The Responsiveness to Intervention (RI) model for diagnosing learning disabilities has been proposed as an alternative to previous definitions. Given the importance of reliable and valid assessment in the instructional process, assessment must be a crucial aspect of any RI approach. Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) has been discussed in previous descriptions of RI, but arguably does not address all of the components of an RI model. This article examines the potential use of curriculum-based assessment (CBA) in distinguishing ineffective instruction from unacceptable learning and informing instruction, which are two key elements of RI. How CBA can be used to plan, manage, deliver, and evaluate classroom instruction is specifically discussed, as are the central tenets of CBA.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aaron, P.G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula . Review of Educational Research, 67, 461-502.
2.
Algozzine, R. (1985). Low achiever differentiation: Where's the beef?Exceptional Children, 52, 72-75.
3.
Algozzine, R., & Ysseldyke, J. (1997). Strategies and tactics for effective instruction (2nd ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
4.
Archer, A.L., Adams, A., Ellis, E.S., Isaacson, S., Morehead, M.K., & Schiller, E.P. (1987). Working with mildly handicapped students: Design and delivery of academic lessons. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
5.
Atkinson, J.W., & Feather, N.T. (1974). A theory of achievement motivation. Huntington, NY: R. E. Krieger Publishing.
6.
Betts, E.A. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction. New York: American Book.
7.
Brainerd, C.J., & Reyna, V.E. (1995). Learning rate, learning opportunities, and the development of forgetting. Developmental Psychology, 31, 251-262.
8.
Brookhart, S.M. (1998). Determinants of student effort on school work and school-based achievement. The Journal of Educational Research , 91, 201-208.
9.
Bums, M.K. (in press). Age as a predictor of acquisition rates as measured by curriculum-based assessment: Evidence of consistency with cognitive research . Assessment for Effective Intervention.
10.
Bums, M.K. (2002). Utilizing a comprehensive system of assessment to intervention using curriculum-based assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 8-13.
11.
Bums, M.K. (2001). Measuring acquisition and retention rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 148-157.
12.
Bums, M.K., & Dean, V.J. (2002, February). Rethinking the instructional level: Impact on assessment and intervention. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association of School Psychologists , Chicago.
13.
Bums, M.K., MacQuarrie, L.L., & Campbell, D.T. (1999). The difference between instructional assessment (curriculum-based assessment) and curriculum-based measurement: A focus on purpose and result. Communiqué,27, 18-19.
14.
Bums, M.K., Tucker, J.A., Frame, J., Foley, S., & Hauser, A. (2000). Interscorer, alternate-form, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of Gickling's model of curriculum-based assessment for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 353-360.
15.
Bums, M.K., Tucker, J.A., Hauser, A., Thelen, R.L., Holmes, K.J., & White, K. (2002). Minimum reading fluency rate necessary for comprehension: A potential criterion for curriculum-based assessments. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 1-7.
16.
Charlesworth, R., Fleege, P.O., & Weitman, C.J. (1994). Research on the effects of group standardized testing on instruction, pupils, and teachers: New directions for policy. Early Education & Development,5(3), 195-212.
17.
Coles, G. (1998). Reading lessons: The debate over literacy. New York: Hill and Wang.
18.
Coulter, W.A. (1989). Curriculum-based assessment: What's in a name?Communiqué,18(3), 13.
19.
Cundari, L.A., & Suppa, R.J. (1988). The potential uses of curriculum-based assessment for decision making in special education. Exceptional Child , 35, 143-154.
20.
Dean, V.J., & Bums, M.K. (2002). Inclusion of intrinsic processing difficulties in LD diagnostic models: A critical review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 170-176.
21.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
22.
Deno, S.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review , 15, 358-374.
23.
Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special needs children (pp. 1-17). New York: Guilford Press.
24.
Deno, S.L., Fuchs, L.S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review Special Issue: Mini-series: Issues in Data-Based Decision Making in SpecialEducation, 30, 507-524.
25.
Elliott, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessment as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224-233.
26.
Forness, S.R., Kavale, K.A., & Davanzo, P.A. (2002). The new medical model: Interdisciplinary treatment and the limits of behaviorism. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 168-178.
27.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D.C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
28.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204-219.
29.
Gettinger, M., & Siebert, J.K. (2002). Best practices in increasing academic learning time. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 773-788). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
30.
Gickling, E.E., & Armstrong, D.L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 559-566.
31.
Gickling, E.E., & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculum-based assessment (CBA). Minneapolis, MN: School Psychology Inservice Training Network.
32.
