Oral reading tasks and Maze reading tasks are often used interchangeably to assess the level and rate of reading skill development. This study examined the concurrent validity of growth estimates derived from Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM-R) and Maze Reading (CBM-mR). Participants were 1,528 students from Grades 3 to 8. CBM-R and CBM-mR were administered in fall, winter, and spring. Results indicate that CBM-R growth estimates are not correlated with CBM-mR growth estimates as derived with bivariate latent growth modeling (BLGM). In addition, results indicate that CBM growth estimates do not contribute to predictions of student performance on statewide assessments. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.KatzR.FienH.SeeleyJ. R.Kame’enuiE. J.Thomas BeckC. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high-poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37.
2.
BuschT. W.ReschlyA. L. (2007). Progress monitoring in reading: Using curriculum-based measurement in a response-to-intervention model. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 223–230.
3.
CattsH. W.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.BridgesM. S.MendozaK. (2009). Floor effects associated with universal screening and their impact on the early identification of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 163–176.
4.
ChristT. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimating standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133.
5.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
6.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
7.
DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.MarstonD.ShinJ. H. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
8.
DenoS. L.ReschlyA. L.LembkeE. S.MagnussonD.CallenderS. A.WindramH. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 44–55.
9.
DuncanT. E.DuncanS. C.StryckerL. A. (2006). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L.MaruyamaG.CohenC. (1989, April). The basic academic skills samples: An instrument for screening and identifying children at risk for failure in the regular education classroom. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP.CaresaL. Y. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
13.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2004). Determining adequate yearly progress from Kindergarten through grade 6 with curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29, 25–37.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.WalzL.GermannG. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.
17.
GoodR. H.BakerS. K.PeytonJ. A. (2009). Making sense of nonsense word fluency: Determining adequate progress in early first-grade reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 33–56.
18.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.
19.
GraneyS. B.MartínezR. S.MissallK. N.AricakO. T. (2010). Universal screening of reading in late elementary school: R-CBM versus CBM maze. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 368–377.
20.
GriffithsA.-J.VanDerHeydenA. M.SkokutM.LillesE. (2009). Progress monitoring in oral reading fluency within the context of RTI. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 13–23.
21.
HowellD. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
22.
HuL.-t.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
23.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of2004, Pub. L. 108-466.
24.
JenkinsJ. R.JewellM. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and Maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421–432.
25.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
26.
KuhnM. R.StahlS. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21.
27.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
28.
MarstonD. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.
29.
MillerN.DeLappR.DriscollR. (2007). Group anxiety reduction with sixth grade students. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 498824).
30.
MingC.CongerR. D.LorenzF. O. (2005). Predicting change in adolescent adjustment from change in marital problems. Developmental Psychology, 41, 812–823.
31.
PerfettiC. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford Press.
32.
SchatschneiderC.WagnerR. K.CrawfordE. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning & Individual Differences, 18, 308–315.
ShinnM. R.GoodR. H.KnutsonN.TillyW. D.CollinsV. L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459–479.
35.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
36.
SilberglittB.HintzeJ. M. (2007). How much growth can we expect? A conditional analysis of R-CBM growth rates by level of performance. Exceptional Children, 74, 71–84.
37.
SpeeceD. L.HinesS. J. (2008). Identifying children who require different instruction in a response to instruction framework. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 15, 34–40.
38.
StageS. A.JacobsenM. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407–419.
39.
SteckerP. M.LembkeE. S.FoegenA. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision making. Preventing School Failure, 52, 48–58.
40.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TichaR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
41.
YeoS. (2008). Relation between 1-minute CBM reading aloud measure and reading comprehension tests: A multilevel meta-analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
42.
YeoS. (2010). Predicting performance on statewide achievement tests using curriculum-based measurement in reading: A multilevel meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 412–422.
43.
YeoS. (2011). Reliability generalization of curriculum-based measurement reading aloud: A meta-analytic review. Exceptionality, 19, 75–93.
