Curriculum-based measurement and Gickling's model of curriculum-based assessment have been proposed as approaches that more closely link assessment and intervention. Research has clearly supported the independent use of these two models in improving student learning, but some have argued for a more comprehensive approach that combines the different curriculum-based metrics. This article demonstrates procedures for implementing the two models concurrently in a comprehensive assessment and intervention system by discussing three case studies. The first is an example of reading difficulties in a general education setting, the second is a student experiencing mathematical difficulties in a general education curriculum, and the third is a student participating in special education for reading difficulties. Suggestions and cautions for practice are included.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Burns, M.K., MacQuarrie, L.L., & Campbell, D.T. (1999). The difference between instructional assessment (curriculum-based assessment) and curriculum-based measurement: A focus on purpose and result. Communiqué, 27, 18—19.
2.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219—232.
3.
Deno, S.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review , 15, 358—374.
4.
Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special needs children (pp. 1—17). New York: Guilford Press.
5.
Enggren, P., & Kovaleski, J.F. (1996). Instructional assessment . Harrisburg, PA: Instructional Support System of Pennsylvania.
6.
Fuchs, L.S. (1989). Evaluating solutions: Monitoring progress and revising intervention plans. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special needs children (pp. 153—181). New York: Guilford Press.
7.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199—208.
8.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Allinder, R.M. (1991). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57, 443—452.
9.
Gersten, R., Keating, T., & Irvin, L.K. (1995). The burden of proof: Validity as improvement of instructional practice. Exceptional Children, 61, 510—519.
10.
Gickling, E.E., & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculum-based assessment. Minneapolis, MN: School Psychology Inservice Training Network.
11.
Gickling, E., & Rosenfield, S. (1995). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp.587—595). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
12.
Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment . Exceptional Children,52, 205—218.
13.
Hargis, C. (1995). Curriculum-based assessment: A primer. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
14.
Hasbrouck, J.E., Woldbeck, T., Ihnot, C., Parker, R.I. (1999). One teacher's use of curriculum-based measurement: A changed opinion. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 14, 118—126.
15.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 113—142). New York: Guilford Press.
16.
Kovaleski, J.F., Tucker, J.A., & Duffy, D.J. (1995). School reform through instructional support: The Pennsylvania Initiative (Part I). Communiqué, 23(8).
17.
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 Press.
18.
Messick, S. (1995). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 33—46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
Phillips, N.B., Hamlett, C.L., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1993). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 8, 148—156.
20.
Reschly, D.J. (2000). The present and future status of school psychology in the United States. School Psychology Review, 29, 507—522.
21.
Roberts, M.L., & Shapiro, E.S. (1996). Effects of instructional ratios on students' reading performance in a regular education program. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 73—91.
22.
Ross, P.A., Poidevant, J.M., & Miner, C.U. (1995). Curriculum-based assessment of writing fluency in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and normal children . Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties , 11, 201—208.
23.
Shapiro, E.S. (1992). Use of Gickling's model of curriculum-based assessment to improve reading in elementary age students. School Psychology Review, 21, 168—176.
24.
Shapiro, E.S., & Ager, C. (1992). Assessment of special education students in regular education programs: Linking assessment to instruction. Elementary School Journal, 92, 283—296.
25.
Shapiro, E.S., & Eckert, T.L. (1993). Curriculum-based assessment among school psychologists: Knowledge, use, and attitudes. Journal of School Psychology , 31, 375—383.
26.
Shinn, M.R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 90—129). New York: Guilford Press.
27.
Shinn, M.R. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 547—568). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists .
28.
Shinn, M.R., Rosenfield, S., & Knutson, N. (1989). Curriculum-based assessment: A comparison of models . School Psychology Review, 18, 299—316.
29.
Stecker, P.M., & Fuchs, L.S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 128—134.
30.
Tucker, J.A. (1989). Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal. (Unpublished teaching materials available from author. J. A. Tucker, Hunter Hall, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN37403)
31.
Ysseldyke, J.E., & Marston, D. (1990). The use of assessment information to plan instructional interventions: A review of research. In T. B. Gutkins & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 661—682). New York: Wiley .
