The purpose of this study was to provide preliminary evidence of the criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) for reading, mathematics, and written expression with postsecondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID). The participants included 41 postsecondary students with ID enrolled in a 2-year certificate program at a large Midwestern university. CBMs were administered to participants using standardized procedures, and results were compared with performance on the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement. Descriptive statistics were calculated as were bivariate correlations between CBM measures and the content-appropriate criterion measure. Results are discussed in terms of the potential use of CBMs as indicators of academic performance for postsecondary students with ID.
BaumS.MaJ.PayeaK. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. New York, NY: The College Board.
2.
BeyersS.LembkeE.CursB. (2013). Social studies progress monitoring and intervention for middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 224–235. doi:10.1177/1534508413489162
3.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London, England: School of Education, King’s College.
4.
CametoR.LevineP.WagnerM. (2004). Transition planning for students with disabilities: A special topic report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS-2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi:10.1002/bs.3830330104
DenoS. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358–374.
8.
EspinC. A. (1999). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary school students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15, 5–27. doi:10.1080/105735699278279
9.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L. (1993a). Content-specific and general reading disabilities of secondary students: Identification and educational relevance. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 321-337.
10.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L. (1993b). Performance in reading from content-area text as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 47-59.
11.
EspinC. A.McMasterK.RoseS.WaymanM. (2012). A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
12.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020101
13.
FuchsL.DenoS.MirkinP. (1984). Effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460. doi:10.3102/00028312021002449
14.
FuchsL.FuchsD.HamlettC.SteckerP. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 617–641. doi:10.3102/00028312028003617
15.
GrigalM.HartD. (Eds.). (2010). Think college: Postsecondary options for students with intellectual disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
16.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Routledge.
17.
HelwigR.AndersonL.TindalG. (2002). Using a concept-grounded, curriculum-based measure in mathematics to predict statewide test scores for middle school students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 102–112. doi:10.1177/00224669020360020501
18.
HelwigR.TindalG. (2002). Using general outcome measures in mathematics to measure adequate yearly progress as mandated by Title I. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 9–18. doi:10.1177/073724770202800102
19.
HintzeJ.SilberglittB. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372–386.
20.
HospJ. (2011). Using assessment data to make decisions about teaching and learning. In HarrisK.GrahamS.UrdanT. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 87–110). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21.
HospJ. (2012). Formative evaluation: Developing a framework for using assessment data to plan instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44 (9), 1–11.
22.
HospJ.HospM.HowellK.AllisonR. (2014). The ABCs of curriculum-based evaluation: A practical guide to effective decision making. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23.
HospM.HospJ.HowellK. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
HuaY.TherrienW. J.HendricksonJ. M.Woods-GrovesS.RiesP.ShawJ. (2012). Effects of combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on young adults with severe intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 42, 72–83.
25.
HuaY.Woods-GrovesS.KaldenbergE.LucasK.TherrienW. (2013). Effects of the TIP strategy on problem solving skills of young adults with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 28, 80–100.
26.
HudsonM.BrowderD.WoodL. (2013). Review of experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 17–29. doi:10.2511/027494813807046926
27.
JohnsonE.SemmelrothC.AllisonJ.FritschT. (2013). The technical properties of science content maze passages for middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 214–223. doi:10.1177/1534508413489337
28.
Joint Committee on Standards in Educational and Psychological Testing. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
29.
LimingD.WolfM. (2008). Job outlook by education. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 52, 2–29.
30.
McMasterK.EspinC. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68–84. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020301
MiglioreA.ButterworthJ.HartD. (2009). Postsecondary education and employment outcomes for youth with intellectual disabilities (Fast Facts Series, No. 1). Boston, MA: Institute for Community Inclusion.
33.
MillerB.McCardleP.HernandezR. (2010). Advances and remaining challenges in adult literacy research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 101–107. doi:10.1177/0022219409359341
34.
NewmanL.WagnerM.CametoR.KnokeyA.-M. (2009). The post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
35.
PapayC.BambaraL. (2011). Postsecondary education for transition-age students with intellectual and other developmental disabilities: A national survey. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 78–93.
36.
Pearson Education. (2009). AIMSweb mathematics concepts and applications administration and technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Author.
37.
Pearson Education. (2013). AIMSweb. San Antonio, TX: Author.
38.
ReschlyA.BuschT.BettsJ.DenoS.LongJ. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001
39.
Riley-TillmanT.BurnsM. (2009). Evaluating educational interventions: Single-case design for measuring response to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
ShinnM. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 90–129). New York, NY: Guilford.
42.
TabachnickB.FidellL. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
TichàR.EspinC.WaymanM. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading aloud and maze selection measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 132–142. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00287.x
45.
TorgesenJ.MillerD. (2008). Assessments to guide adolescent literacy instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction, RMC Research Corporation.
46.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.GarzaN.LevineP. (2005). After high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS-2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available from http://www.nlts2.org
47.
WallaceT.TichàR.GustafsonK. (2010). Technical characteristics of general outcome measures (GOMs) in reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26, 333–360. doi:10.1080/10573569.2010.500264
48.
WaymanM.WallaceT.WileyH.TichàR.EspinC. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020401
Woods-GrovesS.TherrienW.HuaY.HendricksonJ. (2013). Essay writing strategy for students enrolled in a post-secondary program for individuals with developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 131–141, doi:10.1177/0741932512440182
51.
Woods-GrovesS.TherrienW.HuaY.HendricksonJ.ShawJ.HughesC. (2012). Effectiveness of an essay writing strategy for post-secondary students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 210–222.
