In this article, the authors review the research on curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in reading published since the time of Marston's 1989 review. They focus on the technical adequacy of CBM related to measures, materials, and representation of growth. The authors conclude by discussing issues to be addressed in future research, and they raise the possibility of the development of a seamless and flexible system of progress monitoring that can be used to monitor students' progress across students, settings, and purposes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allinder, R.M., & Eccarius, M.A. (1999). Exploring the technical adequacy of curriculum- based measurement in reading for children who use manually coded English. Exceptional Children, 65, 271—283.
2.
Ardoin, S.P., Suldo, S.M., Witt, J., Aldrich, S., & McDonald, E. (2005). Accuracy of readability estimates' predictions of CBM performance. School Psychology Review, 20, 1—22.
3.
Ardoin, S.P., Witt, J.C., Suldo, S.M., Connell, J.E., Koenig, J.L., Resetar, J.L., et al. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a maze and three versus one curriculum-based measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33, 218—233.
4.
Bain, S.K., & Garlock, J.W. (1992). Cross-validation of criterion-related validity for CBM reading passages. Diagnostique, 17, 202—208.
5.
Baker, S.K., & Good, R.H. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students . School Psychology Review, 24, 561—578.
6.
Bradley-Klug, K.L., Shapiro, E.S., Lutz, J.G., & DuPaul, G.J. (1998). Evaluation of oral reading rate as a curriculum-based measure within literature-based curriculum. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 183—197.
7.
Brown-Chidsey, R., Davis, L., & Maya, C. (2003). Sources of variation in curriculum-based measures of silent reading. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 363—377.
8.
Brown-Chidsey, R., Johnson, P., Jr., & Fernstrom, R. (2005). Comparison of grade-level controlled and literature-based maze CBM reading passages. School Psychology Review, 34, 387—394.
9.
Christ, T.J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimates of standard error of slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review , 35, 128—133.
10.
Christ, T.J., & Silberglitt, B. (in press). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: The standard error of measurement. School Psychology Review.
11.
Compton, D.L., Appleton, A.C., & Hosp, M.K. (2004). Exploring the relationship between text-leveling systems and reading accuracy and fluency in second-grade students who are average and poor decoders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 176—184.
12.
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Bryant, J.D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures . Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394—409.
13.
Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Stieber, S. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7, 303—323.
14.
Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
Daly, E.J., III, Wright, J.A., Kelly, S.Q., & Martens, B.K. (1997). Measures of early academic skills: Reliability and validity with a first grade sample. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 268—280.
17.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219—232.
18.
Deno, S.L. (1990). Individual differences and individual difference: The essential difference of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 160—173.
19.
Deno, S.L., Fuchs, L.S., Marston, D., & Shin, J.H. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507—524.
20.
Deno, S.L., 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. Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities , 87.
21.
Deno, S.L., Maruyama, G., Espin, C.A., & Cohen, C. (1989). The basic academic skills samples (BASS). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota .
22.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36—45.
23.
Dunn, E.K., & Eckert, T.L. (2002). Curriculum-based measurement in reading: A comparison of similar versus challenging material. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 24—46.
24.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993a). Content-specific and general reading disabilities of secondary students: Identification and educational relevance. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 321—337.
25.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993b). Performance in reading from content area text as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education , 14, 47—59.
26.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1994-95). Curriculum-based measures for secondary students: Utility and task specificity of text-based reading and vocabulary measures for predicting performance on content-area tasks. Diagnostique , 20, 121—142.
27.
Espin, C.A., Deno, S.L., Maruyama, G., & Cohen, C. (1989, March). The Basic Academic Skills Samples (BASS): An instrument for the screening and identification of children at risk for failure in regular education classrooms. Paper presented at the National Convention of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
28.
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.
29.
Espin, C., Wallace, T., Lembke, E., Campbell, H., & Long, J. (2007). Creating a progress measurement system in reading for secondary students: Monitoring progress towards meeting high stakes standards . Manuscript submitted for publication.
30.
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.
31.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1992). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58, 232—243.
32.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in curriculum?Exceptional Children, 61, 15—24.
33.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1990). [Relations among the Reading Comprehension subtest of the Stanford Achievement Test and maze, recall, question answering, and fluency measures]. Unpublished data.
34.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45—58.
35.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7—21.
36.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 43—52.
37.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 27—48.
38.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal comprehension measures . Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20—28.
39.
Fuchs, L.S., Tindal, G., & Deno, S.L. (1981). Effects of varying item domain and sample duration on technical characteristics of daily measures in reading. Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 48.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257—288.
43.
