Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is an approach to measuring the academic growth of individual students. The essential purpose of CBM is to aid teachers in evaluating the effectiveness of the instruction they provide to individual students. While early research focused on the utility and effectiveness of CBM for increasing the achievement of students with learning disabilities, extensions of CBM research now address a broad range of educational issues in both special and general education with different populations and in new curriculum domains. This article provides a brief history of CBM clarifying its relationship to curriculum-based assessment, a summary of the primary features of CBM, and a rationale for its design. Extensions of CBM to new research domains are identified, and a perspective is provided on the place of CBM in the broader context of educational assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, S.K., & Good, R.H. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students . School Psychology Review, 24, 561-578.
Bruner, J.S. (1965). On Knowing: Essays for the left hand. New York: Atheneum.
4.
Chen, Y. (2002). Assessment of reading and writing samples of deaf and hard of hearing students by curriculum-based measurements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota.
5.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
6.
Deno, S.L., & Fuchs, L.S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus onExceptional Children, 19(8), 1-15.
7.
Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
8.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49(1), 36-45.
9.
Deno, S.L., Reschly-Anderson, A., Lembke, E., Zorka, H., & Callender, S. (2002). A model for schoolwide implementation: A case example. Presentation at the National Association of School Psychologists Annual Meeting, Chicago.
10.
Devenow, P.S. (2002). A study of the CBM maze procedure as a measure of reading with deaf and hard of hearing students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation . University of Minnesota
11.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993). Content-specific and general reading disabilities of secondary-level students: Identification and educational relevance. Journal of Special Education27, 321-337.
12.
Espin, C.A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of three general outcome measures for predicting secondary student performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497-514.
13.
Espin, C.A., Scierka, B.J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 5-27.
14.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making classrooms more responsible to student diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum?Exceptional Children, 61(1), 15-24.
16.
Fuchs, L., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P. (1984). 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., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 43-52.
18.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1993). Technological advances linking the assessment of students' academic proficiency to instructional planning. Journal of Special EducationTechnology,12, 49-62.
19.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension mea, sures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20-28.
20.
Good, R., & Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61-88). New York: The Guilford Press.
21.
Good, R.H. III, Simmons, D.C., & Kameenui, E.J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257-288.
22.
Henley, M., Ramsey, R.A., & Algozzine, R.F. (2002) Teaching students with mild disabilities (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
Idol, L., Nevin, A., & Paolucci-Whitcomb. (1986). Models of curriculum-based assessment. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
24.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215-227.
25.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing Special Children (pp. 19-78). New York: Guilford Press.
26.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1988). Curriculum-based measurement: District level implementation . In J. Garden, J. Zins, & M. Curtis (Eds.). Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 137-172). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
27.
Mercer, C.D. (1997). Students with learning disabilities (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
28.
Minneapolis Public Schools. (2001). Report of the external review committee on the Minneapolis Problem Solving Model. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
29.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
30.
Shinn, M. (1995). Best practices in curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology III (pp. 547-568). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
31.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.
32.
Spinelli, C. (2002) Classroom assessment for students with special needs in inclusive settings.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
33.
Taylor, R.L. (2000). Assessment of special students (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
34.
Tilly. W.D., & Grimes, J. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement: One vehicle for systematic educational reform. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 32-88). New York: Guilford.
35.
Tucker, J. (1985). Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 266-276.
36.
Yell, M., Deno, S.L., & Marston, D. (1992). Barriers to implementing curriculum-based measurement . Diagnostique, 18(1), 99.
