In a series of two studies, the relative sensitivity of traditional standardized achievement tests and alternative curriculum-based measures was assessed. In the first investigation, the magnitude of student growth over a 10-week period on the two types of instruments was compared in the areas of reading and written language. The second study was an operational replication employing different reading tests over a 16 week interval. Results indicated that the curriculum-based measures were more sensitive to student progress and related more consistently to a criterion measure of student growth. Implications for practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1984). Standards for educational and psychological tests . Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Borg, W.R., & Gall, M.D. (1983). Educational research: An introduction (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
3.
Carver, R.P. (1974). Two dimensions of tests: Psychometric and edumetric . American Psychologist, 29, 512-518.
4.
Clymer, T., & Fenn, T. (1979). Reading 720 ( Rainbow ed.). Lexington MA: Ginn.
5.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P.K. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368-371.
6.
Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children .
7.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). ldentifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-44.
8.
Dunst, C.J. (1979). Programs evaluation and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Exceptional Children, 46, 24-33.
9.
Eaton, M., & Lovitt, T. (1972). Achievement tests vs. direct and daily measure ment. In G. Semb (Ed.), Behavior analysis and education. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
10.
Ferguson, G.A. (1971). Statistical analysis in psychology and education . New York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Floden, R., Porter, A., Schmidt, W., & Freeman, D. (1980). Don't they all measure the same thing? In E. Baker & E. Quellnalz (Eds.), Educational testing and evaluation . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Fry, E. (1968). Graph for estimating reliability. Journal of Reading, 577.
13.
Fuchs, L.S. (1981). The concurrent validity of progress measures of basal reading material. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
14.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Marston, D. (1983). Improving the reliability of curriculum-based measures of academic skills for psychoeducational decision making. Diagnostique, 8, 135-149.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Deno, S.L. (1984). Unicorn's horn or straw man? A response to Johnston and Allington. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 499-500.
16.
Glass, G., McGaw, B., & Smith, M.L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Hammill, D.D., & Larsen, S.C. (1978). The Test of Written Language. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
18.
Harris, A.P., & Jacobson, M.D. (1972). Basic elementary reading vocabularies. New York: World Book .
19.
Hively, W., & Reynolds, M.C. (Eds.). (1975). Domain referenced testing in special education. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
20.
Jenkins, J.R., Deno, S.L. & Mirkin, P.K. (1979). Measuring pupil progress toward the least restrictive environment (Monograph No. 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disbilities . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 767)
21.
Jenkins, J.R., & Pany, D. (1978). Standardized achievement tests: How useful for special education? Exceptional Children, 44, 448-453.
22.
Karlsen, B., Madden, R., & Gardner, E.F. (1976). Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
23.
Lee, L., & Canter, S.M. (1971). Developmental sentence scoring. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 36, 335-340.
24.
Lindsley, O.R. (1971). Precision teaching in perspective: An interview with Ogden R. Lindsley. Teaching Exceptional Children, 3, 114-119.
25.
Madden, R., Gardner, E., Rudman, H., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J. (1973). Stanford Achievement Test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
26.
Madden, R., Gardner, E., Rudman, H., Karlsen, B., & Merwin J. (1983). Stanford Achievement Test: Intermediate Level 1 Battery, Norms Booklet. New York: Psychological Corp.
27.
Marston, D., & Deno, S.L. (1981). The reliability of simple, direct measures of written expression (Research Rep. No. 50). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 212 663)
28.
Marston, D., Mirkin, P.K., & Deno, S.L. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to traditional screening, referral, and identification. Journal of Special Education, 18, 109-118.
29.
Naslund, R.A., Thorpe, L.P., & Lefever, D.W. (1978). SRA Achievement Series: Reading, Mathematics, and Language Arts. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
30.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1981). Assessment in special and remedial educacation (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
31.
Smith, R.M., & Neisworth, J.T. (1969). Fundamentals of informal education assessment. In R.M. Smith (Ed.), Teacher diagnosis of educational difficulties. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
32.
Subkoviak, M.J. (1975). Estimating reliability from a single administration of a mastery test. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Laboratory of Experimental Design.
33.
Tindal, G., Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Shinn, M.R., Deno, S.L., & Germann, G. (1985). Journal ofEducational Research , 78, 203-209.
34.
Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Deno, S.L. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Research Rep. No 109). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
35.
Wallace, G., & Larsen, S.C. (1978). Educational assessment of learning problems: Testing for teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
36.
White, O.R., & Haring, N.G. (1980). Exceptional teaching (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
37.
Woodcock, R. (1973). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
38.
Yalow, E., & Popham, J. (1983). Content validity at the crossroads. Educational Researcher, 12(8), 10-14, 21.
