Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) of oral reading has been used to aid in identifying students who are at risk for failing the reading portion of their spring state standards tests. The purpose of this study is to determine whether adding a maze reading measure would aid in predicting the performance of students who are English learners (ELs). The study, conducted in an urban elementary school, used both oral reading and maze measures with EL and non-EL students to predict their performance on the reading portion of a state standards test for third- and fifth-grade students. Moderate to moderately strong correlations were obtained between the state standards test and both oral reading fluency and the maze task. Combining the measures increased the predictive power for non-EL students but not for ELs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, S.K., & Good, R. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students . School Psychology Review, 24, 561—578.
2.
Baldouf, R.B., & Propst, I.K. (1978). Matching and multiple-choice cloze tests. The Journal of Educational Research, 72, 321—326.
3.
Bruning, R. (1985). Review of degrees of reading power. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The mental measurements yearbook (9th ed., pp. 442—444). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements .
4.
Children's Educational Services. (1987). Standard reading passages. Eden Prairie, MN: Author.
5.
Cranney, A.G. (1972—1973). The construction of two types of cloze reading tests for college students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 5, 60—64.
6.
Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Stieber, S. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7, 303—323.
7.
Davison, M.L., Davenport, E.C., Seo, Y.S., Peterson, K.A., Ferdinand, M.L.I., Chan, C.K., et al. (2004, January). 2003 Minnesota education yearbook . Retrieved November 13, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/oea/II/Reports/2003Yearbook/2003Yearbook.pdf
8.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219—232.
9.
Deno, S., Maruyama, G., Espin, C., & Cohen, C. (1990). Educating students with mild disabilities in general education classrooms: Minnesota alternatives. Exceptional Children, 57, 150—161.
10.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36—45.
11.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1994—1995). Curriculum-based measures for secondary students: Utility and task specificity of text-based reading and vocabulary measures for predicting performance on content-area tasks. Diagnostique, 20, 121—142.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum?Exceptional Children, 61, 15—24.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45—58.
14.
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.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). A validity of informal reading comprehension measures . Remedial and Special Education, 2, 9, 20—28.
16.
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, 257—288.
17.
Guthrie, J.T. (1973). Reading comprehension and syntactic responses in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology , 65, 294— 299.
18.
Hamilton, C.R., & Shinn, M.R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers' judgements of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32, 228— 240.
19.
Hinofotis, F.B., & Snow, B.G. (1980). An alternative cloze testing procedure: Multiple-choice format. In J. W. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 129—134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
20.
Hintze, J.M., Conte, K.L., Shapiro, E.S., & Basile, I.M. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Criterion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level assessment . School Psychology Review, 26, 535—553.
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.
Kingston, A.J., & Weaver, W.W. (1970). Feasibility of cloze techniques for teaching and evaluating culturally disadvantaged beginning readers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 82, 205—214.
23.
McGlinchey, M.T., & Hixon, M.D. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33, 193—203.
24.
McLeod, S., D'Amico, J.J., & Protheroe, N. (2003). K—12 principal's guide to No Child Left Behind. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals; and Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals .
25.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning. (2002a). Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments: Grade 3 reading test specifications. Retrieved December 12, 2003, from http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_mca_tech_info.htm
26.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning. (2002b). Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments: Grade 5 reading test specifications. Retrieved December 12, 2003, from http://education.state.mn.us/html/intro_mca_tech_info.htm
27.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107—110.
28.
Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J.E., & Tindal, G. (1992). The maze as a classroom-based reading measure: Construction methods, reliability, and validity. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 195—218.
29.
Shin, J., Deno, S.L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum- based measurement of reading growth. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 164—172.
30.
Shinn, M. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
31.
Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H., Knutson, N., Tilly, W.D., & Collins, V.L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459— 479.
32.
Sibley, D., Biwer, D., & Hesch, A. (2001, April). Establishing curriculum-based measurement oral reading fluency performance standards to predict success on local and state tests of reading achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists , Washington, DC.
33.
Stage, S.A., & Jacobsen, M.D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency . School Psychology Review, 30, 407—419.
