Data collection procedures using adapted Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA) and Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) were developed for deaf and hard of hearing students. Results from statistical analyses through linear regression indicated that reading fluency scores using CBA and CBM materials adapted for deaf and hard of hearing students significantly predicted total reading standard scores from the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation or GRADE across a 10-year (2005–2008 and 2012–2014) time span. The purpose of the present article is to review these procedures and significant results, which help to provide a foundation to demonstrate the utility of curriculum-based approaches with deaf and hard of hearing students.
AllinderR. M.EccariusM. A. (1999). Exploring the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement in reading for children who use manually coded English. Exceptional Children, 65, 271–283.
2.
BarnesA. C.HarlacherJ. E. (2008). Clearing the confusion: Response-to-intervention as a set of principles. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 417–431.
3.
BatscheG.ElliottJ.GradenJ. L.GrimesJ.KovaleskiJ. F.PrasseD.. . . TillyW. D.III. (2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
4.
BurnsM. K.AppletonJ. J.StehouwerJ. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness to intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.
5.
CawthonS. W. (2013). A breadth of perspectives on CBM. American Annals of the Deaf, 158, 387–389.
6.
CramerK.RosenfieldS. (2008). Effects of degrees of challenge on reading performance. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24, 199–227.
7.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
8.
DenoS. L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358–374.
9.
DenoS. L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and alternative special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
11.
ElliottS. N.FuchsL. S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessment as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224–233.
12.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (Eds.). (2008). Response to intervention. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
13.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 58, 232–243.
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PowellS. (2004). Using CBM for progress monitoring. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
15.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
16.
GibbonsE.MillerB. D. (2013, February). Contemporary assessment practices among school psychologists with expertise in deafness. Presentation at the National Association of School Psychologists 2013 Annual Convention, Seattle, WA.
17.
GicklingE. E.HavertapeJ. F. (1981). Curriculum-based assessment. In TuckerJ. A. (Ed.), Non-test based assessment (pp. 189–410). Minneapolis: National School Psychology Inservice Training Network, University of Minnesota.
18.
GicklingE. E.ShaneR. L.CroskeryK. M. (1989). Developing math skills in low-achieving high school students through curriculum-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 18, 344–356.
19.
GravoisT. A.GicklingE. E. (2008). Best practices in instructional assessment. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 503–518). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
20.
GravoisT. A.GicklingE. E.RosenfieldS. (2011). Training in instructional consultation, assessment, and teaming: Book 3: Skill sessions 4–7. Baltimore, MD: ICAT Publishing.
21.
HammillD. D.WiederholtJ. L.AllenE. A. (2006). TOSCRF—Test of silent contextual reading fluency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
22.
HasbrouckJ.TindalG. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644.
23.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
LederbergA. R.SchickB.SpencerP. E. (2012). Language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Successes and challenges. Developmental Psychology, 49, 15–30.
25.
LucknerJ. (2013). Using the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills with students who are deaf or hard of hearing: Perspectives of a panel of experts. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(1), 7–19.
26.
LucknerJ.BowenS. K. (2010). Teachers’ use and perceptions of progress monitoring. American Annals of the Deaf, 155, 397–406.
27.
LucknerJ.PierceC. (2013). Response to intervention and students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Deafness & Education International, 15, 222–240.
28.
MacQuarrieL. L.TuckerJ. A.BurnsM. K.HartmanB. (2002). Comparison of retention rates using traditional, drill sandwich, and incremental rehearsal flash card methods. School Psychology Review, 31, 584–595.
29.
MillerB. D. (2011, February). Utility of curriculum-based approaches for students with hearing loss. Presentation at the National Association of School Psychologists 2011 Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA.
30.
MooresD. F. (2008). Improving academic achievement: Can a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) model help?American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 347–348.
31.
PoehnerM. (2011). Frames of interaction in dynamic assessment: Developmental diagnoses of second language learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 183–198.
32.
RoseS.McAnallyR. (2008, February). Curriculum-based measurement (CBM): A process for monitoring progress. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of College Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Monterey, CA.
33.
RosenfieldS.GravoisT.SilvaA. (2014). Bringing instructional consultation to scale: Research and development of IC and IC teams. In ErchulW.SheridanS. (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (2nd ed., pp. 248–275). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
ShanahanT.FisherD.FreyN. (2012). The challenge of challenging text. Educational Leadership, 69, 58–62.
35.
ShapiroE. (2010). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
ShinnM. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
37.
ShinnM. R. (Ed.). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
38.
TindalG. (1993). A review of curriculum-based procedures on nine assessment components. In KramerJ. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement (pp. 25–64). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
39.
TreptowM. A. (2006). Reading at students’ frustrational, instructional, and independent levels: Effects on comprehension and time on-task. Minneapolis: Center for Reading Research, University of Minnesota.
40.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Deaf and hard of hearing children: Federal support for developing language and literacy. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-II-357
41.
WilliamsK. T. (2001). Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
