Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a systematic, ongoing assessment framework that allows special educators to monitor students’ progress and determine the need for instructional adaptations. Jenkins and colleagues examined the accuracy and timeliness of six different schedules of CBM progress monitoring (PM). The authors found that weekly and intermittent PM schedules were similarly accurate and timely. This study replicated and extended the work of Jenkins and colleagues by examining the accuracy and timeliness of different PM schedules for 51 students with disabilities. Results indicated that the accuracy and timeliness of the PM schedules for the current sample was poorer than the accuracy and timeliness reported by Jenkins and colleagues. In line with the results of the original study, however, these results indicated that intermittent PM schedules sufficiently predicted student true growth compared to weekly PM schedule. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Standard errors associated with progress monitoring outcomes from DIBELS, AIMSweb, and an experimental passage set. School Psychology Review, 38(2), 266–283.
2.
ChristT. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimating standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 128–133.
3.
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(1), 19–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.001
4.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.GilbertJ. K.BarqueroL. A.ChoE.CrouchR. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 327–340. http://doi.org/bsj9kr
5.
ComptonD. L.GilbertJ. K.JenkinsJ. R.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ChoE.BarqueroL. A.BoutonB. (2012) Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to tier 3 instruction: What level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442151
6.
ConoyerS. J.FordJ. W.SmithR. A.MasonE. N.LembkeE. S.HospJ. L. (2019). Examining curriculum-based measurement screening tools in middle school science: A scaled replication study. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(7), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918803493
7.
CoyneM.CookB. G.TherrienW. J. (2016). Recommendations for replication research in special education: A framework of systematic, conceptual replications. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516648463
DenoS. L.FuchsL.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurements to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507–524.
11.
DiggsC. R.ChristT. J. (2019). Investigating the diagnostic consistency and incremental validity evidence of curriculum-based measurements of oral reading rate and comprehension. Contemporary School Psychology, 23(2), 163–178. http://doi.org/drgw
12.
FildermanM. J.TosteJ. R. (2017). Decisions, decisions, decisions: Using data to make instructional decisions for struggling readers. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50(3), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917740701
13.
FordJ. W.MissallK. N.HospJ. L.KuhleJ. L. (2017). Examining oral passage reading rate across three curriculum-based measurement tools for predicting grade-level proficiency. School Psychology Review, 46(4), 363–378. http://doi.org/gc7b44
14.
HospJ.FordJ.HuddleS.HensleyK. (2018). The importance of replication in measurement research: Using curriculum-based measures with postsecondary students with developmental disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508417727489
15.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
16.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention (RtI) and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/3
17.
GicklingE. E.ArmstrongD. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(9), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221947801100905
18.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400et seq. (2006 & Supp. V. 2011).
19.
JanuaryS.-A. A.ArdoinS. P. (2015). Technical adequacy and acceptability of urriculum-based measurement and the measures of academic progress. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508415579095
20.
JenkinsJ.SchulzeM.MartiA.HarbaughA. G. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement of reading growth: Weekly versus intermittent progress monitoring. Exceptional Children, 84(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917708216
21.
JenkinsJ.ZumetaR.DupreeO. (2005). Measuring gains in reading ability with passage reading fluency. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(4), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00140.x
22.
JungP. G.McMasterK. L.KunkelA.ShinJ.SteckerP. M. (2018). Effects of data-based individualization for students with intensive learning needs: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 144–155. http://doi.org/gd4g8m
23.
LemonsC. J.KingS. A.DavidsonK. A.BerryessaT. L.GajjarS. A. (2016). An inadvertent concurrent replication: Same roadmap, different journey. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516631116
24.
LemonsC. J.SinclairA. C.GeselS. A.GandhiA. G.DanielsonL. (2019). Integrating intensive intervention into special education services: Guidance for special education administrators. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 32(1), 29–38.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlation evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469. http://doi.org/bk8kjk
27.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M.LangellL. A. (n.d.). Overview of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and AIMSweb. http://www.AIMSweb.com
28.
StataCorp. (2015). Stata statistical software: Release 14 [Computer software]. https://www.stata.com
29.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20113
30.
TreptowM. A.BurnsM. K.McComasJ. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students' reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 159–166.
31.
YoderP. J.LloydB. P.SymonsF. J. (2018). Observational measurement of behavior (2nd ed.). Brookes.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