Graves, A.W., Plasencia-Peinado, J., Deno, S.L., & Johnson, J.R. (2005). Formatively evaluating the reading progress of first-grade English Learners in multiple-language classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 215—225.
44.
Guthrie, J.T. (1973). Reading comprehension and syntactic responses in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology , 65, 294—299.
45.
Guthrie, J.T., Seifert, M., Burnham, N.A., & Caplan, R.I. (1974). The maze technique to assess, monitor reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 28, 161—168.
46.
Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M.R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers' judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32, 228—240.
47.
Harcourt Brace & Company. (1997). Stanford Achievement Test Series—Ninth edition: Technical data report . San Antonio, TX: Author .
48.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (1998). Metropolitan achievement test (7th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment .
Hartman, J.M., & Fuller, M.L. (1997). The development of curriculum-based measurement norms in literature-based classrooms. Journal of School Psychology , 35, 377—389.
51.
Hasbrouck, J.E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children , 24(3), 41—44.
52.
Hintze, J.M., Callahan, J.E., Matthews, W.J., Williams, S.A.S., & Tobin, K.G. (2002). Oral reading fluency and prediction of reading comprehension in African American and Caucasian elementary school children . School Psychology Review, 31, 540—553.
53.
Hintze, J.M., & Christ, T.J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204—217.
54.
Hintze, J.M., Daly, E.J., & Shapiro, E.S. (1998). An investigation of the effects of passage difficulty level on outcomes of oral reading fluency progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 27, 433—445.
55.
Hintze, J.M., Owen, S.V., Shapiro, E.S., & Daly, E.J. (2000). Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G theory to curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 52—68.
56.
Hintze, J.M., & Pelle Petitte, H.A. (2001). The generalizability of CBM oral reading fluency measures across general and special education . Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 158—170.
57.
Hintze, J.M., & Shapiro, E.S. (1997). Curriculum-based measurement and literature-based reading: Is curriculum-based measurement meeting the needs of changing reading curricula?Journal of School Psychology, 35, 351—375.
58.
Hintze, J.M., Shapiro, E.S., Conte, K.L., & Basile, I.M. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Criterion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level assessment . School Psychology Review, 26, 535—553.
59.
Hintze, J.M., Shapiro, E.S., & Lutz, J. (1994). The effects of curriculum on the sensitivity of curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 188—202.
60.
Hintze, J.M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372—386.
61.
Hixson, M.D., & McGlinchey, M.T. (2004). The relationship between race, income, and oral reading fluency and performance on two reading comprehension measures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 351—364.
62.
Hoover, H.D., Hieronymus, A.N., Frisbie, D.A., & Dunbar, S.B. (1996). Iowa test of basic skills. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
63.
Hosp, M.K., & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade?School Psychology Review, 34, 9—26.
64.
Jenkins, J.R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421—432.
65.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H., Iii. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 113—142). New York : Guilford Press.
66.
Karlsen, B., & Gardner, E. (1985). Stanford diagnostic reading test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
67.
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1985). Kaufman test of educational achievement (brief form). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
68.
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1990). Kaufman brief intelligence test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
69.
Klein, J.R., & Jimerson, S.R. (2005). Examining ethnic, gender, language, and socioeconomic bias in oral reading fluency scores among Caucasian and Hispanic students. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 23—50.
70.
Koslin, B.L., Koslin, S., Zeno, S.M., & Ovens, S.H. (1989). The Degrees of Reading Power Test: Primary and standard forms. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
71.
Kranzler, J.H., Brownell, M.T., & Miller, M.D. (1998). The construct validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading: An empirical test of a plausible rival hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 399— 415.
72.
Kranzler, J.H., Miller, M.D., & Jordan, L. (1999). An examination of racial/ethnic and gender bias on curriculum-based measurement of reading. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 327—342.
MacMillan, P. (2000). Simultaneous measurement of reading growth, gender, and relative-age effects: Many-faceted Rasch applied to CBM reading scores . Journal of Applied Measurement,1, 393—408.
75.
Markell, M.A., & Deno, S.L. (1997). Effects of increasing oral reading: Generalization across reading tasks. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 233—250.
76.
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.
77.
Marston, D., & Deno, S.L. (1982). Implementation of direct and repeated measurement in the school setting. Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 106.
78.
Marston, D., Deno, S.L., & Tindal, G. (1983). A comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques in measuring pupil progress. Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 126.
79.
Marston, D., Lowry, L., Deno, S., & Mirkin, P. (1981). An analysis of learning trends in simple measures of reading, spelling, and written expression: A longitudinal study. Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 49.
80.
