This study examined the technical adequacy of vocabulary-matching curriculum-based measurement (CBM) to identify and monitor the progress of 148 middle school students in social studies. In addition, the effectiveness of a reading comprehension intervention, Collaborative Strategic Reading (Klingner, Vaughn, Dimino, Schumm, & Bryant, 2001), was examined across 8 weeks with 15 low-achieving middle school readers who were monitored with content-area reading passages. Results indicated vocabulary-matching CBMs are valid and reliable indicators of performance in social studies. Significant differences were found for the intervention group on performance on pre to post vocabulary-matching CBM scores. Difference-in-Differences regression models were used to examine differences between groups on pre–post measures. No significant differences were found between groups in weekly change in scores or trend in performance on vocabulary-matching CBM.
AllingtonR. L. (2002). You can’t learn much from books you can’t read. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 16–19.
2.
BiancarosaG.SnowC. E. (2004). Reading next–A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
3.
BorsukE. R. (2010). Examination of an administrator-read vocabulary-matching measure as an indicator of science achievement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 168–177.
4.
BryantD. P.VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.UgelN.HamffA.HougenM. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in general education middle school content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 238–252.
5.
BurnsM. K. (2008). Response to intervention at the secondary level. Principal Leadership, 8(7), 12–15.
6.
BuschT.EspinC. A. (2003). Using curriculum-based measurement to prevent failure and assess learning in content areas. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 49–58.
7.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children52, 219–232.
8.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TackettK. K.SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300. doi:10.3102/0034654308325998
9.
EspinC. A.BuschT.ShinJ.KruschwitzR. (2001). Curriculum-based measures in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching measures as indicators of performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 142–151.
10.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L. (1993). Performance in reading from content-area text as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 47–59.
11.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L. (1995). Curriculum-based measures for secondary students: Utility and task specificity of text-based reading and vocabulary measures for predicting performance on content-area tasks. Diagnostique, 20, 121–142.
12.
EspinC. A.FoegenA. (1996). Validity of three general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497–514.
13.
EspinC. A.ShinJ.BuschT. W. (2005). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Vocabulary-matching as an indicator of social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 353–363.
HarmonJ. M.HedrickW. B.WoodK. D. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in the content areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 261–280.
16.
HitchcockJ.DiminoJ.KurkiA.WilkinsC.GerstenR. (2010). The impact of Collaborative Strategic Reading on the reading comprehension of grade 5 students in linguistically diverse schools. (NCEE 2011-4001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
17.
HospM. K.FuchsL. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade?School Psychology Review, 34, 9–26.
18.
JenkinsJ.JewellM. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421–432.
19.
KatimsD. S.HarmonJ. M. (2000). Strategic instruction in middle school social studies: Enhancing academic and literacy outcomes for at-risk students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 280–289.
20.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96, 275–293.
21.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS. (2000). The helping behaviors of fifth graders while using collaborative strategic reading during ESL content classes. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 69–98.
22.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.ArgüellesM. E.HughesM. T.AhweeS. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: “Real world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291–302.
23.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.BoardmanA.SwansonE. (2012). Now We Get It!: Boosting Comprehension Strategies with Collaborative Strategic Reading. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.DiminoJ.SchummJ. S.BryantD. P. (2001). Collaborative Strategic Reading: Strategies for Improving Comprehension. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.
25.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.SchummJ. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 3–22.
26.
LembkeE.SteckerP. (2007). Curriculum-based measurement in mathematics: An evidence-based formative assessment procedure. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
27.
MooneyP.McCarterK. S.SchravenJ.HaydelB. (2010). The relationship between content area general outcome measurement and statewide testing in sixth grade world history. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 148–158.
28.
MooneyP.SchravenJ.CoxB. (2010). Test-retest reliability of vocabulary matching in sixth-grade world history. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach, 6, 29–40.
29.
MurnaneR. J.WillettJ. B. (2011). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card in reading. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
31.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Vocabulary results from the 2009 and 2011 NAEP reading assessments (NCES 2013 452). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
32.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
33.
ShinJ.DenoS. L.EspinC. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education, 34, 164–172.
34.
The University of the State of New York. (2009).Grade 5 elementary-level social studies test [Booklet 1 multiple choice and constructed-response questions]. Albany, NY: The State Education Department. Retrieved from http://www.nysedregents.org/Grade5/SocialStudies/home.html
35.
VannestK. J.ParkerR.DyerN. (2011). Progress monitoring in grade 5 for low achievers. Journal of Special Education, 44, 221–233.
36.
VaughnS.KlingnerJ. K.SwansonE. A.BoardmanA. G.RobertsG.MohammedS. S.Stillman-SpisakS. J. (2011). Efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 938–964.
37.
VaughnS.SwansonE. A.RobertsG.WanzekJ.Stillman-SpisakS. J.SolisM.SimmonsD. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 77–93.
