Curriculum-based measurement offers special and regular educators an alternative to traditional standardized achievement testing. As a viable alternative assessment system it has been developed as a technically adequate approach in which pupil progress may be monitored frequently in the curriculum. The studies presented in this article document the benefits of implementing CBM in both special and regular education settings. In Study I CBM is demonstrated to be a valid and reliable measurement system that aides teacher decisions regarding student placement, progress, and intervention effectiveness in an elementary school. A survey of teacher attitudes is also presented. Study II outlines the implementation of CBM in a large school-based resource program serving 1,100 mildly handicapped children. The data presented for this study indicate that CBM may be successfully utilized in making screening, identification, program planning, progress monitoring, and program evaluation decisions for children with learning difficulties.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarverR. P. (1974). Two dimensions of tests: Psychometric and edumetric. American Psychologist, 29, 512–518.
2.
ClymerT., & FennT. (1979). Heading720 rainbow edition. Lexington, MA: Ginn.
3.
DenoS.MarstonD.MirkinP.LowryL.SindelarP., & Jenkins. (1982). The use of standard tasks to measure achievement in reading, spelling and written expression: A normative and developmental study (Research Report No. 87). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
4.
DenoS. L., & MirkinP. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual.Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
5.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K., & ChiangB. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36–45.
6.
DenoS. L.MarstonD. & MirkinP. K. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
7.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K.LowryL., & KuehnleK. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of spelling and performance on standardized achievement tests (Research Report No. 21). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
8.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K., & WessonC. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16, 2, 99–105.
9.
DunnL. M., & MarkwardtF. C. (1970). Peabody individual achievement test.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
10.
FergusonG. A. (1971). Statistical analysis in psychology and education.New York: McGraw Hill.
11.
FlodenR.PorterA.SchmidtW., & FreemanD. (1980). Don't they all measure the same thing? In BakerE. & QuellnalzE. (Eds.), Educational testing and evaluation.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
FryE. (1968). Graph for estimating reliability. Journal of Heading, 11, 7, 513–516, 577.
13.
FuchsL., & DenoS. (1981). The relationship between curriculum-based mastery measures and standardized achievement tests in reading (Research Report No. 57). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
14.
FuchsL.DenoS., & 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.
15.
GlassG. V.WillsonV. L., & GottmanJ. M. (1975). Design and analysis of time-series experiments.Boulder: University of Colorado Press.
16.
GradenJ.ThurlowM. L., & YsseldykeJ. E. (1982). Instructional ecology and academic responding time for students at three levels of teacher-perceived behavioral competence (Research Report No. 73), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
17.
JenkinsJ., & PanyD. (1978). Standardized achievement test: How useful for special education?Exceptional Children, 44, 448–453.
18.
JenkinsJ.DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1979). Measuring pupil progress in the least restrictive alternative. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 81–92.
LovittT., & EatonM. (1972). Achievement tests versus direct and daily measurement. In SembG. (Ed.), Behavior analysis in education.Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
MarstonD.MirkinP. K., & DenoS. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement of academic skills: An alternative to traditional screening, referral, and identification of learning disabled students. Journal of Special Education, 18, 109–118.
23.
MarstonD.TindalG., & DenoS. L. (1982). Predictive efficiency of direct, repeated measurement: An analysis of cost and accuracy in classification (Research Report No. 104). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
24.
MarstonD.TindalG., & DenoS. L. (1984). Eligibility for learning disability services: A direct and repeated measurement approach. Exceptional Children, 50, 6, 554–556.
25.
Minneapolis Public Schools. (1982). Five year plan.Minneapolis: Minneapolis Public Schools.
26.
NaslundR. A.ThorpeL. P., & LefeverD. W. (1978). SRA achievement series.Chicago: Science Research Associates.
RuckerW., & DilleyC. A. (1981). Mathematics.New York: D. C. Heath.
29.
SalviaJ., & YsseldykeJ. (1985). Assessment in special and remedial education.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
30.
ShinnM., & MarstonD. (1985). Assessing mildly handicapped, low achieving and regular education students: A curriculum-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 31–38.
31.
ThorndikeR., & HagenE. (1978). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education.New York: Wiley.
32.
ThurlowM. L., & YsseldykeJ. E. (1982). Instructional planning: Information collected by school psychologists vs. information considered useful by teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 20, 3–10.
33.
WhiteO., & HaringN. (1981). Exceptional teaching.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
34.
WoodcockR. W. (1981). Woodcock reading mastery tests.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