McConnell, S.R., McEvoy, M.A., & Priest, J.S. (2002). “Growing” measures for monitoring progress in early childhood education: A research and development process for individual growth and development indicators. Assessment for E fective Intervention,27, 3—14.
81.
McGlinchey, M.T., & Hixson, M.D. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33, 193—203.
Mehrens, W.A., & Clarizio, H.F. (1993). Curriculum-based measurement: Conceptual and psychometric considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 241—254.
84.
Messick, S. (1989a). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18, 5—11.
85.
Messick, S. (1989b). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13—103). New York: Macmillan .
86.
Michigan State Board of Education. (1999). 1999 Update of the Essential Skills Reading Test Blueprint Michigan Educational Assessment Program. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education.
87.
Morgan, S.K., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (1995). Technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement for Braille readers. School Psychology Review, 24, 94—103.
88.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning. (1998—2002). Test specifications: Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment—Reading. St. Paul, MN: Author.
89.
Muyskens, P., & Marston, D.B. (2006). The relationship between curriculum-based measurement and outcomes on high-stakes tests with secondary students. Minneapolis Public Schools. Unpublished manuscript.
90.
Oregon Department of Education. (2000). Statewide assessment results 2000. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ode.state.or.us/
91.
Parker, R., & Tindal, G. (1992). Estimating trend in progress monitoring data: A comparison of simple line-fitting methods. School Psychology Review, 21, 300—312.
92.
Poncy, B.C., Skinner, C.H., & Axtell, P.K. (2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute using curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 326—338.
93.
Powell-Smith, K.A., & Bradley-Klug, K.L. (2001). Another look at the “C” in CBM: Does it really matter if curriculum-based measurement reading probes are curriculum-based?Psychology in the Schools, 38, 299—312.
Reid, D.K., Hresko, W.P., Hammill, D.D., & Wiltshire, S.M. (1991). Test of early reading ability: Special edition for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
96.
Riley-Heller, N., Kelly-Vance, L., & Shriver, M. (2005). Curriculum-based measurement: Generic vs. curriculum-dependent probes. Journal of AppliedSchool Psychology, 21(1), 141—162.
97.
Scannell, D.P., Haugh, O.M., Schild, A.H., & Ulmer, G. (1986). Tests of achievement and proficiency. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
98.
Shin, J., Deno, S.L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. The Journal of Special Education , 34, 164—172.
99.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
100.
Shinn, M.R., Gleason, M.M., & Tindal, G. (1989). Varying the difficulty of testing materials: Implications for curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education , 23, 223—233.
101.
Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H., Knutson, N., Tilly, W.D., & Collins, V.L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review,21, 459— 479.
102.
Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H., & Stein, S. (1989). Summarizing trend in student achievement: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 18, 356—370.
103.
Shinn, M.R., Ysseldyke, J.E., Deno, S.L., & Tindal, G.A. (1986). A comparison of differences between students labeled Learning Disabled and Low Achieving on measures of classroom performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 545—551.
104.
Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304—325.
105.
Skiba, R.J., Deno, S.L., Marston, D., & Wesson, C. (1986). Characteristics of time-series data collected through curriculum-based reading measurement. Diagnostique , 12, 3—15.
106.
Spache, G. (1981). Diagnostic reading scales. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
107.
Speece, D.L., & Ritchey, K.D. (2005). A longitudinal study of the development of oral reading fluency in young children at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 387—399.
108.
Stage, S.A., & Jacobsen, M.D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency . School Psychology Review, 30, 407—419.
109.
Stecker, P.M., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795—819.
110.
Sticht, T.G. (1973). Research toward the design, development and evaluation of a job-functional literacy program for the U.S. Army. Literacy Discussions, 4, 339—369.
111.
Tichá, R., Espin, C.A., & Wayman, M.M. (2007). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading aloud and maze selection measures. Manuscript submitted for publication.
112.
Tindal, G., Flick, D., & Cole, C. (1992). The effect of curriculum on inferences of reading performance and improvement. Diagnostique,18, 69—84.
113.
Tindal, G., Marston, D., Deno, S.L., & Germann, G. (1982). Curriculum differences in direct repeated measures of reading. Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities , 93.
114.
WashingtonAssessment of Student Learning: Test sample. (1998). Olympia, WA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction .
115.
Woodcock, R.W. (1973). Woodcock reading mastery tests manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service .
116.
Woodcock, R.W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service .
117.
Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson test of achievement: Standard and supplemental batteries. Allen, TX: DLM Resources.
118.
Wiley, H.I., & Deno, S.L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207—214.
