Two studies using similar methods in two states investigated the long-term predictive utility of two single-skill early numeracy Curriculum Based Measures (CBMs) and the degree to which they can adequately predict high-stakes test scores. Data were drawn from kindergarten and first-grade students. State standardized assessment data from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) were used as criterion measures to evaluate multi-year predictive utility. Logistic regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to examine the extent to which the measures predicted success or failure on ITBS and MAP. Correlational and logistic regression results indicated the Early Numeracy CBMs effectively predict success or failure for the ITBS and MAP. However, further analysis of the diagnostic utility of the measures suggests that practitioners need to carefully consider specificity, sensitivity, and the degree to which the predictability of common screening measures can be generalized to all state standardized assessments.
BakerS.GerstenR.FlojoJ.KatzR.ChardD.ClarkeB. (2002). Preventing mathematics difficulties in young children: Focus on effective screening of early number sense delays (Tech Rep. No. 0305). Eugene, OR: Pacific Institutes for Research.
2.
BurnsM. K. (2011). Matching conceptual and procedural math interventions to student deficits. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 210–218. doi:10.1177/1534508411413255
ChardD. J.ClarkeB.BakerS.OtterstedtJ.BraunD.KatzR. (2005). Using measures of number sense to screen for difficulties in mathematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(3), 3–14. doi:10.1177/073724770503000202
5.
ClarkeB.BakerS.SmolkowskiK.ChardD. (2008). An analysis of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement: Examining the role of growth in student outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 46–57. doi:10.1177/0741932507309694
6.
ClarkeB.GerstenR.DiminoJ.RolfhusE. (2012). Assessing student proficiency in early number sense (ASPENS) [Measurement instrument]. Longmont, CO: Cambium Learning Sopris.
7.
ClarkeB.NeseJ. F. T.AlonzoJ.SmithJ. M.TindalG.Kame’enuiE.BakerS. (2011). Classification accuracy of easyCBM first grade mathematics measures: Findings and implications for the field. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 243–255. doi:10.1177/1534508411414153
8.
ClarkeB.ShinnM. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/
9.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BryantJ. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394
10.
ConnollyA. J. (1998). KeyMath–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
11.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2001). Terra Nova. Monterrey, CA: Author.
12.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
13.
DysonN.JordanN. C.BeliakoffA.Hassinger-DaB. (2015). A kindergarten number-sense intervention with contrasting practice conditions for low-achieving children. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46, 331–370.
14.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. L. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020101
15.
FoegenA.LembkeE.KleinK.LindL.JibanC. (2008). Technical adequacy of early numeracy indicators: Exploring growth at three points in time (Technical Report No. 13). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Research Institute on Progress Monitoring. Available from http://www.progressmonitoring.org/
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.BryantJ. D.HamlettC. L.SeethalerP. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, 73, 311–330. doi:10.1177/001440290707300303
17.
GearyD. C.BaileyD. H.HoardM. K. (2009). Predicting mathematical achievement and mathematical learning disability with a simple screening tool: The number sets test. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 265–279. doi:10.1177/0734282908330592
18.
GerstenR.ChardD. J. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 18–28. doi:10.1177/002246699903300102
19.
GerstenR.ClarkeB.JordanN. C.Newman-GoncharR.HaymondK.WilkinsC. (2012). Universal screening in mathematics for the primary grades: Beginnings of a research base. Exceptional Children, 78, 425–445.
20.
GinsburgH. P.BaroodyA. J. (2003). Test of Early Mathematics Ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
21.
GriffinS. (2004). Building number sense with Number Worlds: A mathematics program for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 173–180. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.012
22.
HamptonD. D.LembkeE. S.LeeY.-S.PappasS.ChoingC.GinsburgH. P. (2012). Technical adequacy of early numeracy curriculum-based progress monitoring measures for kindergarten and first-grade students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 118–126. doi:10.1177/1534508411414151
23.
HooverH. D.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A. (2001). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174–185. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00291.x
28.
JordanN. C.GluttingJ.RamineniC. (2008). A number sense assessment tool for identifying children at risk for mathematical difficulties. In DowkerA. (Ed.), Mathematical difficulties: Psychology and intervention (pp. 45–58). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29.
