Because of the increased emphasis on standardized testing results, scores from a high-stakes, end-of-year test (Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program [TCAP] Reading Composite) were used as the standard against which scores from a group-administered, curriculum-based measure (CBM), Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness: Reading (MIR:R), were compared for 448 third-grade students. A zero-order correlation coefficient of .58 (p < .001) partially defined the relationship between the MIR:R composite score (comprehension rate) and student performance on the TCAP reading composite; a classification analysis yielded the following percentages: sensitivity = 85, specificity = 53. Results from a stepwise multiple-regression equation revealed that the Comprehension score provided moderate predictive validity for TCAP reading composite performance (29% variance accounted for, p < .001); the rate (Total Words Read) score was less predictive (1% additional variance accounted for, p < .05). Discussion focuses on the implications of using unidimensional versus multidimensional CBMs for early screening and/or progress monitoring within response to intervention.
AndersonJ. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
BellS. M.Hilton-PrillhartA. N.HopkinsM. B.McCallumR. S. (2012). Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness: Reading (MIR:R) (Unpublished test). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
3.
BellS. M.McCallumR. S. (2008). Handbook of reading assessment. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
ByrnesJ. P. (2008). Cognitive development and learning in instructional contexts (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
CorleyP. J. (1988). A developmental analysis of sentence comprehension abilities in good and poor readers. Educational Psychologist, 23, 57-75.
6.
CrawfordL.TindalG.StieberS. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7, 303-323.
7.
GagneE. D.YekovichC. W.YekovichF. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
8.
GlaserD. R.DahlgrenM.MoatsL. C. (2014). TN Core: Common core state standards for English language arts (Grades K-3 Year-long course: Classes 3-4). Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Education, Sopris Learning.
9.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2013). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next (Technical manual). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
10.
HaleA. D.SkinnerC. H.WilhoitB.CiancioD.MorrowJ. A. (2012). Variance in broad reading accounted for by measures of reading speed embedded within Maze and comprehension rate measures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 539-554.
11.
HammillD. D.WiederholtJ. L.AllenE. A. (2014). Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency–Second edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
12.
HelwigR.TindalG. (1999). Modified measures and statewide assessments. Unpublished manuscript.
13.
Hilton-PrillhartA. N. (2011). Validation of the Monitoring Academic Progress: Reading (MAP:R): Development and investigation of a group-administered comprehension-based tool for RTI (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
14.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Stat. (2004).
15.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174-185.
16.
KuhnM. R.SchwanenflugelP. J.MeisingerE. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 230-251.
17.
LabergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Towards a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
18.
MarcotteA. M.HintzeJ. M. (2009). Incremental and predictive utility of formative assessment methods of reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 315-335.
19.
MatherN.HammillD. D.AllenE. A.RobertsR. (2014). Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency–Second edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
20.
McKennaM. C.StahlS. A. (2003). Assessment for reading instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
MillerN.DeLappR.DriscollR. (2007). Group anxiety reduction in sixth grade students. Education Resources Information Center, 11, 1-8.
22.
NeddenriepC. E.SkinnerC. H.HaleH.OliverR.WinnB. (2007). An investigation of the validity of reading comprehension rate: A direct, dynamic measure of reading comprehension. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 373-388.
23.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
24.
NoletV.McLaughlinM. (1997). Using CBM to explore a consequential basis for the validity of a state-wide performance assessment. Diagnostique, 22, 146-163.
25.
OlaofeI. A. (1992). A communicative model for assessing second language performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 30, 207-222.
26.
PressleyM.HildenK.ShanklandR. (2005). An evaluation of end-grade-3—Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Speed reading without comprehension, predicting little (Tech. Rep.). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Literacy Achievement Research Center.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427-469.
29.
SamuelsS. J. (2007). The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by reading fluency?Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 563-566.
30.
SamuelsS. J.FlorR. F. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13, 107-121.
31.
ShapiroE. S.KellerM. A.LutzJ. G.SantoroL. E.HintzeJ. M. (2006). Curriculum-based measures and performance on state assessment and standardized tests: Reading and math performance in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 19-35.
32.
ShapiroE. S.SolariE.PetscherY. (2008). Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 316-328.
33.
ShinnM. M.ShinnM. R. (2002). Aimsweb training workbook. San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson.
34.
ShinnM. R.BamontoS. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: “Big ideas” and avoiding confusion. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
35.
SilberglittB.HintzeJ. M. (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.
36.
SkinnerC. H.NeddenriepC. E.Bradley-KlugK. L.ZiemannJ. M. (2002). Advances in curriculum-based measurement: Alternative rate measures for assessing reading skills in pre- and advanced readers. Behavior Analyst Today, 3, 270-281.
37.
SkinnerC. H.WilliamsJ. L.MorrowJ. A.HaleA. D.NeddenriepC.HawkinsR. O. (2009). The validity of a reading comprehension rate: Reading speed, comprehension, and comprehension rates. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 1036-1047.
38.
Tennessee State Department of Education (2014). The Common Core State Standards. State of Tennessee. Available from http://www.tncore.org
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TichaR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85-120.
41.
WileyH. I.DenoS. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English language learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207-214.
42.
WilliamsJ. L.SkinnerC. H.FloydR. G.HaleA. D.NeddenriepC.KirkE. (2011). Words correct per minute: The variance in standardized reading scores accounted for by reading speed. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 87-101.
43.
WoodD. E. (2006). Modeling the relationship between oral reading fluency and performance on a statewide reading test. Educational Assessment, 11, 85-104.
44.
YeoS.FearringtonJ. Y.ChristT. J. (2012). Relation between CBM-R and CBM-mR slopes: An application of latent growth modeling. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 147-158.
