Despite growing use of CBM Maze in universal screening and research, little information is available regarding the number of CBM Maze probes needed for reliable decisions. The current study extends existing research on the technical adequacy of CBM Maze by investigating the number of probes and assessment durations (1-3 min) needed for reliable relative (e.g., rank-ordering students) and absolute (e.g., comparing a specific score to a cutoff) decisions. Nine CBM Maze probes were administered to 272 students in third through fifth grades. Results suggested that the number of probes needed for reliable relative and absolute decisions varied by grade, with assessments in fifth grade exhibiting the highest reliability (at least two probes needed for both types of decisions). In addition, declining gains in reliability appeared to occur as assessment duration increased. Implications of the findings for universal screening and future research are discussed.
ArdoinS. P.WilliamsJ. C.ChristT. J.KlubnikC.WellbornC. (2010). Examining readability estimates’ predictions of students’ oral reading rate: Spache, Lexile, and Forcast. School Psychology Review, 39, 277-285.
2.
ArdoinS. P.WittJ. C.SuldoS. M.ConnellJ. E.KoenigJ. L.ResetarJ. L.. . . WilliamsK. L. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a maze and three versus one curriculum-based measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33, 218-233.
3.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package (Version 0.999375-39). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
4.
BettsJ.PickartM.HeistadD. (2009). An investigation of the psychometric evidence of CBM-R passage equivalence: Utility of readability statistics and equating for alternate forms. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.00110.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.001
5.
Brown-ChidseyR.DavisL.MayaC. (2003). Sources of variance in curriculum-based measures of silent reading. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 363-377. doi:10.1002/pits.1009510.1002/pits.10095
6.
ChristT. J.ArdoinS. P. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Passage equivalence and probe-set development. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 55-75. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.00410.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.004
7.
ChristT. J.Johnson-GrosK. N.HintzeJ. M. (2005). An examination of alternate assessment durations when assessing multiple-skill computational fluency: The generalizability and dependability of curriculum-based outcomes within the context of educational decisions. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 615-622. doi:10.1002/pits.2010710.1002/pits.20107
8.
CronbachL. J.GleserG. C.NandaH.RajaratnamN. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: John Wiley.
9.
DenoS. L.ReschlyA. L.LembkeE. S.MagnussonD.CallenderS. A.WindramH.StachelN. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 44-55. doi:10.1002/pits.2035310.1002/pits.20353
10.
Edformation. (2003). AIMSweb MAZE-comprehension curriculum-based measures. Retrieved from http://aimsweb.com/
11.
EspinC.WallaceT.LembkeE.CampbellH.LongJ. D. (2010). Creating a progress-monitoring system in reading for middle-school students: Tracking progress toward meeting high-stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 60-75. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00304.x10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00304.x
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45-58.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20-28. doi:10.1177/07419325880090020610.1177/074193258800900206
14.
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. doi:10.1177/074193250933837110.1177/0741932509338371
15.
HintzeJ. M.OwenS. V.ShapiroE. S.DalyE. J. (2000). Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G theory to curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 52-68. doi:10.1037/h008877810.1037/h0088778
16.
HoweK. B.ShinnM. M. (2002). Standardized reading assessment passages (RAPs)for use in general outcome measurement: A manual describing development and technical features. Retrieved from https://aimsweb.pearson.com
17.
LordF. M.NovickM. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Oxford, UK: Addison-Wesley.
18.
MarcoulidesG. A. (1990). An alternative method for estimating variance components in generalizability theory. Psychological Reports, 66, 379-386. doi:10.2466/pr0.66.2.379-38610.2466/pr0.66.2.379-386
19.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
20.
PoncyB. C.SkinnerC. H.AxtellP. K. (2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute using curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 326-338. doi:10.1177/07342829050230040310.1177/073428290502300403
21.
R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
22.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. D. (2009). Curriculum-Based Measurement Oral Reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427-469. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.00110.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001
23.
ShavelsonR. J.WebbN. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24.
ShinJ.DenoS. L.EspinC. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education, 34, 164-172. doi:10.1177/00224669000340030510.1177/002246690003400305
25.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002). Administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome measurement. Retrieved from http://www.aimsweb.com
