The purpose of this study was to determine if two types of curriculum-based measurement, computer maze and oral reading, are equally sensitive to improvements made due to the strategy of repeated reading. The subjects were 3 second-grade students with learning disabilities who were measured twice a week for 12 weeks on both assessment procedures. The intervention of repeated readings was introduced sequentially one student at a time at 3-week intervals. The data indicate that the effects of an instructional strategy may result in conflicting results depending on the method of monitoring. Students' perceptions of the two procedures were also measured, and 2 students selected the maze procedure as the assessment they would want to continue. Implications of the use of the two types of CBM and how students' preferences are related to the results are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
2.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1986). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 46, 36-45.
3.
Dowhowser, S.L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers' fluency and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 22, 389-406.
4.
Dowhowser, S.L. (1989). Repeated reading: Research into practice. The Reading Teacher, 42, 502-507.
5.
Ferguson, C.L., & Fuchs, L.S. (1991). Scoring accuracy within curriculum-based measurement: A comparison of teachers and microcomputer applications. Journal of Special Education Technology, 11, 26-32.
6.
Fuchs, L.S. (1988). Effects of computer-managed instruction on teacher's implementation of systematic monitoring programs and student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 294-304.
7.
Fuchs, L.S. (1989). Evaluating solutions: Monitoring progress and revising intervention plans. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press .
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation of pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449-460.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Deno, S.L. (1985). Importance of goal ambitiousness and goal mastery to student achievement. Exceptional Children, 52, 63-71.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 53, 429-438.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Allinder, R.M. (1991). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57, 443-452.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Ferguson, C. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children , 58, 436-450.
14.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Stecker, P.M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 617-641.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect. School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988a). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20-28.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Hamlett, C.L., & Fuchs, D. (1990). Monitoring basic skills progress: Basic reading . Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
18.
Fuchs, L.S., Hamlett, C.L., & Fuchs, D., Stecker, P.M., & Ferguson, C. (1988b). Conducting curriculum-based measurement with computerized data collection: Effects on efficiency and teacher satisfaction . Journal of Special Education, 9, 73-86.
19.
Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513-516, 575-578.
20.
Glor-Scheib, S., & Zigmond, N. (1993). The relative usefulness of curriculum-based measurement using oral readings and computerized maze procedures for monitoring progress with learning disabilities in middle school. Unpublished Manuscript.
21.
Jenkins, J.R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421-432.
22.
Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Interobserver agreement, Single case research methods for clinical and applied settings (pp. 48-75). New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Marston, D., Diment, K., Allen, D., & Allen, L. (1992). Monitoring pupil progress in reading. Preventing School Failure, 36, 21-25.
24.
Mathes, P.G., Simmons, D.C., & Davis, B. (1992). Assisted reading techniques for developing reading fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 70-77.
25.
McCurdy, B.L., & Shapiro, E.S. (1992). A comparison of teacher-, peer-, and self-monitoring with curriculum-based measurement in reading among students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 162-180.
26.
McKenna, M.C., & Layton, K. (1990). Concurrent validity of cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 372-377.
27.
Potter, M.L., & Wamre, H.M. (1990). Curriculum-based measurement and developmental reading models: Opportunities for cross-validation. Exceptional Children, 57, 16-24.
28.
Shinn, M.R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press .
29.
Zigmond, N. & Miller, S.E., (1986). Assessment for instructional planing. Exceptional Children, 52, 501-509.
