This study investigated the technical adequacy of 3 simple, 1-min curriculum-based measurements (CBM) for predicting third (n = 35) and fifth (n = 49) graders' performance on a state standards test of mathematics. Measures included 2 numeric CBMs: a traditional basic facts measure and a new “cloze” math facts measure, designed to require deeper understanding of fact families. A silent reading measure served as third predictor CBM. Results indicated that reliability and criterion validity of 1-min administrations were insufficient. When scores from 2 administrations were aggregated, moderate correlations were achieved. Results of aggression analysis showed that reading and cloze math measures each made significant unique contributions to explaining performance on the state math test and together explained 52% of variance at fifth grade and 27% at third grade.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bay-Williams, J.M. (2001). What is algebra in elementary school?Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(4), 196—200.
2.
Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Steiber, S. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7(4), 303—323.
3.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219—232.
4.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993). Performance in reading from content area text as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education , 14, 47—59.
5.
Espin, C.A., Deno, S.L., Maruyama, G., & Cohen, C. (1989, April). The Basic Academic Skills Sample (BASS): An instrument for the screening and identification of children at risk for failure in regular education classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association , San Francisco, CA.
6.
Femiano, R.B. (2003). Algebraic problem solving in the primary grades . Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(8), 444—449.
7.
Fletcher, J.M. (2005). Predicting math outcomes: Reading predictors and comorbidity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 308—312.
8.
Foegen, A., & Deno, S.L. (2001). Identifying growth indicators for low-achieving students in middle school mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 4—16.
9.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Enhancing the mathematical problem solving of students with mathematics disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp. 306—322). New York: Guilford Press.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Thompson, A., Roberts, P.H., Kupek, P., & Stecker, P.M. (1994). Technical features of a mathematics concepts and applications curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique , 19(4), 23—49.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C.L., & Katzaroff, M. (1999). Mathematics performance assessment in the classroom: Effects on teacher planning and student problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 609—646.
12.
Gagne, R.M. (1983). Some issues in the psychology of mathematics instruction . Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 7—18.
13.
Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 18—28.
14.
Gersten, R., Jordan, N.C., & Flojo, J.R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 38(4), 293—304.
15.
Greeno, J.G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 170—218.
16.
Hasselbring, T.S., Goin, L.I., & Bransford, J.D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus onExceptional Children, 20(6), 1—7.
17.
Helwig, R., Anderson, L., & Tindal, G. (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(2), 102—112.
18.
Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., Heath, B., & Tindal, G. (1999). Reading as an access to math problem-solving on multiple choice tests. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 113—125.
19.
Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (1999). Using general outcome measures in mathematics to measure adequate yearly progress as mandated by Title I. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(1), 9—18.
20.
Howell, D.C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
21.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). It doesn't add up: African American students' mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 697—708.
22.
Lubinski, C.A., & Otto, A.D. (2002). Meaningful mathematical representations and early algebraic reasoning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(2), 76—80.
23.
McGrew, K.S., & Pehl, J. (1988). Prediction of future achievement by the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery and the WISC-R. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 275—281.
24.
Moses, R.P., & Cobb, C.E., Jr. (2001). Civil rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Boston: Beacon Press.
25.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
26.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
27.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. (1997). Using CBM to explore a consequential basis for the validity of a state-wide performance assessment . Diagnostique, 22(3), 146—163.
28.
Reys, R.E., & Yang, D. (1998). Relationship between computational performance and number sense among sixth- and eighth-grade students in Taiwan. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 225—237.
Stage, S.A., & Jacobsen, M.D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency . School Psychology Review, 30(3), 407—419.
31.
Tate, W.F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 652—679.
32.
Thurber, R.S., Shinn, M.R., & Smolkowski, K. (2002). What is measured in mathematics tests? Construct validity of curriculum-based mathematics measures. School Psychology Review, 31(4), 498—513.
33.
Tindal, G., Germann, G.D. & Deno, S. (1983). The effectiveness of special education: A direct measurement approach (Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities Rep. No. 123). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
34.
Vance, J.H. (1998). Number operations from an algebraic perspective . Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 282—285.
35.
Woodward, J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36(2), 89—101.
