Two curriculum-based measurement tools are commonly used to assess progress in reading in elementary school: R-CBM and CBM maze. R-CBM is used in practice more frequently than CBM maze is, although CBM maze is more time efficient to administer than R-CBM is. The technical adequacy of each of these measures has been reported in the literature; however, a comparative analysis of their technical adequacy has not been published. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical adequacy of R-CBM and CBM maze to inform their use in a universal screening program of reading in fourth and fifth grades. Results suggest evidence of short- and long-term alternate forms reliability, criterion validity, and predictive validity for both R-CBM and CBM maze, supporting the possibility that the two measures are comparable for use in universal screening at those grade levels.
Ardoin, S.P., Witt, J.C., Suldo, S.M., Connell, J.E., Koenig, J.L., Resetar, J.L., et al. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a maze and three versus one curriculum-based measuring reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33, 218-233.
3.
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.
4.
Bentler, P.M. ( 1988). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
5.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. ( 1980). Significant tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Bentler, P.M., & Yuan, K.H. ( 1999). Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 181-197.
8.
Brown, V., Hammill, D.D., & Wiederholt, J.L. (1995). The Test of Reading Comprehension- Third Edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED .
9.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. ( 1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
10.
Dunn, L.M., & Markwardt, F.C. (1970). Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
11.
Espin, C., Deno, S., Maruyama, G., & Cohen, C. ( 1989, March). The Basic Academic Skills Samples (BASS): An instrument for the screening and identification of children at risk for failure in regular education classrooms. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Convention, San Francisco .
12.
Floyd, R.G., Hojnoski, R., & Key, J. ( 2006). Preliminary evidence of the technical adequacy of the preschool numeracy indicators. School Psychology Review , 35, 627-644.
13.
Foegen, A., Espin, C.A., Allinder, R., & Markell, M. ( 2001). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children , 35(2), 8-17.
14.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45-58.
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., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J.R. ( 2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. ( 1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures . Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20-28.
18.
Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, K.D. ( 1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .
19.
Glover, T.A., & Albers, C.A. ( 2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments . Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117-135.
20.
Good, R.H. III, & 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: Guilford
21.
Graves, A.W., Plasencia-Peinado, J., Deno, S.L., & Johnson, J.R. ( 2005). Formatively evaluating the reading progress of first-grade English learners in multiple-language classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 215-225.
22.
Guthrie, J.T. ( 1973). Reading comprehension and syntactic responses in good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology , 65, 294-299.
23.
Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M.R. ( 2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32, 228-240.
24.
Howe, K.B., & Shinn, M.M. ( 2002). Standard Reading Assessment Passages (RAPs) for use in general outcome measurement: A manual describing development and technical features. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation .
25.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. ( 1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
26.
Indiana Department of Education (2006). Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus. Indianapolis: Author.
27.
Jenkins, J.R., & Jewell, M. ( 1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421-432.
28.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H. ( 1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215-227.
29.
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L., (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service .
30.
Kranzler, J.H., Brownell, M.T., & Miller, M.D. ( 1998). The construct validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading: An empirical test of a plausible rival hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 399-415.
Markell, M.A., & Deno, S.L. ( 1997). Effects of increasing oral reading generalization across reading tasks. Journal of Special Education, 31, 233-250.
33.
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 .
34.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to Intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002). Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-100.pdf
37.
Parker, R.J., Hasbrouck, J.E., & Tindal, G. ( 1992). Greater validity for oral reading fluency: Can miscues help? Journal of Special Education, 25, 492-503.
38.
Prescott, G.A., Balow, I.H., Hogan, T.P., & Farr, R.C. ( 1986). Metropolitan Achievement Test (6th ed.) New York: Psychological Corporation.
39.
Priest, J.S., McConnell, S.R., Walker, D., Carta, J.J., Kaminski, R.A., McEvoy, M.A., et al. (2001). General growth outcomes for young children: Developing a foundation for continuous progress measurement. Journal of Early Intervention, 24, 163-180.
40.
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Bolt, S. ( 2007). Assessment in special and inclusive education (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
41.
Shin, J., Deno, S.L., & Espin, C. ( 2000). Technical adequacy of maze probes for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education , 34, 140-153.
42.
Shinn, M.R. ( 2002). Organizing and implementing a benchmark assessment program . Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation .
43.
Silberglitt, B., Burns, M.K., Madyun, N., & Lail, K.E. ( 2006). Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test score: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels . Psychology in the Schools, 43, 527-535.
44.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. ( 2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon .
45.
Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Deno, S. ( 1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Research Report No. 109). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
46.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html
47.
Wayman, M.M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H.I., Tichá, R., & Espin, C.A. ( 2997). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85-120.
48.
Wesson, C., Fuchs, L., Tindal, G., Mirkin, P., & Deno, S. ( 1986). Facilitating the efficiency of ongoing curriculum-based measurement. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9(4), 166-172.
49.
Wesson, C.L., King, R.P., & Deno, S.L. ( 1984). Direct and frequent measurement of student performance: If it’s good for us, why don’t we do it?Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 45-48
50.
Wiley, H.I., & Deno, S.L. ( 2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207-214.
