The purpose of this narrative synthesis of the curriculum-based measure (CBM) instructional utility literature is to deepen insight into the supports required to enrich teachers’ instructional decision-making within curriculum-based measure–data-based individualization (CBM-DBI) in ways that enhance the learning outcomes of students with intensive intervention needs, including students with learning disabilities. We begin by summarizing a recent meta-analysis of CBM-DBI studies focused on academic outcomes. We then reconsider studies from that meta-analysis to further explore the supports required to enrich teachers’ instructional decision-making within CBM-DBI and improve student learning. We next draw conclusions and propose a renewed program of instructional utility CBM-DBI research for capitalizing on technology’s potential to enhance productive instructional decision-making for students who require intensive intervention, fulfill DBI’s potential, and bring CBM-DBI to scale.
AllinderR. M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Effects of differential implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 62, 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299606200604
2.
AllinderR. M.BollingR. M.OatsR. G.GagnonW. A. (2000). Effects of teacher self-monitoring on implementation of curriculum-based measurement and mathematics computation achievement of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100403
3.
BarnettS. M.CeciS. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
4.
ConnorC. M.MorrisonF. J.FishmanB.CroweE.Al OtaibaS.SchatschneiderC. (2013). A longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled study on the accumulative effects of individualized literacy instruction on students’ reading from first through third grade. Psychological Sciences, 24, 1408–1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472204
5.
Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education: The final report of the HLP writing team (#P6255). Council for Exceptional Children.
6.
CummingsK. D.PetscherY. (2016). The fluency construct: Curriculum-based measurement concepts and applications. Springer.
7.
DanielsonL.RosenquistC. (2014). Data-based individualization: Introduction to the special issue. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46(4), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914522965
8.
EspinC. A.DenoS. (2016). Conclusion: Oral reading fluency or reading aloud from text: An analysis through a unified view of construct validity. In CummingsK. D.PetscherY. (Eds.), The fluency construct: Curriculum-based measurement concepts and applications (pp. 365–384). Springer.
9.
McMasterS. RoseWaymanM. M. (Eds.). (2012). A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education. University of Minnesota Press.
10.
FildermanM. J.TosteJ. R.DidionL. A.PengP.ClemensN. H. (2018). Data-based decision making in reading interventions: A synthesis and meta-analysis of the effects for struggling readers. The Journal of Special Education, 52, 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022-46691879001
11.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.McMasterK. L.LemonsC. J. (2018). Students with disabilities’ abysmal school performance: An introduction to the special issue. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12180
12.
FuchsD.HendricksE.WalshM. E.FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. K.TracyW. Z.PattonS.DavisN.KimW.EllemanA. M.PengP. (2018). Evaluating a multidimensional reading comprehension program and reconsidering the lowly reputation of tests of near transfer. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12162
FuchsL. S. (2017). Special Focus section on curriculum-based measurement: Program development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50, 187–193.
15.
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021002449
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1989). Enhancing curriculum-based measurement through computer applications: Review of research and practice. School Psychology Review, 18, 317–327.
17.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2003). Can diagnostic reading assessment enhance general educators’ instructional differentiation and student learning? In FoormanB. (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 325–351). York Press.
18.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (1989a). Computers and curriculum-based measurement: Effects of teacher feedback systems. School Psychology Review, 18, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1989.10885938
19.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (1989b). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 55, 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298905500506
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (1989c). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1989.10885938
21.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AllinderR. M. (1991a). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57, 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700507
22.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AllinderR. M. (1991b). Effects of expert system advice within curriculum-based measurement on teacher planning and student achievement in spelling. School Psychology Review, 20, 49–66.
23.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299205800507
24.
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.
25.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.SteckerP. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 617–641. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028003617
26.
GeselS.LemonsC. (2020). A meta-analysis of the impact of professional development on teachers’ knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy in data-based decision-making. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
27.
HaskellR. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. Academic Press.
28.
JenkinsJ. R.FuchsL. S. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement: The paradigm, history, and legacy. In EspinC. A.McMasterL. L.RoseS.WaymanM. M. (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 7–26). University of Minnesota Press.
29.
JenkinsJ. R.SchulzeM.MartiA.HarbaughA. G. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement of reading growth: Weekly versus intermittent progress monitoring. Exceptional Children, 84, 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917708216
30.
JonesE. D.KrouseJ. R. (1988). The effectiveness of data-based instruction by student teachers in classrooms for pupils with mild learning handicaps. Teacher Education and Special Education, 11, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840648801100102
31.
JungP.-G.McMasterK. L.deMassR. C. (2017). Effects of early writing intervention delivered within a data-based instruction framework. Exceptional Children, 83, 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916667586
32.
JungP.-G.McMasterK. L.KunkelA. K.ShinJ.SteckerP. M. (2018). Effects of data-based individualization for students with intensive learning needs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12172
33.
KettlerR. J.GloverT. A.AlbersC. A.Feeney-KettlerK.A. (Eds.) (2014). Universal screening in educational settings: Evidence-based decision making for schools. American Psycho-logical Association.
34.
KingR. P.DenoS. L.MirkinP. K.WessonC. (1983). The effects of training teachers in the use of formative evaluation in reading: An experimental-control comparison (Report No. 111, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 216189). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
35.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819. https://doi.org/10.1102/pits.20113
36.
VaughnS.WexlerJ.BarthA. A.CirinoP. T.RomainM. A.FrancisD.FletcherJ.DentonC. A. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77, 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700401
37.
WaymanM.WaymanT.WallaceH. I.vesW.TicháR.EspinC. (2007). Literature Synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410020401
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.
