The purpose of this review was to synthesize research on the effect of professional development (PD) targeting data-based decision-making processes on teachers’ knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy related to curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and data-based decision-making (DBDM). To be eligible for this review, studies had to (a) be published in English, (b) include in-service or pre-service K–12 teachers as participants, (c) use an empirical group design, and (d) include sufficient data to calculate an effect size for teacher outcome variables. The mean effect of DBDM PD on teacher outcomes was g = 0.57 (p < .001). This effect was not moderated by study quality. These results must be viewed through the lens of significant heterogeneity in effects across included studies, which could not be explained by follow-up sensitivity analyses. In addition, the experimental studies included in this review occurred under ideal, researcher-supported conditions, which impacts the generalizability of the effects of DBDM PD in practice. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
*AllinderR. M.BeckBestM. A. (1995). Differential effects of two approaches to supporting teachers’ use of curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 24(2), 287–298.
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(4), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100403
3.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.
4.
BrownellM. T.JonesN. D.SohnH.StarkK. (2020). Improving teaching quality for students with disabilities: Establishing a warrant for teacher education practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/ggqmxx
5.
*CapizziA. M.FuchsL. S. (2005). Effects of curriculum-based measurement with and without diagnostic feedback on teacher planning. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260030401
6.
*CaseyA.DenoS.MarstonD.SkibaR. (1988). Experimental teaching: Changing beliefs about effective instructional practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 11(3), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840648801100305
7.
ChowJ. C. (2018). Prevalence of publication bias tests in speech, language, and hearing research. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61(12), 3055–3063. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0098
8.
ChowJ. C.EkholmE. (2018). Do published studies yield larger effect sizes than unpublished studies in education and special education? A meta-review. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 722–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9437-7
9.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Standards for evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 504–511. https://doi.org/gcmc45
10.
DanielsonL.RosenquistC. (2014). Introduction to the TEC special issue on data-based individualization. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 6–12. https://doi.org/d454
DenoS. L. (2014). Reflections on progress monitoring and data-based intervention. In CookB. G.TankersleyM.LandrumT. J. (Eds.), Special education past, present, and future: Perspectives from the field (Vol. 27, pp. 171–194). Emerald Group Publishing.
14.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Council for Exceptional Children.
15.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. Law No. 94-142. (1975). https://bit.ly/39BjjJh
16.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/d36qsq
17.
EkholmE.ChowJ. (2018). Addressing publication bias in educational psychology. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 425–439. https://doi.org/d453
18.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. ____. (2017).
19.
EspinC. A.WaymanM. M.DenoS. L.McMasterK. L.de RooijM. (2017). Data-based decision-making: Developing a method for capturing teachers’ understanding of CBM graphs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/f9tcd4
20.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
21.
*FuchsL. S. (1988). Effects of computer-managed instruction on teachers’ implementation of systematic monitoring programs and student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 81(5), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1988.10885838
22.
FuchsL. S. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement as the emerging alternative: Three decades later. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/dqqf
23.
*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), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259001100107
24.
*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(2), 449–460. https://doi.org/fqmzp6
25.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1993). Effects of systematic observation and feedback on teachers’ implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649301600210
26.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.WehbyJ.SchumacherR. F.GerstenR.JordanN. C. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-low-performing students. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 134–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551743
27.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (1989a). Computers and curriculum-based measurement: Effects of teacher feedback systems. School Psychology Review, 18(1), 112–125.
28.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (1989b). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 55(5), 429–438. https://doi.org/d455
29.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AllinderR. M. (1991a). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700507
30.
*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(1), 49–66.
31.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.FergusonC. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement, using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children, 58(5), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299205800507
32.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.PhillipsN. B.BentzJ. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60(6), 518–537. https://doi.org/d452
33.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.PhillipsN. B.KarnsK. (1995). General educators’ specialized adaptation for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61(5), 440–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299506100504
34.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.SteckerP. M. (1990). The role of skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psychology Review, 19(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1990.12087335
35.
