The results from a year-long study to investigate the technical features of easyCBM mathematics screening measures for first grade are presented. Measures were designed based on the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Curriculum Focal Point standards, which for Grade 1 include (a) Number and Operations and Algebra, (b) Number and Operations, and (c) Geometry (2006). A sample of 145 students was assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year. Reliability of the measures was adequate, and concurrent and predictive validity results—with the TerraNova 3—were moderate. Receiver operating curve analyses, based on mathematics difficulty below the 25th and 40th percentile, indicated adequate classification accuracy. We examine results from the study in the context of linking assessment to instructional decision making.
AlonzoJ.TindalG.UlmerK.GlasgowA. (2006). easyCBM online progress monitoring assessment system. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Assessment Accountability. Retrieved from http://easycbm.com.
2.
AndersonD.TindalG.AlonzoJ. (2009). Internal consistency of general outcome measures in Grade 1–8. Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.brtprojects.org/publications/technical-reports.
3.
BerchD. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 333–339.
4.
BodovskiK.FarkasG. (2007). Do instructional practices contribute to inequality in achievement? The case of mathematics instruction in kindergarten. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5, 301–322.
5.
BryantD. P.BryantB.GerstenR.ScammaccaN.ChavezM. M. (2008). Mathematics intervention for first- and second-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Remedial & Special Education, 29, 20–32. doi:10.1177/0741932507309712.
6.
ClarkeB.BakerS. K.ChardD. (2008). Best practices in mathematics assessment and intervention with elementary students. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. V, pp. 453–464). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
7.
ClarkeB.BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.ChardD. J. (2008). An analysis of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 46–57. doi:10.1177/0741932507309694.
8.
ClarkeB.GerstenR.Newman-GoncharR. (2010). RtI in mathematics. In GloverT. A.VaughnS. (Eds.), The promise of response to intervention: Evaluating current science and practice (pp. 187–202). New York, NY: Guilford.
9.
ClarkeB.ShinnM. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248.
10.
ClarkeB.SmolkowskiK.BakerS. K.FienH.ChardD. (in press). The impact of a comprehensive tier 1 kindergarten curriculum on the achievement of students at-risk in mathematics. Elementary School Journal.
11.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104.
12.
CronbachL. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. doi:10.1007/bf02310555.
DuncanG. J.DowsettC. J.ClaessensA.MagnusonK.HustonA. C.KlebanovP.. . . JapelC. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428.
15.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2008). Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: IRA.
16.
FuchsL.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.PaulsenK.BryantB.HamlettC. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513.
17.
FuchsL.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.BryantJ. D.HamlettC.SeethalerP. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, 73, 311–330.
18.
GerstenR.BeckmannS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarchL.StarJ. R.WitzelB. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools(Practice Guide Report: NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
19.
GerstenR.ChardD. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 18–28.
20.
GerstenR.ClarkeB.JordanN. C.Newman-GoncharR.WilkinsC.HaymondK. (2011). Identification of students likely to experience difficulties in learning mathematics in the primary grades: Beginnings of a research base. Manuscript in preparation.
21.
GoodmanL.KruskalW. (1954). Measures of association for cross classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 732–764.
22.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (b) (A), Pub. L. No. 108–466 (2004).
23.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174–185. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00291.x.
24.
JohnstoneC.AltmanJ.ThurlowM. (2006). A state guide to the development of universally designed assessments. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED495885.
25.
JordanN. C.GluttingJ.RamineniC.WatkinsM. W. (2010). Validating a number sense screening tool for use in kindergarten and first grade: Prediction of mathematics proficiency in third grade. School Psychology Review, 39, 181–195.
26.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.WuQ. (2009). Five-year growth trajectories of kindergarten children with learning difficulties in mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 306–321.
29.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation’s report card: Trial urban district assessment. Mathematics 2009. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
30.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/focalpoints.aspx?id=282
31.
National Governors Association, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core standards for mathematics. Retrieved from Common Core State Standards Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College & Career website: http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics
32.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
33.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication: 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm
34.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematics Learning Study Committee.
35.
NeseJ.LaiC.-F.AndersonD.JamgochianE. M.KamataA.SaezL.. . . TindalG. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM mathematics measures: Grades 3–8, 2009–2010 version (Technical Report: No. 1007). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.brtprojects.org/publications/technical-reports
36.
Newman-GoncharR.ClarkeB.GerstenR. (2009). A summary of nine key studies: Muti-tier intervention and response to interventions for students struggling in mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
OlsonJ. F.MartinM. O.MullisI. V. S. (2008). TIMSS 2007 Technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
39.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ. (2004). Assessment in special and inclusive education (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
40.
SeethalerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2010). The predictive utility of kindergarten screening for math difficulty. Exceptional Children, 77, 37–59.
41.
SilberglittB.HintzeJ. M. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304–325.
42.
StageS. A.JacobsenM. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using Oral Reading Fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407–420.
