We used meta-analysis to examine the criterion validity of four scoring procedures used in curriculum-based measurement of written language. A total of 22 articles representing 21 studies (N = 21) met the inclusion criteria. Results indicated that two scoring procedures, correct word sequences and correct minus incorrect sequences, have acceptable criterion validity with commercially developed and state- or locally developed criterion assessments. Results indicated trends for scoring procedures at each grade level. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.
*AmatoJ. M.WatkinsM. W. (2011). The predictive validity of CBM writing indices for eighth-grade students. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 195–204. doi:10.1177/0022466909333516
2.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford.
3.
BorensteinM. (2005). Software for publication bias. In RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 193–220). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
4.
CampbellH. M. (2010). The technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement passage copying with secondary school English language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26, 289–307.
5.
*CampbellH. M.EspinC. A.McMasterK. (2013). The technical adequacy of curriculum-based writing measures with English learners. Reading and Writing, 26, 431–452. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9375-6
6.
*ChengS. F.RoseS. (2009). Investigating the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement in written expression for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 503–515. doi:10.1093/deafed/enp013
7.
CochranW. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10, 101–129. doi:10.2307/3001666
8.
*CokerD. L.RitcheyK. D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of writing in kindergarten and first grade: An investigation of production and qualitative scores. Exceptional Children, 76, 175–193. doi:10.1177/001440291007600203
DenoS.MirkinP. K.MarstonD. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of written expression and performance on standardized achievement tests (Report No. 22). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
13.
*DockrellJ. E.ConnellyV.WalterK.CrittenS. (2015). Assessing children’s writing products: The role of curriculum based measures. British Education Research Journal, 41, 575–595. doi:10.1002/berj.3162
14.
EpsteinM.AtkinsM.CullinanD.KutashK.WeaverR. (2008). Reducing behavior problems in the elementary school classroom: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. doi:10.1037/e602222011-001
15.
EspinC. A. (2014). What are goed righting! (What is good writing?). Literacy Research and Instruction, 53, 93–95. doi:10.1080/19388071.2014.869944
16.
*EspinC. A.ScierkaB. J.SkareS.HalversonN. (1999). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15, 5–27. doi:10.1080/105735699278279
17.
*EspinC. A.ShinJ.DenoS. L.SkareS.RobinsonS.BennerB. (2000). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency for middle school students. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 140–153. doi:10.1177/002246690003400303
18.
*EspinC.WallaceT.CampbellH.LembkeE. S.LongJ. D.TichaR. (2008). Curriculum-based measurement in writing: Predicting the success of high-school students on state standards tests. Exceptional Children, 74, 174–193. doi:10.1177/001440290807400203
19.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
20.
*GansleK. A.NoellG. H.VanDerHeydenA. M.NaquinG. M.SliderN. J. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternate measures for curriculum-based measurement in writing. School Psychology Review, 31, 477–497.
21.
*GansleK. A.NoellG. H.VanDerHeydenA. M.SliderN. J.HoffpauirL. D.WhitmarshE. L.NaquinG. M. (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. doi:10.1002/pits.10166
22.
*GansleK. A.VanDerHeydenA. M.NoellG. H.ResetarJ. L.WilliamsK. L. (2006). The technical adequacy of curriculum-based and rating-based measures of written expression for elementary school students. School Psychology Review, 35, 435–450.
23.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.HebertM. (2011). It is more than just the message: Presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44, 1–12.
24.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186
25.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2012). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford.
26.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
27.
*JewellJ.MaleckiC. 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.
28.
LembkeE.HamptonD.HendrickerE. (2013). Data-based decision-making in academics using curriculum-based measurement. In LloydJ. W.LandrumT. J.CookB.TankersleyM. (Eds.), Research-based approaches for assessment (pp. 18–31). Boston, MA: Pearson.
29.
*LópezF. A.ThompsonS. S. (2011). The relationship among measures of written expression using curriculum-based measurement and the Arizona Instrument to Measure Skills (AIMS) at the middle school level. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 27, 129–152. doi:10.1080/10573561003769640
30.
*McMasterK. L.CampbellH. (2008). New and existing curriculum-based writing measures: Technical features within and across grades. School Psychology Review, 37, 550–566.
31.
*McMasterK. L.DuX.PétursdóttirA. L. (2009). Technical features of curriculum-based measures for beginning writers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 41–60. doi:10.1177/0022219408326212
32.
*McMasterK. L.DuX.YeoS.DenoS. L.ParkerD.EllisT. (2011). Curriculum-based measures of beginning writing: Technical features of the slope. Exceptional Children, 77, 185–206. doi:10.1177/001440291107700203
33.
McMasterK. L.EspinC. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68–84. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020301
34.
McMasterK. L.RitcheyK. D.LembkeE. (2011). Curriculum-based measurement of elementary students’ writing: Recent developments and future directions. In ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (Eds.), Assessment and intervention: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 111–148). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
35.
*MercerS. H.MartinezR. S.FaustD.MitchellR. R. (2012). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measurement in writing with narrative and expository prompts relative to passage copying speed in 10th grade students. School Psychology Quarterly, 27, 85–95. doi:10.1037/a0029123
36.
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: Macmillan.
37.
*ParkerD. C.McMasterK. L.BurnsM. K. (2011). Determining and instructional level for early writing skills. School Psychology Review, 40, 158–167.
38.
*ParkerR. I.TindalG.HasbrouckJ. (1991). Progress monitoring with objective measures of writing performance for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 61–73. doi:10.1177/001440299105800106
39.
*RitcheyK. D.CokerD. L. (2013). An investigation of the validity and utility of two curriculum-based measurement writing tasks. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29, 89–119. doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.741957
40.
*RitcheyK. D.CokerD. L. (2014). Identifying writing difficulties in first grade: An investigation of writing and reading measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 54–65. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12030
41.
SlavinR. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–11. doi:10.3102/0013189x015009005
42.
TaylorR. L. (2006). Assessment of exceptional students: Educational and psychological procedures (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
43.
VennJ. J. (2013). Assessing students with special needs. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
44.
VideenJ.DenoS.MarstonD. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Report No. 84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
45.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TicháR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020401
46.
*WeissenburgerJ. W.EspinC. A. (2005). Curriculum-based measures of writing across grade levels. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 153–169. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.03.002
