The present study compared two procedures used in identifying students as “at risk” for learning problems. One procedure was a standardized norm referenced assessment represented by the Metropolitan Readiness Test and the Metropolitan Achievement Test. The other test procedure was a variation of the Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA), which used frequency to measure samples of academic behavior. Tests were administered to 144 kindergarten and 142 first-grade children. Although the two procedures were comparable in identifying high-risk students, they differed substantially in time, effort, and cost. These differences might be important for school districts with limited personnel and funds.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armbruster, B. B., Stevens, R. G., & Rosenshine, B. (1977). Analyzing content coverage and emphasis. A study of three curricula and two tests (Technical Representative N26). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for Study of Reading.
2.
Barrett, T. C. (1965). Visual discrimination tasks as predictors of first grade reading achievement. Reading Teacher, 8, 276-282.
3.
Berquam, E. M., & Siders, J. Z. (1980). Reading samples as predictors of reading achievement. Journal of Precision Teaching, 1, 3-9.
4.
de Hirsch, K., Jansky, J. J., & Langford, W. S. (1966). Predicting reading failure. New York: Harper & Row.
5.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-233.
6.
Deno, S., Mirkin, P. K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
7.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Warren, L. (1982). Special education practice in evaluating student progress toward goals (Research Report No. 2 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
8.
Germann, G., & Tindal, G. (1985). An application of curriculum-based assessment: The use of direct and repeated measurement. Exceptional Children, 52, 244-265.
9.
Gickling, E. E., & Thompson, V. P. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205-218.
10.
Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. (1978). Standardized achievement tests: How useful for special education?Exceptional Children, 44, 448-453.
11.
Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1980). Strategies and tactics of human behavioral research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Kunzelmann, H. P., & Koenig, C. H. (1980). REFER: Rapid exam for early referral. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
13.
Magliocca, L. A., Rinaldi, R. T., Crew,J. L., & Kunzelmann, H. P. (1977). Early identification of handicapped children through a frequency sampling technique. Exceptional Children, 43, 414-420.
14.
Pennypacker, H. S., Koenig, C. H., & Lindsley, O. R. (1972). Handbook of the standard behavior chart (preliminary edition). Kansas City, KS: Precision Media.
15.
Salmon-Cox, L. (1981). Teachers and standardized achievement tests: What's really happening?Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 631-634.
16.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1985). Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
17.
Sheldon, W. D., & Lashinger, D. R. (1966). Effect of first grade instruction using basal readers, modified linguistic materials, and linguistic readers. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. (USOE Cooperative Research Project No. 2683).
18.
Speer, O. B., & Lamb, G. S. (1976). First grade reading ability and fluency in naming verbal symbols. Reading Teacher, 29, 572-576.
19.
Thurstone, P., & House, E. R. (1981). The NIE adversary hearing on competency testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 87-89.
20.
Tucker, J. A. (1985). Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction. Exceptional Children, 52, 199-204.
21.
Winikur, D., & Wohle, R. (1984). Toward program based special education and school psychological services delivery systems. (First Working Draft).
22.
Ysseldyke, J., Algozzine, B., & Allen, D. (1982). Participation of regular education teachers in special education team decision making. Exceptional Children, 48, 365-366.
