In this article, the authors describe the use of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) reading measures within a response-to-intervention (RTI) framework. They examine the characteristics of the measures to illustrate their technical adequacy for use at each tier in an RTI model. Finally, they look at the use of the measures at Tier 3 (special education services) with respect to informing instruction and satisfying the legal requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bateman, B.D., & Linden, M.A. (2006). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and educationally useful programs (4th ed.). Verona, WI: Attainment/IEP Resources .
2.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L. , & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
3.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219—232.
4.
Deno, S.L. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 5—10.
5.
Deno, S.L. (2003). Developments in curriculum based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184—192.
6.
Deno, S.L., & Espin, C.A. (1989, April). The Basic Academic Skills Samples: An instrument for screening and identifying children at risk for failure in the regular education classroom. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
7.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
8.
Espin, C.A., Busch, T.W., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. (2001). Curriculum-based measures in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance in a social studies classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 142—151.
9.
Espin, C.A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of three general outcome measures for predicting secondary students' performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497—514.
10.
Espin, C.A., Shin, J., & Busch, T.W. (2005). Curriculum-based measurement in content areas: Vocabulary matching as an indicator of progress in social studies learning . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 353—363.
11.
Fletcher, J.M., Coulter, W.A., Reschly, D.J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of Learning Disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(2), 304—331.
12.
Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K., et al. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley , L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185—250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Fuchs, D. (2006, November). Findings from longitudinal work at the National Research Center on learning disabilities. Presentation at the annual conference of the Division of Learning Disabilities of theCouncil for Exceptional Children, San Francisco, CA.
14.
Fuchs, L.S. (1995, April). Curriculum-based measurement and eligibility decision making: An emphasis on treatment validity and growth. Paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences' Workshop on Alternatives to IQ Testing, Washington, DC.
15.
Fuchs, L.S. (1998). Computer applications to address implementation difficulties associated with curriculum-based measurement. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 89—112). New York : Guilford Press.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45—58.
18.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204—219.
19.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989a). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 55, 429—438.
20.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989b). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 43—52.
21.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Waltz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 21, 45—58.
22.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239—256.
23.
Fuchs, L.S., & Shinn, M.R. (1989). Writing CBM IEP Objectives. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 130—152). New York: Guilford Press.
24.
Gresham, F.M., & Witt, J.C. (1997). Utility of intelligence tests for treatment planning, classification, and placement decisions: Recent empirical findings and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 249—267.
25.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004)(reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990)
26.
Jenkins, J.R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59(5), 421—432.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18—78). New York: Guilford Press.
29.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D.H., & Mercer, A.R. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 19, 217—232.
30.
Reschly, D.J. (1988). Special education reform: School psychology revolution . School Psychology Review, 17, 459—475.
31.
Reschly, D.J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 510—515.
32.
Reschly, D.J., & Hosp, J.L. (2004). State SLD policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197—213.
33.
Shin, J., Deno, S.L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. The Journal of Special Education , 34(3), 164—172.
34.
Vaughan, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137—146.
35.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, G.R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-Achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223—238.
36.
Yell, M.L., & Stecker, P.M. (2003). Developing legally correct and educationally meaningful IEPs using curriculum based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 73—88.