Gickling, E., & Rosenfield, S. (1995). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp 587-595). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists .
33.
Gickling, E.E., Shane, R.L., & Croskery, K.M. (1989). Developing math skills in low-achieving high school students through curriculum-based assessment . School Psychology Review, 18, 344-356.
34.
Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment . Exceptional Children,52, 205-218.
35.
Gravois, T.A., & Gickling, E.E. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas &. J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology (4 th ed., pp. 885-898). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
36.
Gresham, F. (2001, August). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington, DC.
37.
Hargis, C. (1995). Curriculum-based assessment: A primer (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL : Charles C. Thomas.
38.
International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English Joint Task Force on Assessment. (1994 ). Standards for the assessment of reading and writing. Newark, DE/Urbana, IL: Author .
39.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 113-142). New York: Guilford Press.
40.
Kavale, K.A., & Fomess, S.R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (p. 281-326). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
Kovaleski, J., Lowery, P., & Gickling, E. (1995). School reform through instructional support: The Pennsylvania initiative (part II). Communiqué,23, 14-17.
Linn, R.L., & Gronlund, N.E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
45.
MacMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., & Bocian, K.M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314-326.
46.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford Press.
47.
Meijer, J., & Elshout, J.J. (2001). The predictive and discriminant validity of the zone of proximal development. British Journal of Educational Psychology Special Issue,71, 93-113.
48.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D.H., & Mercer, A.R. (1996). Learning disability definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly , 19, 217-232.
49.
Naglieri, J.A., Das, J.P., & Jarman, R.F. (1990). Planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive cognitive processes as a model for assessment. School Psychology Review, 19, 423-42.
50.
Nilholm, C. (1999). The zone of proximal development: A comparison of children with Down syndrome and typical children. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 24, 265-279.
51.
No Child Left Behind Act (2002). H.R.1, 110.
52.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2001). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
53.
Reschly, D.J., & Wilson, M.S. (1990). Cognitive processing versus traditional intelligence: Diagnostic utility, intervention implications, and treatment validity. School Psychology Review, 19, 443-458.
54.
Roberts, M.L., Marshall, J., Nelson, J.R., & Albers, C.A. (2001). Curriculum-based assessment procedures embedded within functional behavioral assessments: Identifying escape-motivated behaviors in a general education classroom. School Psychology Review , 30, 264-277.
55.
Roberts, M.L., & Shapiro, E.S. (1996). Effects of instructional ratios on students' reading performance in a regular education program. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 73-91.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilty Quarterly,25, 155-169.
58.
Shapiro, E.S. (1992). Use of Gickling's model of curriculum-based assessment to improve reading in elementary age students. School Psychology Review, 21, 168-176.
59.
Shapiro, E.S., & Ager, C. (1992). Assessment of special education students in regular education programs: Linking assessment to instruction. Elementary School Journal, 92, 283-296.
60.
Shapiro, E.S., & Derr, T.F. (1990). Curriculum-based assessment. In T. B. Gutkins & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (2nd ed, pp. 365-387). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
61.
Shinn, M.R. (1988). Development of curriculum-based local norms for use in special education decision-making. School Psychology Review, 17, 61-80.
62.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
63.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.
64.
Shinn, M.R. (2002). Best practices in using curriulumbased measurement in a problem solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 671-698). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
65.
Spady, W.G. (1984). Organizing and delivering curriculum for maximum impact in making our schools more effective. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Three State Conferences, Phoenix, AZ.
66.
Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.
67.
Thompson, V.P., Gickling, E., & Havertape, J.F. (1983). The effects of medication and curriculum management on task-related behaviors of attention deficit disordered and low achieving peers. Monographs in behavioral disorders: Severe behavior disorders of children and youth, CCBD, Arizona State University , Series # 6.
68.
Thorndike, R.M. (1997). The early history of intelligence testing. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: theories tests and issues (pp. 3-16) New York: The Guilford Press.
69.
Tomlinson, C.A., & Kalbfleisch, M.L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: A call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership , 56(3), 50-55.
70.
Torgesen, J.K. (2001, August). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weakness. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington DC.
71.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes for two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.
72.
Tucker, J.A. (2001). Instruction-support teams: A group thing. In R. Sornson (Ed.), Preventing early learning failure (pp. 47-63). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
73.
United States Department of Education, (2000 ). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
74.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S., Chen, R., Pratt, A., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficulty-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.
75.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76.
Wise, B.W., & Snyder, L. (2001). Judgments in identifying and teaching children with language-based reading disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington, DC.
