The purpose of the present study was to examine the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) for assessing student growth over time. Participants were 43 second graders whose reading performance was measured monthly over 1 school year with the maze task. Technical characteristics of the CBM maze task were examined in terms of reliability, sensitivity, and validity for assessing student growth. Results showed that the maze task had good alternate-form reliability, with a mean coefficient of .81 and 1- to 3-month intervals between testing. The maze task also sensitively reflected improvement of student performance over a school year and revealed interindividual differences in growth rates. Finally, growth rates estimated on repeated maze scores were positively related to later reading performance on a standardized reading test; in addition, although a significant difference was not found, general education students appeared to develop reading proficiency faster than remedial education students. Results support the use of the maze task as a reliable, sensitive, and valid data collection procedure for assessing reading growth.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual differences in terms of Matthew effects in reading: Results from a Dutch longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1373-1399.
2.
Bereiter, C. (1963). Some persisting dilemmas in the measurement of change. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in measuring (pp. 3-20). Madison: University of Wisconsin.
3.
Bradley, J.M., Ackerson, G., & Ames, W.S. (1978). The reliability of the maze procedure. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 291-296.
4.
Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin,101, 147-158.
5.
Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory . New York: Harcourt Brace.
7.
Cronbach, L.J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure "change"—Or should we?Psychological Bulletin,74, 68-80.
8.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1985). California achievement test. Monterey, CA: Author.
9.
Deno, L.S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
10.
Deno, L.S. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement (pp. 1-17). New York: Guilford.
11.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
12.
Espin, C.A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students' performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497-514.
13.
Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Stuebing, K.K., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1994). Measurement of change: Assessing behavior over time and within a developmental context. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 29-58). Baltimore : Brookes.
14.
Francis, H. (1992). Patterns of reading development in the first school . British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 225-232.
15.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D.C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45-58.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Waltz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
18.
Good, R.H., & Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61-88). New York: Guilford.
Jenkins, J.R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421-432.
21.
Labouvie, E.W. (1982). The concept of change and regression toward the mean. Psychological Bulletin,92, 251-257.
22.
Lord, F.M. (1956). The measurement of growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 421-435.
23.
Lord, F.M. (1963). Elementary models for measuring change. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in measuring (pp. 21-38). Madison: University of Wisconsin.
24.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why it is. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford .
25.
Marston, D., Deno, S.L., & Tindal, G. (1983). A comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques in measuring pupil progress (Research Rep. No. 126). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
26.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52, 266-276.
27.
O'Connor, E.F. (1972). Extending classical test theory to the measurement of change. Review of Educational Research, 42, 73-97.
28.
Parker, R.I., Hasbrouck, J.E., & Tindal, G. (1992). The maze as a classroom-based reading measure: Construction methods, reliability, and validity. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 195-218.
29.
Parker, R.I., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J.E. (1989). Initial validation of two classroom-based measures of reading comprehension. Diagnostique , 14, 222-240.
30.
Phillips, N.B., Hamlett, C.L., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1993). Combining classwide curriculum-based measurement and peer tutoring to help general educators provide adaptive education. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 148-156.
31.
Robinson, S.L., DePascale, C., & Roberts, F. (1989). Computer-delivered feedback in group-based instruction: Effects for learning disabled students in mathematics. Learning DisabilitiesFocus, 5, 28-35.
32.
Shin, J. (1999). Reading-skill development and instructional practices facilitating reading growth for students with and without learning disabilities: A 1-year longitudinal study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
33.
Shin, J., Espin, C., Deno, S.L., & McConnell, S. (1999). Technical characteristics of curriculum-based measurement in examining academic skill development and factors facilitating student growth in special education. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.
34.
Shin, J., Deno, S.L., Robinson, S.L., & Marston, D. (in press). Predicting classroom achievement from active responding on a computer-based groupware system. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 53-60.
35.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
36.
Willet, J.B. (1989). Questions and answers in the measurement of change . Review of Research in Education, 15, 345-421.
37.
Willet, J.B., & Sayer, A.G. (1994). Using covariance structure analysis to detect correlates and predictors of individual change over time. Psychological Bulletin,116, 363-381.
