The purpose of this extended commentary article is to frame the set of studies in the first of two issues and recommend areas of inquiry for future research. This special series issue features studies examining the technical qualities of formative assessment procedures that were developed to inform intervention. This article intends to emphasize issues in the current set of studies that do not appear central to early numeracy curriculum-based measurement (EN-CBM) research. To the extent possible, we expect that this two-volume series will result in scientific and practical advances. Despite this lofty intention, this series can neither represent all issues important to stakeholders nor characterize the full body of applied and basic research in early numeracy assessment. As such, we focus on a set of theoretical frameworks to guide the current and future development of EN-CBM.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AnckerJ. S.KaufmanD. (2007). Rethinking health numeracy: A multidisciplinary literature review. Journal of the American Medical Information Association, 14, 713–721.
3.
BaroodyA. J. (2004). The developmental bases for early childhood operations and number standards. In ClementsD. H.SaramaJ. (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 173–220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BerchD. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 333–339.
5.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–144.
ChristT. J.ScullinS.TolbizeA.JibanC. L. (2008). Implications of recent research: Curriculum-based measurement of math computation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 198–205.
8.
ClementsD. H. (2004). Major themes and recommendations. In ClementsD. H.SaramaJ. (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 7–12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
DehaeneS.PiazzaM.PinelP.CohenL.CampbellJ. I. D. (2005). Three parietal circuits for number processing. In Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 433–453). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
10.
DenoS. L. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36, 5.
11.
DesoeteA.CeulemansA.RoeyersH.HuylebroeckA. (2009). Subitizing or counting as possible screening variables for learning disabilities in mathematics education or learning?Educational Research Review, 4, 55–66.
12.
DonelleL.Hoffman-GoetzL.ArochaJ. F. (2007). Assessing health numeracy among community-dwelling older adults. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 651–665.
13.
FaganT. K. (1999). Training school psychologists before there were school psychologist training programs: A history. In ReynoldsC. R.GutkinT. B. (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (pp. 2–33). New York, NY: John Wiley.
14.
FloydR. G.HojnoskiR.KeyJ. (2006). Preliminary evidence of the technical adequacy of the preschool numeracy indicators. School Psychology Review, 35, 627–644.
15.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
16.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500.
17.
GerstenR.JordanN. C.FlojoJ. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304.
18.
GriffinS. A.CaseR.SieglerR. S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In McGillyK. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 25–49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
GriffinS. A.ClementsD. (2007). Number worlds: A prevention/intervention curriculum. Columbus, OH: Science Research Associates.
20.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J.MetheS. A. (2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 45–56.
21.
HospJ. L. (in press). Using assessment data to make decisions about teaching and learning. In HarrisK. R.GrahamS.UrdanT. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 3. Application to learning and teaching (pp. 87–109). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
22.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford.
23.
JordanN. C.KaplanD.LocuniakM. N.RamineniC. (2007). Predicting first-grade math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 36–46.
24.
LagoR. M.DiPernaJ. C. (2010). Number sense in kindergarten: A factor-analytic study of the construct. School Psychology Review, 39, 164–180.
MetheS. A. (2009). Big ideas: Missing pieces in early mathematics assessment. Communiqué, 38, 1, 4–5.
27.
MetheS. A.McCullochL. M.BettsJ.FloydR. G.BowlerM. B. (2011). Synthesis of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement research. Manuscript submitted for publication.
28.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through 8th grade mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.
29.
National Research Council. (Ed.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30.
OgdenT. E.GoldbergI. A. (2002). Research proposals: A guide to success. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
31.
RiccominiP. J.WitzelB. S. (2010). Response to intervention in math. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
32.
ScottD. (1999). Essential ingredients for numeracy. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 4, 4–8.
33.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
34.
SongM. J.GinsburgH. P. (1987). The development of informal and formal mathematical thinking in Korean and U.S. children. Child Development, 58, 1286–1296.
35.
WilsonA. J.DehaeneS.DuboisO.FayolM. (2009). Effects of an adaptive game intervention on accessing number sense in low-socioeconomic-status kindergarten children. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 224–234.
