The purpose of this study was to examine technical and instructional features of a kindergarten curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tool designed to track students’ mathematics progress in terms of computational concepts, procedures, and counting strategies. Students in 10 kindergarten classrooms in three elementary schools completed alternate forms of the CBM measure twice per month from January to May. Mathematics development was indexed on a standardized mathematics achievement test in May. Findings indicate strong reliability and validity of the CBM system, with coefficients exceeding .80 and .60, respectively. Technical features of the CBM system’s skills analysis suggest implications for teachers’ instructional decision-making.
BerchD. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 333–339.
2.
ClarkeB.BakerS.SmolkowskiK.ChardD. (2008). An analysis of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement: Examining the role of growth in student outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 46–57.
3.
ClarkeB.ShinnM. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248.
4.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.GilbertJ. K.BarqueroL. A.. . . CrouchR. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–340.
5.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
6.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. L. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139.
7.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
8.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.HollenbeckK. N.HamlettC. L.SeethalerP. M. (in press). Two-stage screening for math problem-solving difficulty using dynamic assessment of algebraic learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–21.
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.BryantJ. D.HamlettC. L.SeethalerP. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring in first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, 73, 311-330.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.SteckerP. M. (1991). The role of skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psychology Review, 19, 6–22.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.ThompsonA.RobertsP. H.KubecP.SteckerP. M. (1994). Technical features of a mathematics concepts and applications curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique, 19, 23–49.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ZumetaR. O. (2008). A curricular-sampling approach to progress monitoring: Mathematics concepts and applications. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 225–233.
14.
GearyD. C.BaileyD. H.HoardM. K. (2009). Predicting mathematical achievement and mathematical learning disability with a simple screening tool. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 265–279.
15.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.Byrd-CravenJ.DeSotoM. C. (2004). Strategy choices in simple and complex addition: Contributions of working memory and counting knowledge for children with arithmetical disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 121–151.
16.
GerstenR.JordanN. C.FlojoJ. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304.
17.
GinsburgH.BaroodyA. (2003). Test of Early Mathematics Ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
18.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174–185.
19.
JordanN. C.HanichL. B. (2003). Characteristics of children with moderate mathematics deficiencies: A longitudinal perspective. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 213–221.
20.
JordanN. C.KaplanD.LocuniakM. N.RamineniC. (2007). Predicting first-grade math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 36–46.
21.
LembkeE.FoegenA. (2009). Identifying early numeracy indicators for kindergarten and first-grade students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 12–20.
22.
MartinezR. S.MissallK. N.GraneyS. B.AricakO. T.ClarkeB. (2009). Technical adequacy of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement in kindergarten. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 116–125.
23.
McClishD. K. (1989). Analyzing a portion of the ROC curve. Medical Decision Making, 9, 190–195.
24.
MetheS. A.HintzeJ. M.FloydR. G. (2008). Validation and decision accuracy of early numeracy skill indicators. School Psychology Review, 37, 359–373.
25.
SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.CarlsonC.FoormanB. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparison analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–282.
26.
SeethalerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2010). The predictive utility of kindergarten screening for math difficulty. Exceptional Children, 77, 37–59.
27.
VanDerHeydenA. M.WittJ. C.NaquinG.NoellG. (2001). The reliability and validity of curriculum-based measurement readiness probes for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 30, 363–382.
