This article reviews research examining technical features of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in written expression. Twenty-eight technical reports and published articles are included in this review. Studies examining the development and technical adequacy of measures of written expression are summarized, beginning with research conducted at the Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities at the University of Minnesota and followed by extensions of this work. Differences in technical features of writing tasks, sample durations, and scoring procedures employed within and across elementary and secondary levels are highlighted. Gaps in research addressing the technical adequacy of CBM in written expression are identified, and implications for future research and practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berninger, V.W. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 161-196.
2.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1985). California achievement test. Monterey, CA: Author.
De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings: Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 14, 92—106.
5.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219—232.
6.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children Special Education and Pediatrics: A New Relationship, 48, 368—371.
7.
Deno, S., Marston, D., Mirkin, P., Lowry, L., Sindelar, P., & Jenkins, J. (1982). The use of standard tasks to measure achievement in reading, spelling, and written expression: A normative and developmental study (Vol. IRLD-RR-87). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
8.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P., & Marston, D. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of written expression and performance on standardized achievement tests (Vol. IRLD-RR-22). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
9.
Deshler, D.D., Ellis, E., & Lenz, B.K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
10.
Espin, C.A., De La Paz, S., Scierka, B.J., & Roelofs, L. (2005). The relationship between curriculum-based measures in written expression and quality and completeness of expository writing for middle school students. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 208—217.
11.
Espin, C.A., Scierka, B.J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary school students. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Di ficulties, 15, 5—27.
12.
Espin, C., Shin, J., Deno, S.L., Skare, S., Robinson, S., & Benner, B. (2000). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency for middle school students. The Journal of Special Education , 34, 140—153.
13.
Espin, C., Wallace, T., Campbell, H., Lembke, E.S., Long, J.D., & Ticha, R. (2006). Predicting the success of secondary-school students on state standards tests: Validity and reliability of curriculum-based measures in written expression. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14.
Fewster, S., & MacMillan, P.D. (2002). School-based evidence for the validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading and writing. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 149—156.
15.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92—99.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Marston, D. (1982). Use of aggregation to improve the reliability of simple direct measures of academic performance (Vol. IRLD-RR-94). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
17.
Gansle, K.A., Noell, G.H., VanDerHeyden, A.M., Naquin, G.M., & Slider, N.J. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternative measures for curriculum-based measurement in writing. School Psychology Review, 31, 477—497.
18.
Gansle, K.A., Noell, G.H., VanDerHeyden, A.M., Slider, N.J., Hoffpauir, L.D., & Whitmarsh, E.L. (2004). An examination of the criterion validity and sensitivity to brief intervention of alternate curriculum-based measures of writing skill. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 291—300.
19.
Hammill, D.D., & Larsen, S.C. (1978). Test of written language. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
20.
Hammill, D.D., & Larsen, S.C. (1996). Test of written language —Third edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
21.
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes . In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31—50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hunt, K.W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (Research Report No. 3). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
24.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004)(reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990)
25.
Jewell, J., & Malecki, C.K. (2005). The utility of CBM written language indices: An investigation of production-dependent, production-independent, and accurate-production scores. School Psychology Review, 34, 27—44.
26.
Jones, D., & Christensen, C.A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students' ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44—49.
27.
Lee, L., & Canter, S.M. (1971). Developmental sentence scoring. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 36, 335—340.
28.
Lembke, E., Deno, S.L., & Hall, K. (2003). Identifying an indicator of growth in early writing proficiency for elementary school students. Assessment for E fective Intervention, 28, 23—35.
29.
Madden, R., Gardner, E.F., Rudman,H.C., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J.C. (1978). Stanford achievement test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
30.
Malecki, C.K., & Jewell, J. (2003). Developmental, gender, and practical considerations in scoring curriculum-based measurement writing probes. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 379—390.
31.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18—78). New York: Guilford Press.
32.
Marston, D., & Deno, S. (1981). The reliability of simple, direct measures of written expression (Vol. IRLD-RR-50). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
33.
Marston, D., Deno, S.L., & Tindal, G. (1983). A comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques in measuring pupil progress (Vol. IRLD-RR-126). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
34.
Marston, D., Lowry, L., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P. (1981). An analysis of learning trends in simple measure of reading, spelling, and written expression: A longitudinal study (Vol. IRLD-RR-49). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
35.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299-325.
36.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. The American Psychologist, 50, 741—749.
37.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning and NCS Pearson. (2002). Minnesota Basic Skills Test (BST) technical manual for the academic year 2001—2002.
38.
Mitzel, H.C., & Borden, C.F. (2000). LEAP for the 21st century: 1999 operational final technical report. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill .
39.
National Center for Education Statistics. ( 2003). The nation's report card: Writing. Retrieved April 23 , 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/
40.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002)
41.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M.J. (1997). Using CBM to explore a consequential basis for the validity of a state-wide performance assessment . Diagnostique, 22, 147—163.
42.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M.J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
43.
Parker, R.I., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991a). Countable indices of writing quality: Their suitability for screening-eligibility decisions. Exceptionality, 2, 1—17.
44.
Parker, R.I., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991b). Progress monitoring with objective measures of writing performance for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(1), 61—73.
45.
Shinn, M.R., Ysseldyke, J., Deno, S.L., & Tindal, J. (1982). A comparison of psychometric and functional di ferences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving (Vol. IRLD-RR-71). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
46.
Speece, D.L., Case, L.P., & Molloy, D.E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 147—156.
47.
Taylor, R.L. (2003). Assessment of exceptional students: Educational and psychological procedures. (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
48.
Thorndike, R.M. (2005). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
49.
Tindal, G., Germann, G., & Deno, S.L. (1983). Descriptive research on the Pine County norms: A compilation of findings (Vol. IRLD-RR-132). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
50.
Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991). Analyzing student writing to develop instructional strategies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 237—245.
51.
Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Deno, S.L. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Vol. IRLD-RR-109). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
52.
Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1989a). Assessment of written expression for students in compensatory and special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 169—183.
53.
Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1989b). Development of written retell as a curriculum-based measure in secondary programs. School Psychology Review, 13, 328—343.
54.
Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating written expression . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 211—218.
55.
Videen, J., Deno, S.L., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Vol. IRLD-RR-84). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
56.
Watkinson, J.T., & Lee, S.W. (1992). Curriculum-based measures of written expression for learning-disabled and nondisabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 184—192.
57.
Weissenburger, J.W., & Espin, C.A. (2005). Curriculum-based measures of writing across grade levels. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 153—169.