*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(3), 617–641. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028003617
36.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaloneA. S. (2017). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917703962
37.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.SteckerP. M. (1989). Effects of curriculum-based measurement on teachers’ instructional planning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948902200110
38.
*FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L.FuchsD.SteckerP. M.FergusonC. (1988). Conducting curriculum-based measurement with computerized data collection: Effects on efficiency and teacher satisfaction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9(2), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264348800900202
39.
*GarnesL. J. (2004). Effects of mentoring via email on the quality of data-based decisions among preservice special education teachers (Accession No. 305102816) [Doctoral dissertation, Utah State]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
40.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.FinkB.MacArthurC. A. (2001). Teacher efficacy in writing: A construct validation with primary grade teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799Xssr0502_3
41.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/c33mgk
42.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
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. https://doi.org/gd4g8m
45.
*KennedyM. J.WagnerD.StegallJ.LembkeE.MiciakJ.AlvesK. D.BrownT.DriverM. K.HirschS. E. (2016). Using content acquisition podcasts to improve teacher candidate knowledge of curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 82(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915615885
46.
KlingnerJ. K.BoardmanA. G.McMasterK. L. (2013). What does it take to scale up and sustain evidence-based practices?Exceptional Children, 79(3), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900205
47.
*LembkeE. S.McMasterK. L.SmithR. A.AllenA.BrandesD.WagnerK. (2018). Professional development for data-based instruction in early writing: Tools, learning, and collaborative support. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(2), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417730112
48.
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.
49.
*MathesP. G.FuchsD.RobertsP. H.FuchsL. S. (1998). Preparing students with special needs for reintegration: Curriculum-based measurement’s impact on transenvironmental programming. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(6), 615–624. https://doi.org/dp8r46
50.
*McCullumN. A. (1999). Peer collaboration for instructional decision-making within curriculum-based measurement in reading (Accession No. 304532039) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
51.
*McMasterK. L.LembkeE. S.ShinJ.PochA. L.SmithR. A.JungP.-G.AllenA. A.WagnerK. (2020). Supporting teachers’ use of data-based instruction to improve students’ early writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000358
52.
PrinceA. M. T.YellM. L.KatsiyannisA. (2018). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): The U.S. Supreme Court and special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(5), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217736867
53.
StataCorp. (2015). Stata statistical software: Release 14.
54.
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
55.
SterneJ. A. C.SuttonA. J.IoannidisJ. P. A.TerrinN.JonesD. R.LauJ.CarpenterJ.RückerG.HarbordR. M.SchmidC. H.TetzlaffJ.DeeksJ. J.PetersJ.MacaskillP.SchwarzerG.DuvalS.AltmanD. G.MoherD.HigginsJ. P. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 343, Article d4002. https://doi.org/fb7stv
56.
SweigartC.CollinsL.EvanovichL.CookS. (2016). An evaluation of the evidence base for performance feedback to improve teacher praise using CEC’s quality indicators. Education and Treatment of Children, 39(4), 419–444. https://doi.org/f874r7
57.
Tanner-SmithE. E.TiptonE. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1091
58.
*TicháR. (2008). The effects of pairing curriculum-based measurement with a structured approach that includes providing instructional alternatives on teacher decision making and student achievement (Accession No. 304512387) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
59.
TiptonE.PustejovskyJ. E.AhmadiH. (2019). Current practices in meta-regression in psychology, education, and medicine. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(2), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1339
60.
*van den BoschR. M.EspinC. A.Pat-ElR. J.SaabN. (2019). Improving teachers’ comprehension of curriculum-based measurement progress-monitoring graphs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(5), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419856013
61.
*van der ScheerE. A.VisscherA. J. (2016). Effects of an intensive data-based decision making intervention on teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.025
62.
VargheseC.GarwoodJ. D.Bratsch-HinesM.Vernon-FeagansL. (2016). Exploring magnitude of change in teacher efficacy and implications for students’ early literacy growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55(1), 228–239. https://doi.org/f8hbmj
63.
*WilsonJ. A. (2013). Effects of a collaborative intervention on the quality of preservice teachers’ data based decision making (Accession No. 1469008550) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
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.
