Systematic monitoring of student progress using curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is associated with improved student achievement. CBM uses a long-term goal measurement strategy that requires specifying the level of a curriculum the handicapped student is expected to master in 1 year. Student progress is assessed routinely using material sampled from this level of the curriculum. This study examined effects of curriculum level difficulty on estimates of student progress. The progress of 30 mildly handicapped students was monitored simultaneously in alternative levels of a reading curriculum, and students' slopes of improvement and variability of performance were compared. Regardless of the level of the curriculum in which progress was assessed, the slope of improvement was similar over time. Implications for selecting progress monitoring measurement materials are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, D. (1989). Conducting periodic and annual reviews using curriculum-based measurement. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 182-201). New York: Guilford Press.
2.
Blankenship, C. (1985). Using curriculum-based assessment data to make instructional decisions. Exceptional Children, 52, 233–238.
3.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
4.
Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 295–309.
5.
Clymer, T., Blanton, W.E, Johnson, D.D, & Lapp, D. (1973). Tell me how the sun rose, Reading 360.Lexington, MA: Ginn.
6.
Coffman, D., & Stieber, S. (1986). Simple linear regression model program for SPSSx[Computer program]. Eugene: University of Oregon, College of Education.
Deno, S.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358–374.
9.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P.K. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
10.
Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1977). Data-based program modification.Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
11.
Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1980). Data based IEP development: An approach to substantive compliance. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30, 92-97.
12.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K, & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36–45.
13.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K, Lowry, L., & Kuehnle, K. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of spelling and performance on standardized achievement tests(Research Report No. 21) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
14.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K, & Wesson, C. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16, 99–104.
15.
Fuchs, L.S. (1986). Monitoring progress among mildly handicapped pupils: A review of current practice and research. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 5–12.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L, & Mirkin, P.K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1984). Criterion-referenced assessment without measurement: How accurate for special education?Remedial and Special Education, 5(4), 29–32.
18.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986a). Curriculum-based assessment of progress toward long-and short-term goals. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 69–82.
19.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986b). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A metaanalysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
20.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Deno, S.L. (1982). Reliability and validity of curriculum-based informal reading inventories. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 6–26.
21.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Deno, S.L. (1984). Sampling passages and student behavior for IRIs: A reply to Dufflemeyer. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 248–249.
22.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(1), 20–28.
23.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Warren, L.M. (1982). Special education practice in evaluating student progress towards goals (Research Report No. 81). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
24.
Fuchs, L.S., & Shinn, M.R. (1989). Writing curriculum-based IEP objectives. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 130-153). New York: Guilford Press.
Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205–218.
27.
Hayes, W.L. (1973). Statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
28.
Idol, L., Nevin, A., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. (1986). Models of curriculum-based assessment.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
29.
Marston, D. (1988). The effectiveness of special education: A time series analysis of reading performance in regular and special education settings. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 13–26.
30.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52, 266–276.
31.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.
32.
Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H, & Stein, S. (in press). Summarizing trend in student achievement: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review.
33.
Stein, S. (1987). Accuracy in predicting student reading performance based on time-series progress monitoring data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, Eugene.
34.
Tindal, G. (1982). Factors influencing the use of time-series data for evaluating instructional programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
35.
Tindal, G., Germann, G., & Deno, S., (1983). Descriptive research on the Pine County norms: A compilation of findings (Research Report No. 132). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
36.
Wampold, B.E., & Furlong, M.J. (1981). The heuristics of visual inference. Behavioral Assessment, 3, 79–92.