JordanN. C.GluttingJ.RamineniC.WatkinsM. W. (2010). Validating a number sense screening tool for use in kindergarten and first grade: Prediction of mathematics proficiency in third grade. School Psychology Review, 39, 181–195. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/
30.
JordanN. C.KaplanD.LocuniakM. N.RamineniC. (2007). Predicting first-grade math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 36–46. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00229.x
31.
JordanN. C.KaplanD.OlahL. N.LocuniakM. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77, 153–175. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00862.x
32.
JordanN. C.KaplanD.RamineniC.LocuniakM. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 850–867. doi:10.1037/a0014939
33.
LeeY.-S.LembkeE. S.MooreD.GinsburgH. P.PappasS. (2012). Item-level and construct evaluation of early numeracy curriculum-based measures. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 107–117. doi:10.1177/1534508411431255
34.
LembkeE. S.FoegenA. (2005). Identifying indicators of early mathematics proficiency in kindergarten and Grade 1 (Technical Report No. 6). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Research Institute on Progress Monitoring.
35.
LembkeE. S.FoegenA. (2009). Identifying early numeracy indicators for kindergarten and first grade students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 12–20. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.01273.x
36.
LembkeE. S.FoegenA.WhittakerT. A.HamptonD.JibanC. (2008). Establishing technically adequate measures of progress in early mathematics (Technical Report No. 14). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Research Institute on Progress Monitoring. Available from http://www.progressmonitoring.org/
37.
LocuniakM.JordanN. (2008). Using kindergarten number sense to predict calculation fluency in second grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 451–459. doi:10.1177/0022219408321126
38.
MartinezR. S.MissallK. N.GraneyS. B.AricakO. T.ClarkeB. (2009). Technical adequacy of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement in kindergarten. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 116–125. doi:10.1177/1534508408326204
39.
MetheS. A.BegenyJ. C.LearyL. L. (2011). Development of conceptually focused early numeracy skill indicators. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 230–242. doi:10.1177/1534508411413566
40.
MetheS. A.HintzeJ. M.FloydR. G. (2008). Validation and decision accuracy of early numeracy skill indicators. School Psychology Review, 37, 359–373. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/
41.
MetheS. A.HojnoskiR.ClarkeB.OwensB. B.LilleyP. K.PolityloB. C.. . . MarcotteA. M. (2011). Innovations and future directions for early numeracy curriculum-based measurement: Commentary on the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 200–209. doi:10.1177/1534508411414154
42.
MissallK. N.MercerS. H.MartinezR. S.CasebeerD. (2012). Concurrent and longitudinal patterns and trends in performance on early numeracy curriculum-based measures in kindergarten through third grade. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 95–106. doi:10.1177/1534508411430322
43.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2009). Missouri Assessment Program grade-level assessment: Guide to interpreting results. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
44.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.WuQ. (2009). Five-year growth trajectories of kindergarten children with learning difficulties in mathematics. Journal of Learning disabilities, 42, 306–321. doi:10.1177/0022219408331037
45.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.
46.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
47.
National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
48.
OkamotoY.CaseR. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children’s central conceptual structures in the domain of number. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, 27–59. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5834.1996.b00536.x
49.
Pedrotty BryantD.BryantB. R.KimS. A.GerstenR. (2006, February). Three-tier mathematics intervention: Emerging model & preliminary findings. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
50.
PolignanoJ. C.HojnoskiR. L. (2012). Preliminary evidence of the technical adequacy of additional curriculum-based measures for preschool mathematics. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 70–83. doi:10.1177/1534508411430323
51.
The Psychological Corporation. (2002). Early Math Diagnostic Assessment. San Antonio, TX: Author.
52.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ. E. (BoltS.). (2007). Assessment in special and inclusive education (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
53.
SeethalerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2010). The predictive utility of kindergarten screening for math difficulty. Exceptional Children, 77, 37–59.
54.
SilberglittB.HintzeJ. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304–325. doi:10.1177/073428290502300402
55.
StickneyE. M.SharpL. B.KenyonA. S. (2012). Technology-enhanced assessment of math fact automaticity: Patterns of performance for low- and typically achieving students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 84–94. doi:10.1177/1534508411430321
56.
WilkinsonG. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test-3. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.
57.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.WerderJ. K. (1994). Woodcock- McGrew-Werder Mini-Battery of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
58.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
