The current study examines the technical adequacy of four Early Numeracy Curriculum-Based Measurement (EN-CBM) screening tasks: Oral Counting (OC), Number Identification (NI), Quantity Discrimination (QD), and Missing Number (MN). Results from 59 kindergarten students assessed in the fall and spring reveal moderate to high test—retest and delayed alternate-form reliability. In addition, data from the four measures demonstrate adequate concurrent and predictive validity by comparing them to an established measure of early numeracy. The measures demonstrated growth over time from the beginning to the end of kindergarten. Finally, combinations of the measures were evaluated post hoc, and the combination of NI, QD, and MN produced the highest reliability, validity, and rate of growth coefficients. Overall, results support the technical adequacy of EN-CBM for use with kindergarten-aged children.
Chard, D.J., Clarke, B., Baker, S., Otterstedt, J., Braun, D., & Katz, R. (2005). Using measures of number sense to screen for difficulties in mathematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 3-14.
2.
Clarke, B., & Shinn, M.R. (2004a). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234-248.
3.
Clarke, B., & Shinn, M.R. (2004b). Test of Early Numeracy (TEN). Administration and scoring of AIMSweb Early Numeracy Measure for use with AIMSweb. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
4.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
6.
Deno, S.L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
7.
Fletcher, J.M., & Lyon, G.R. (1998). Reading: A research-based approach. In W. M. Evers (Ed.), What's gone wrong in America's classrooms (pp. 49-90). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Hoover Institution Press.
8.
Floyd, R.G., Hojnoski, R., & Key, J. (2006). Preliminary evidence of the technical adequacy of the Preschool Numeracy Indicators. School Psychology Review , 35, 627-644.
9.
Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D.D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129-136.
10.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness to instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216-228.
11.
Geary, D.C. (1994). Children's mathematical development: Research and practical applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12.
Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 18-28.
13.
Gersten, R., Jordan, N.C., & Flojo, J.R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 38, 293-304.
14.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2002). Stanford Achievement Test (10th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
15.
Howell, S., & Kemp, C. (2005). Defining number sense: A participatoryAustralian study. Educational Psychology, 25, 555-571.
16.
Indiana Department of Education. (2005). Corporation snapshot, Richland-Bean Blossom C S C #5705. Retrieved June 29, 2006, from http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/SEARCH/snapcorp.cfm?corp=5705
17.
Jordan, N.C., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M.N., & Ramineni, C. (2007). Predicting first-grade math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 36-46.
18.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
19.
Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Torgesen, J.K., Wood, F.B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, Jr., R. A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.
20.
Malofeeva, E., Day, J., Saco, X., Young, L., & Ciancio, D. (2004). Construction and evaluation of a number sense test with Head Start children. Journal of Educational Psychology , 96, 648-659.
21.
Mazzocco, M., & Thompson, R.E. (2005). Kindergarten predictors of math learning disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 142-155.
22.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.
23.
National Center for Education Statistics. ( 2005). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2003 major results . Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/results2003/
24.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
25.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008 ). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
26.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up. Retrieved July 8, 2007, from http://www.nap.edu/books/0309069955/html/
27.
Okamoto, Y., & Case, R. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children's central conceptual structures in the domain of number. In R. Case & Y. Okamoto (Eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Vols. 1-2, pp. 27-58). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
28.
Pennington, B.F., & Lefly, D.L. (2001). Early reading development in children at family risk for dyslexia. Child Development, 72, 816-833.
29.
Scarborough, H.S. (2002). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97-110). New York: Guilford.
30.
Scott, M.S., & Delgado, C.F. (2003). Using educational placement in third grade to select and validate a preschool screening measure. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 565-582.
31.
Shapiro, E.S. (2005). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York : Guilford.
32.
Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
33.
Stevenson, H.W., & Newman, R.S. (1986). Long-term prediction of achievement and attitudes in mathematics and reading. Child Development, 57, 646-659.
Torgeson, J.K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7-26.
36.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved June 29, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/
37.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Broussard, C., & Cooley, A. (2006). Further development of measures of early math performance for preschoolers. Journal of School Psychology , 44, 533-553.
38.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Broussard, C., Fabre, M., Stanley, J., Legendre, J., & Creppell, R. (2004). Development and validation of curriculum-based measures of math performance for preschool children. Journal of Early Intervention, 27, 27-41.
39.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., Naquin, G., & Noell, G. (2001). The reliability and validity of curriculum-based measurement readiness probes for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 30, 363-382.
40.
Wagner, R.K., & Torgeson, J.K. (1987). The nature of phonological awareness and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.
41.
Whitehurst, G.J., & Lonigan, C.J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848-872.
