From a larger sample of field-tested mathematics production response items, 11 were selected that individually (a) differentiated between high and low achievers on a general math achievement test, (b) measured a mathematical concept rather than a procedure, and (c) were conducive to the creation of alternate forms of the items. This math concept curriculum-based measure (CBM) was administered to 171 students in eighth grade. Scores were correlated with scores from a computer adaptive test (CAT) designed in conjunction with the state to approximate the official statewide mathematics achievement test. Correlations for general education students (r = .80; n = 90) and students with learning disabilities (r = .61; n = 81) were high. Regression analysis showed that relatively few of the 11 items were needed to predict CAT scores. Implications for students with learning disabilities, who traditionally receive little instruction in conceptual understanding, are discussed.
Allinder, R.M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Effects of differential implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 62, 525—535.
3.
Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 29, 41—62.
4.
Burrill, G. (1997). The NCTM Standards: Eight years later. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 335—339.
5.
Carpenter, T.P. (1986). Conceptual knowledge as a foundation for procedural knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 113—132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1989). Comprehensive test of basic skills (4th ed.). Monterey, CA: Author.
7.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1992). California achievement test. Monterey, CA: Author.
8.
Espin, C.A., & Tindal, G. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students . In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 214—253). New York: Guilford Press.
9.
Erickson, R., Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Elliot, J. (1998). Inclusive assessments and accountability systems . Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 4—9.
10.
Foegen, A.M. (2000). Technical adequacy of general outcome measures for middle school mathematics. Diagnostic, 25, 175—203.
11.
Foegen, A.M., & Deno, S.L. (2001). Identifying growth indicators for low-achieving students in middle school mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 4—16.
12.
Fuchs, L.S. (1998). Computer applications to address implementation difficulties associated with curriculum-based measurement. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 89— 112). New York: Guilford Press.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1993). Effects of systematic observation and feedback on teachers' implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 178—187.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Karns, K.M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65—85.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Phillips, N., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing students' helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explanations. Elementary School Journal, 97, 223—250.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Stecker, P.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.
18.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Thompson, A., Roberts, P.H., Kupek, P., & Stecker, P.M. (1994). Technical features of a mathematics concepts and applications curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique , 19(4), 23—49.
19.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C.L., Dutka, S., & Katzaroff, M. (2000). The importance of providing background information on the structure and scoring of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 1—34.
20.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C.L., & Katzaroff, M. (1999). Mathematics performance assessment in the classroom: Effects on teacher planning and student problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 609—646.
21.
Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 18—28.
22.
Good, R.H., III, & 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 Press.
23.
Greeno, J.G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 170—218.
24.
Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1—28). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
25.
Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1986). Procedures over concepts: The acquisition of decimal number knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 199—223). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
Howell, K.W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making. Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Wadsworth.
27.
Jones, G.A., Thornton, C.A., Putt, I.J., Hill, K.M., Mogill, A.T., Rich, B.S., & Van Zoest, L.R. (1996). Multidigit number sense: A framework for instruction and assessment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 310—336.
28.
Klein, A.E. (1981). Redundancy in the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 537—544.
29.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessment: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18—78). New York: Guilford Press.
30.
Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 5—8.
31.
Moss, J., & Case, R. (1999). Developing children's understanding of the rational numbers: A new model and an experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 122—147.
32.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
33.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
34.
Parke, J.M. (1995). Validation of curriculum-based elementary mathematics application measures (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3557.
35.
Quintero, A.H. (1983). Conceptual understanding in solving two-step word problems with a ratio. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 102—112.
36.
Riverside. (1995). Performance assessment of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Chicago: Author.
37.
Romberg, T.A. (1994). Classroom instruction that fosters mathematical thinking and problem solving: Connections between theory and practice. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 287—304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
Shinn, M.R., & Bamonto, S. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: “Big ideas” and avoiding confusion. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61— 88). New York: Guilford Press.
39.
Tilly, W.D., III, & Grimes, J. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement: One vehicle for systematic educational reform. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 32—60). New York: Guilford Press.
Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus onExceptional Children, 27(7), 1—22.
