Repeated measurements of student ability (i.e., progressing monitoring) is an essential element of informed decision-making when adjusting instruction. An important characteristic of progress monitoring measures is frequent administration to identify areas of concern and to evaluate academic growth. The purpose of this study was to determine if STAR Math is sensitive to small incremental growth across a semester. Within two southern school districts, 114 fifth grade students’ progress monitoring data were collected weekly, and a latent growth curve was used to estimate students’ change in math ability. Results indicated STAR Math is sensitive to small incremental growth, with a statistically significant and positive slope, suggesting students using STAR Math showed improvement in ability over the semester.
ChardD.ClarkeB.BakerS.OtterstedtJ.BraunD.KatzR. (2005). Using measures of number sense to screen for difficulties in mathematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 3–14.
2.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
De Los ReyesA.LangerD. A. (2018). Assessment and the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology’s Evidence Base Updates Series: Evaluating the tools for gathering evidence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 47, 357–365.
4.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
5.
DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.MarstonD.ShinJ. H. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
6.
FairchildT.ZinsJ. (1986). Accountability practices of school counselors: A national survey. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 196–199.
7.
FoegenA. (2000). Technical adequacy of general outcome measures for middle school mathematics. Diagnostique, 25, 175–203.
8.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A literature review. Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139.
9.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
10.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2008). Best practices in progress monitoring reading and mathematics at the elementary grades. In GrimesJ.ThomasA. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 2147–2164). National Association of School Psychologists.
12.
HunsleyJ.MashE. J. (2008).). A guide to assessments that work. Oxford University Press.
Keller-MargulisM. A.ShapiroE. S.HintzeJ. M. (2008). Long-term diagnostic accuracy of curriculum-based measures in reading and mathematics. School Psychology Review, 37, 374–390.
15.
KennyD. A.KaniskanB.McCoachD. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 486–507.
16.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
17.
MetheS. A.BrieshA. M.HulacD. (2015). Evaluating procedures for reducing measurement error in math curriculum-based measurement probes. Assessment for Effective Interventions, 40, 99–113.
18.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).
RosenthalR. (1994). Parametric measure of effect size. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). Russell Sage Foundation.
23.
ShapiroE. S.DennisM. S.FuQ. (2015). Comparing computer adaptive and curriculum-based measures of math in progress monitoring. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 470–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000116
24.
ShapiroE. S.EdwardsL.ZigmondN. (2005). Progress monitoring of mathematics among students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 15–32.
25.
ShapiroE. S.GebhardtS. N. (2012). Comparing computer-adaptive and curriculum-based measurement methods of assessment. School Psychology Review, 41, 295–305.
26.
SteigerJ. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Difference, 42, 893–898.
27.
StufflebeamD. L. (1968). Evaluation as enlightenment for decision-making. Evaluation Center, The Ohio State University.
28.
van der LindenW. J.GlasC. A. W. (2000). Computerized adapted testing: Theory and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TichaR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
30.
WeissC. H. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531–545.
31.
WestS. G.TaylorA. B.WuW. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–239). Guilford Press.
32.
YoungstromE. A.Van MeterA.FrazierT. W.HunsleyJ.PrinsteinM. J.OngM. L.YoungstromJ. K. (2017). Evidence-based assessment as an integrative model for applying psychological science to the voyage of treatment. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 24, 331–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12207
