This purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of a curriculum-based measure of word problem solving (CBM-WPS) as an indicator of performance and progress in a sample of 136 third-grade students at risk for mathematics difficulties (MDs) instructed in a standards-based mathematics curriculum. Students completed the CBM-WPS measure every 2 weeks across 12 school weeks. Results indicated that the CBM-WPS measure was reliable and significantly correlated with measures of arithmetic WPS, number combinations fluency, and a standardized test of mathematics achievement. Results of growth modeling indicated that students showed significant growth on the CBM-WPS measure, with an average increase of 0.33 problems correct per week. Additional analyses revealed that students identified as high at-risk demonstrated similar growth as students identified as low at-risk. Furthermore, the CBM-WPS growth slopes were a significant predictor of students’ spring performance on a standardized test of mathematics achievement, demonstrating their predictive validity. Implications for practice and future research for assessing mathematics skill development are discussed.
AlonzoJ.TindalG.UlmerK.GlasgowA. (2006). easyCBM online progress monitoring assessment system. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Assessment Accountability. Available from http://easycbm.com
2.
BrownR. S.CoughlinE. (2007). The predictive validity of selected benchmark assessments used in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=24
3.
BurnsM. K.GibbonsK. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
CarpenterT. P.HiebertJ.MoserJ. M. (1983). The effect of instruction on children’s solutions of addition and subtraction word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, 55–72. doi:10.1007/BF00704702
5.
CarpenterT. P.MoserJ. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179–202. doi:10.2307/748348
6.
CarpenterT. P.MoserJ. M.BeboutH. C. (1988). Representation of addition and subtraction word problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 345–357. doi:10.2307/749545
7.
ChristT. J.Johnson-GrohsK. N.HintzeJ. M. (2005). An examination of alternate assessment durations when assessing multiple-skill computational fluency: The generalizability and dependability of curriculum-based outcomes within the context of educational decisions. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 615–622. doi:10.1002/pits.20107
8.
ChristT. J.ScullinS.TolbizeA.JibanC. L. (2008). Implications of recent research: Curriculum-based measurement of math computation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 198–205. doi:10.1177/1534508407313480
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2001). Terra Nova. Monterey, CA: Author.
11.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
12.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801
13.
Edformation. (2005). AIMSweb progress monitoring and improvement system. Available from http://www.aimsweb.com/
14.
FoegenA.DenoS. L. (2001). Identifying growth indicators for low-achieving students in middle school mathematics. Journal of Special Education, 35, 4–16. doi:10.1177/002246690103500102
15.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. L. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020101
16.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
17.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
18.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement in research. Exceptional Children, 58, 232–243.
19.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.CoureyS. J. (2005). Curriculum-based measurement of mathematics competence: From computation to concepts and applications to real-life problem solving. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 33–46. doi:10.1177/073724770503000204
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.SteckerP. 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. doi:10.3102/00028312028003617
21.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.ThompsonA.RobertsP. H.KubekP.SteckerP. M. (1994). Technical features of a mathematics concepts and applications curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique, 19, 23–49. doi:10.1177/073724779401900403
22.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.WalzL.GermannG. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.
23.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.KarnsK.HamlettC. L.KatzaroffM. (1999). Mathematics performance assessment in the classroom: Effects on teacher planning and student problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 609–646. doi:10.3102/00028312036003609
HelwigR.AndersonL.TindalG. (2002). Using a concept-grounded measure in mathematics to predict statewide test scores for middle school students with LD. Journal of Special Education, 36, 102–122. doi:10.1177/00224669020360020501
26.
HintzeJ. M.ShapiroE. 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. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(97)00014-9
27.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford.
28.
JitendraA. K.GriffinC.HariaP.LehJ.AdamsA.KaduvetoorA. (2007). A comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 115–127. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.115
29.
JitendraA. K.SczesniakE.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). An exploratory validation of curriculum-based mathematical word problem-solving tasks as indicators of mathematics proficiency for third graders. School Psychology Review, 34, 358–371.
30.
JonassenD. H. (2003). Designing research-based instruction for story problems. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 267–296.
31.
LehJ. M.JitendraA. K.CaskieG. I. L.GriffinC. G. (2007). An evaluation of curriculum-based measurement of mathematics word problem-solving measures for monitoring third-grade students’ mathematics competence. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 90–99. doi:10.1177/15345084070320020601
32.
MayerR. E. (1998). The promise of educational psychology: Learning in the content areas. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
33.
MazzoccoM. M. M. (2007). Defining and differentiating mathematical learning disabilities and difficulties. In BerchD. B.MazzocoM. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 29-48). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
34.
NathanM. J.LongS. D.AlibaliM. W. (2002). The symbolic precedence view of mathematical development: A corpus analysis of the rhetorical structure of textbooks. Discourse Processes, 33, 1–21. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3301_01
35.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2010). Measures of academic progress. Lake Oswego, OR: Author.
37.
R Development Core Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Available from http://www.R-project.org
38.
RemillardJ. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 7, 211–246. doi:10.3102/00346543075002211
39.
SeethalerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2011). Using curriculum-based measurement to monitor kindergarteners’ mathematics development. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 219–229. doi:10.1177/1534508411413566
40.
ShapiroE. S.EdwardsL.ZigmondN. (2005). Progress monitoring of mathematics among students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 15–32. doi:10.1177/073724770503000203
41.
ShinnM. R. (Ed.). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford.
42.
TarrJ. E.ReysR. E.ReysB. J.ChavezO.ShihJ.OsterlindS. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.
43.
Technical Education Research Center. (2008). Investigations in number, data, and space. Glenview, IL: Pearson, Scott Foresman.
44.
Van de WalleJ. A. (2004). Elementary and middle school mathematics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
45.
VerschaffelL.GreerB.De CorteE. (2007). Whole number concepts and operation. In LesterF. K.Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 557–628). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
46.
WhinneryK. W.SteckerP. M. (1992). Individual progress monitoring to enhance instructional programs in mathematics. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 36, 26–30. doi:10.1080/1045988X.1992.9944266
