Research and development of measures to document ongoing learning within the content areas are in the beginning stages. As such, the current study adds to efforts in the development of the vocabulary-matching measure. Using a modified format of the previously studied vocabulary-matching measure, 63 middle school students completed alternate forms of an administrator-read science measure weekly across 24 data collection periods. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analysis revealed a significant mean growth rate across time (0.26 items per week), significant individual variation in learning rates, and growth rate differences that were significantly predicted by student disability status. General education students had a higher rate of growth than those with disabilities included for science. Results are analyzed and limitations as well as directions for future research are discussed. It is concluded that current findings lend additional validity support to the interpretation of vocabulary-matching scores as indices of learning in the content areas.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. ( 1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association .
2.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Executive summary: Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/projects/archive/nlpreports/executive_summary.pdf
3.
Busch, T.W., & Espin, C.A. ( 2003). Using curriculum-based measurement to prevent failure and assess learning in the content areas. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3-4), 49-58. doi:10.1177/073724770302800306
4.
Deno, S.L. ( 1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
5.
Deno, S.L. ( 2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives . Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3-4), 3-12.
6.
Espin, C.A., Busch, T.W., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. (2001). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 16, 142-151. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00015
7.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. ( 1993). Performance in reading from content area text as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 47-59. doi:10.1177/074193259301400610
8.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. ( 1994-1995). Curriculum-based measures for secondary students: Utility and task specificity of text-based reading and vocabulary measures for predicting performance on content-area tasks. Diagnostique, 20, 121-142.
9.
Espin, C.A., & Foegen, A. ( 1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting 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 the content areas: Vocabulary matching as an indicator of progress in social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 353-363. doi:10.1177/0022219405 0380041301
11.
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, NY: Guilford.
12.
Good, R.H., III, Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2002). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcome-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Vol. 1 (4th ed., pp. 699-720). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
13.
Good, R.H., III, & Jefferson, G. ( 1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61-88). New York, NY: Guilford.
14.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(6) (2004).
15.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002).
16.
Shin, J., Espin, C.A., Deno, S.L., & McConnell, S. ( 2004). Use of hierarchical linear modeling and curriculum-based measurement for assessing academic growth and instructional factors for students with learning difficulties. Asia Pacific Education Review , 5, 136-148. doi:10.1007/BF03024951
17.
Shinn, M.M., & Shinn, M.R. ( 2002). AIMSweb® training work-book: Administration and scoring of Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. Retrieved from http://www.aimsweb.com/uploads/files/adminandscoringrcbm09292005.pdf
18.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford.
19.
Shinn, M.R., & Bamonto, S. ( 1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: "Big ideas" and avoiding confusion. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Guilford .
20.
Shinn, M.R., Rosenfield, S., & Knutson, N. ( 1989). Curriculum-based assessment: A comparison of models. School Psychology Review, 18, 299-316.
21.
Shinn, M.R., Tindal, G.A., & Stein, S. ( 1988). Curriculum-based measurement and the identification of mildly handicapped students: A research review. Professional School Psychology, 3, 69-85.
22.
Sirin, S.R. ( 2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417-453. doi:10.3102/00346543075003417
23.
Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. ( 1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(7), 1-22.
