. In EspinC. A.McMasterK. L.RoseS.WaymanM. M. (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 225–235). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
30.
SchatschneiderC.WagnerR.CrawfordE. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 308–315. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.005
31.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M.LangellL. A. (n.d.). Overview of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and AIMSweb. Retrieved from http://www.AIMSweb.com
32.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
SpeeceD. L. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement progress monitoring and the health of general education. In EspinC. A.McMasterK. L.RoseS.WaymanM. M. (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 179–184). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
34.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819. doi:10.1002/pits.20113
35.
ValenciaS. W.SmithA.ReeceA.LiM.WixsonK.NewmanH. (2011). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 270–291. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.3.1
36.
WillettJ. B. (1989). Questions and answers in the measurement of change. In RothkopfE. Z. (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 15). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
ZumetaR. O.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S. (2012). Using word identification fluency to assess first-grade reading development: A comparison of two word-sampling approaches. Exceptional Children, 78, 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800204
