In this article, we delineate essential commonalities and distinctions between two approaches to measurement for instructional decision making. Specific subskill mastery measurement is explained using a case study, and salient features of this predominant model are described. Then, a major contrasting approach, the general outcome measurement model, is explained; a curriculum-based measurement case study is provided to illustrate general outcome measurement; and the essential features of this alternative model are reviewed. Finally, we describe how general outcome measurement represents an innovative approach to assessment by bridging traditional and contemporary paradigms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson-InmannL.WalkerH. M., & PurcellJ. (1984). Promoting the transfer of skills across settings: Transenvironmental programming for handicapped students in the mainstream. In HewardW. L.HeronT. E.HillD. S., & Trap-PorterJ. (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 17–37). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
2.
BloomB. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), unpaginated.
3.
BloomB. S.HastingsJ. T., & MadausG. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
CampbellD. T., & StanleyJ. T. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In GageN. L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171–246). Chicago: Rand McNally.
5.
CarrollJ. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.
6.
CarrollJ. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18, 26–30.
7.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
8.
DenoS. L., & FuchsL. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1–16.
9.
DenoS. L., & MirkinP. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
10.
EisnerE. W. (1967). Educational objectives: Help or hindrance. School Review, 75, 251–282.
11.
EubanksE. E., & LevineD. U. (1983). A first look at effective schools projects in New York City and Milwaukee. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 697–702.
12.
FuchsL. S. (1986). Monitoring progress of mildly handicapped pupils: Review of current practice and research. Remedial and Special Education, 7(5), 5–12.
13.
FuchsL. S. (in press). Enhancing instructional programming and student achievement with curriculum-based measurement. In KramerJ. (Ed.), Curriculum-based assessment: Examining old problems, evaluating new solutions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FuchsL. S.AllinderR. M.HamlettC. L., & FuchsD. (1990). An analysis of spelling curricula and teachers' skills in identifying error types. Remedial and Special Education, 11(1), 42–53.
15.
FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (1986). Curriculum-based assessment of progress toward long- and short-term goals. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 69–82.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L., & AllinderR. M. (1991). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57, 443–452.
17.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L., & SteckerP. M. (1990). The role of skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psychology Review, 19, 6–22.
18.
GlaserR. (1966). The Individually Prescribed Instruction Project. Learning R&D Center Publications. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
19.
GoodmanL. (1985). The effective schools movement and special education. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 17, 102–105.
20.
GoodsteinH. A. (1982). The reliability of criterion-referenced tests and special education: Assumed vs. demonstrated. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 37–48.
21.
HoffmanJ. V., & RutherfordW. L. (1984). Effective reading programs: A critical review of outlier studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 79–92.
22.
KlausmeierH., & RippleR. (1971). Learning and human abilities. New York: Harper & Row.
23.
MirkinP. K.DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.WessonC.TindalG., & KuehnleK. (1984). Procedures to develop and monitor progress toward IEP goals. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
24.
MirkinP. K., & PotterM. L. (1982). A survey of program planning and implementation practices of LD teachers (Research Report No. 80). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
25.
RiethH. J.PolsgroveL., & SemmelM. I. (1981). Instructional variables that make a difference: Attention to task and beyond. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2(3), 61–72.
26.
PetersonP. L., & ClarkC. M. (1978). Teachers' reports of their cognitive processes during teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 555–565.
SalviaJ., & HughesC. (1990). Curriculum-based assessment. New York: Macmillan.
29.
ShinnM. R., (Ed.) (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
30.
TindalG.FuchsL.S.FuchsD.ShinnM. R.DenoS. L., & GermannG. (1985). Empirical validation of criterion-referenced tests. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 203–209.
31.
TuckerJ. (1987). Curriculum-based assessment is no fad. The Collaborative Educator, 1(4), 4, 10.
32.
WhiteO. R. (1984). Descriptive analysis of extant research literature concerning skill generalization and the severely/profoundly handicapped. In BoerM. (Ed.), Investigating the problem of skill generalization: Literature review (pp. 1–19). Seattle: University of Washington, Washington Research Organization.
33.
WhiteO. R. (1985). Aim*star wars (setting aims that compete): Episode V. Journal of Precision Teaching, 6, 30–34.
34.
WhiteO. R., & HaringN. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching (2nd ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
35.
YalowE. S., & PophamW. J. (1983). Content validity at the crossroads. Educational Researcher, 12(8), 10–14, 21.
