The purpose of this study was to investigate the concurrent validity of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) in middle school using the Maze (MAZE); Oral Reading Fluency (ORF); and the Woodcock-Johnson, Third Edition (WJ-III), Passage Comprehension (WJ-PC) and Reading Fluency (WJ-RF) subtests. Fifty-five students in grades sixth through eighth with emotional and behavioral disorders participated in this study. Results indicated a strong correlation between the MAZE and the WJ-PC, while moderate correlations were found between the CBM Oral Reading Fluency and the Woodcock-Johnson subtests (passage comprehension and reading fluency). Limitations of the study, implications for practice, and future research are discussed.
Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Stieber, S. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7(4), 303-323.
2.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232.
3.
Deno, S.L., & Fuchs, L.S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1-16.
4.
Deno, S.L., Fuchs, L.S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurements to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507-524.
5.
Deno, S., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
6.
Deno, S., Mirkin, P., & Wesson, C. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16(2), 99-104.
7.
Erickson, R., Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Elliott, J. (1998). Inclusive assessment and accountability systems: Tools of the trade in educational reform. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 4-9.
8.
Espin, C.A., & Tindal, G. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students . In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum based measurement (pp. 214-253). New York: Guilford Press.
9.
Fewster, S., & Macmillan, P. (2002). School-based evidence for the validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading and writing. Remedial and Special Education , 23(3), 149-156.
10.
Fore, C., Boon, R., & Martin, C. (2007). Concurrent and predictive criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measurement for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. International Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 24-31.
11.
Fore, C., Burke, M., & Martin, C. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and problem-solving model: An emerging alternative to traditional assessment for African American children and youth. Journal of Negro Education, 75, 16-24.
12.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1997). Use of curriculum-based measurement in identifying students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children , 30(3), 1-16.
13.
Fuchs, L.S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188-192.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S., & Mirkin, P. (1984). Effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement and student awareness of learning . American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449-460.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45-58.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Phillips, N.B., & Bentz, J. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60(6), 518-537.
18.
Germann, G., & Tindal, G. (1985). An application of curriculum-based assessment: The use of direct and repeated measurement. Exceptional Children , 52(3), 244-265.
19.
Hintze, J., & Conte, K. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Criterion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level assessment . School Pyschology Review, 26(4) 535-553.
20.
Hintze, J.M., Owen, S.V., Shapiro, E.S., & Daly, E.J., III. (2000). Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G theory to curriculum-based measurement . School Psychology Quarterly15, 52-68.
21.
Martson, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn, Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
Marston, D.B., Mirkin, P.K., & Deno, S.L. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to traditional screening, referral, and identification. Journal of Special Education, 18(2), 109-117.
23.
Scott, T., Nelson, C.M., & Liaupsin, C.J. (2001). Effective instruction: The forgotten component in preventing school violence. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(3), 309-322.
24.
Shin, J., Deno, S., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education , 34(3), 164-172.
25.
Shinn, M.R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26.
Shinn, M.R. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement . New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27.
Shinn, M.R., & Good, R.H. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21(3), 459-479.
28.
Tilly, W., & Carlson, S. (1992). Creating measurement materials. In M. R. Shinn, N. Knuston , & W. D. Tilly (Eds.), Curriculum-based measurement training modules. Eugene: University of Oregon Press.
29.
Wehby, J.H., Lane, K.L., & Falk, K.B. (2003). Academic instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(4), 194-197.
30.
Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001). Examiner's manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
