The present study examined the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measures (CBMs) of early numeracy. Six 1-min early mathematics tasks were administered to 137 kindergarten and first-grade students, along with an omnibus test of early mathematics. The CBM measures included Count Out Loud, Quantity Discrimination, Number Identification, Missing Number, Next Number, and Number Facts. Alpha and split-half reliabilities were assessed, and construct validity and criterion validity (both concurrent and predictive) were examined. In addition, an item analysis was conducted for each measure using classical test theory and item response theory approaches, specifically using a Rasch model. Results indicated that the measures produced moderately strong reliability coefficients, satisfactory item difficulty and discrimination, evidence to support both concurrent and predictive validity with the standardized early mathematics test, and the tasks appeared to be measuring the construct of early numeracy proficiency.
AllenM. J.YenW. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
2.
AnsariD.Karmiloff-SmithA. (2002). Atypical trajectories of number development: A neuroconstructivist perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 511–516.
3.
BerchD. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 333–339.
4.
BowmanB. T.DonovanM. S.BurnsM. S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5.
BriganceA. (1985). Brigance Preschool Screen. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
6.
BriganceA. (1999). Comprehensive inventory of basic skills (rev. ed.). North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
7.
CampbellF. A.RameyC. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Development, 65, 684–698.
8.
ChardD. J.ClarkeB.BakerS.OtterstedtJ.BraunD.KatzR. (2005). Using measures of number sense to screen for difficulties in mathematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 3–14.
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.
ConnollyA. J. (1998). Key Math–Revised, Normative Update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
12.
CrockerL.AlginaJ. (1986). Introduction to classical modern test theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
13.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
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.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.HamlettC. L.SeethalerP. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, 73, 311–330.
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. P.BaroodyA. J. (1990). Test of Early Mathematics Ability (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
18.
GinsburgH. P.BaroodyA. J. (2003). Test of Early Mathematics Ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
19.
HamptonD.LembkeE. S.LeeY. S.ChiongC.PappasS.GinsburgH. (in press). Examining the technical adequacy of CBM progress monitoring in early numeracy using PDA technology in kindergarten and first grade. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(2).
20.
HreskoW.PeakP.HerronS.BridgesD. (2000). Young Children’s Achievement Test. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
21.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
23.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. (2004). Availablefrom http://idea.ed.gov
24.
JordanN. C.LocuniakM. N.RamineniC.KaplanD. (2007). Predicting first-grade math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 37–47.
25.
LagoR. M.DiPernaJ. C. (2010). Number sense in Kindergarten: A factor-analytic study of the construct. School Psychology Review, 39, 164–180.
26.
LeiP.-W.WuQ.DiPernaJ. C.MorganP. L. (2009). Developing short forms of the EARLI Numeracy Measures: Comparison of item selection methods. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 825–842.
27.
LembkeE.FoegenA. (2005, February). Monitoring student progress in early math. Paper presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego.
28.
LembkeE. S.FoegenA.WhittakerT.HamptonD. (2008). Establishing technically adequate measures of progress in early numeracy. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 206–214.
29.
LinacreJ. M. (2005).WINSTEPS Rasch measurement [Computer program]. Chicago, IL: Winsterps.com
30.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.
31.
MarstonD. (1989). Curriculum based measurement: What it is and why do it? In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York, NY: Guilford.
32.
MazzoccoM. M.ThompsonR. E. (2005). Kindergarten predictors of math learning disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 142–155.
33.
National Association for the Education of Young Children and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2002). Position statement. Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/psmath.asp
34.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation NCTM standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
35.
OkamotoY.CaseR. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children’s central conceptual structures in the domain of number. In CaseR.OkamotoY. (Eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Vol. 1–2, pp. 27–58). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
36.
RaschG. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: Mesa Press.
37.
RussellR. L.GinsburgH. P. (1984). Cognitive analysis of children’s mathematics difficulties. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 217–244.
38.
TindalG. A.ParkerR. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating written expression. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 211–218.
39.
TuckerL. R.LewisC. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.
40.
VanDerHeydenA. M.BroussardC.FabreM.StanleyJ.LegendereJ.CreppellR. (2004). Development and validation of curriculum-based measures of math performance for preschool children. Journal of Early Intervention, 27, 27–41.
41.
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.
42.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.PrattA.ChenR.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
43.
WibergM. (2004). Classical test theory vs. item response theory: An evaluation of the theory test in the Swedish driving-license test (No. 50). Umeå, Sweden: Umeå University.
