Substantial research exists to support the use of reading curriculum-based measures (R-CBMs) for screening and progress monitoring in schools; however, nearly all of this work has been done in English. The changing demographics of students who attend public school includes children who speak other languages. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between R-CBMs in Spanish used as a universal screening measure and performance on the state achievement measure in Spanish. Results included moderate correlations at third and fourth grade. Diagnostic accuracy results using the 25th percentile and the selection of cut scores using receiver operating characteristic curves suggest the utility of R-CBMs in Spanish for screening purposes. Practical implications and future directions for research are discussed.
BakerS. K.CummingsK. D.GoodR. H.SmolkowskiK. (2007). IDEL: Indicadores Dinamicod del Exito in la Lectura: Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through third grade (Tech. Report No. 1). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
2.
BakerS. K.GoodR. H. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561–578.
3.
BakerS. K.GoodR. H.KnutsonN.WatsonJ. (2006). Indicadores dinamicod del exito in la lectura [Dynamic indicators of basic] (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
4.
BakerS. K.Plasencia-PeinadoJ.Lezcano-LytleV. (1998). The use of curriculum-based measurement with language-minority students. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 175–213). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
5.
BentzJ.PavriS. (2000). Curriculum-based measurement in assessing bilingual students: A promising new direction. Diagnostique, 25(3), 229–248.
6.
BettsJ.ReschlyA.PickartM.HeistadD.SheranC.MarstonD. (2008). An examination of predictive bias for second grade reading outcomes from measures of early literacy skills in kindergarten with respect to English-Language learners and ethnic subgroups. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 553–570.
7.
ChristT. J.SilberglittB. (2007). Estimates of the standard error of measurement for curriculum-based measures of oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 36, 130–146.
8.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BryantJ. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 394–409.
9.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
10.
DenoS. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
Esparza BrownJ. E.SanfordA. (2011). RTI for English language learners: Appropriately using screening and progress monitoring tools to improve instructional outcomes. Washington, DC: National Center on Response to Intervention.
13.
FletcherJ. K.VaughnS. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 30–37.
14.
FryR. (2010). Hispanics, high school dropouts and the GED. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
15.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (2001). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500.
GloverT. A.DiPernaJ. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to intervention: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 526–540.
18.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. C.Kame’enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
19.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2003). Stanford achievement test (10th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
20.
HintzeJ. M.SilberglittB. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372–386.
21.
HospJ. L.HospM. K.DoleJ. A. (2011). The predictive validity of universal screening measure across disaggregated subgroups. School Psychology Review, 40, 108–131.
22.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–600.
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.
24.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY. (2010). Improving the accuracy of a direct route screening process. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 131–140.
25.
Keller-MargulisM. A.ShapiroE. S.HintzeJ. M. (2008). Long term diagnostic accuracy of curriculum-based measures in reading and mathematics. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 374–390.
26.
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, NY: Guilford.
27.
MuyskensP.BettsJ.LauM. Y.MarstonD. (2009). Predictive validity of curriculum-based measures in the reading assessment of students who are English language learners. California School Psychologist, 14, 11–21.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
30.
PasselJ. S.CohnD.LopezH. (2011). Hispanics account for more than half of nation’s growth in past decade. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
31.
Pearson Education, Inc. (2010). AIMSweb. San Antonio: Author.
32.
RamírezR. D.ShapiroE. S. (2007). Cross-language relationship between Spanish and English oral reading fluency among Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 795–806.
33.
RamírezR. D.ShapiroE. S. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of reading skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 356–369.
34.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. (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.
35.
RoehrigA. D.PetscherY.NettlesS. M.HudsonR. F.TorgessonJ. K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third-grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343–366.
36.
ShapiroE. S. (2011). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
37.
ShapiroE. S.KellerM. A.LutzJ. G.SantoroL. E.HintzeJ. M. (2006). Curriculum-based measures and performance on state asessment and standardized tests: Reading and math performance in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 19-35. doi: 10.1177/073428290528523710.1177/0734282905285237
38.
ShinnM. MShinnM. R. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administratin and scoring of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
39.
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.
40.
StreinerD. L.CairneyJ. (2007). What’s under the ROC? An introduction to receiver operating characteristics curves. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 52, 121–128.
41.
SwetsJ. A.DawesR. M.MonahanJ. M. (2000). Psychologicals science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1–26.
VanDerHeydenA. M. (2011). Technical adequacy of response to intervention decisions. Exceptional Children, 77, 335–350.
44.
WanzekJ.RobertsG.Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS.WoodruffA. L.MurrayC. S. (2010). Differences in the relationship of oral reading fluency and high-stakes measures of reading comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 67–77.
45.
WaymanM. M.McMasterK. L.SaenzL. M.WatsonJ. A. (2010). Using curriculum-based measurement to monitor secondary English language learners’ responsiveness to peer-mediated reading instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26, 308–332.
46.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TichaR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
47.
WileyH. I.DenoS. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26(4), 207–214.
48.
WoodcockR. W.Munoz-SandovalA. F. (1996). Bateria Woodcock-Munoz: Pruebas de aprovechiamento–Revisada. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
