The reliability and validity of three curriculum-based measures as indicators of learning English as a foreign language were examined. Participants were 260 Dutch students in Grades 8 and 9 who were receiving English-language instruction. Predictor measures were maze-selection, Dutch-to-English word translation, and English-to-Dutch word translation. Criterion variables were years of English instruction, school level, course grades, and scores on a standardized reading test. Different scoring procedures and time frames were compared. Alternate-form reliabilities ranged from .44 to .88. Significant differences in maze scores were found between school levels but not between years of English-language instruction. Correlations between predictor and criterion variables ranged from .19 to .79. A regression analysis revealed that a combination of maze and English-to-Dutch translation predicted English course grades better than a single measure alone.
AldersonJ. C.BanerjeeJ. (2002). State of the art review: Language testing and assessment (part two). Language Teaching, 35, 79–113.
2.
Cito. (2010). Cito Volgsysteem Voortgezet Onderwijs [Cito monitoring system for secondary education]. Arnhem, Netherlands: Centraal Instituut voor Toetsontwikkeling.
3.
CranneyA. G. (1972–1973). The construction of two types of cloze reading tests for college students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 5, 60–64.
4.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
EspinC. A.BuschT.LembkeE.HamptonD.SeoK.ZukowskiB. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement in science learning: Vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance and progress. Assessment for Effective Intervention. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1534508413489724
7.
EspinC. A.WallaceT.LembkeE.CampbellH.LongJ. D. (2010). Creating a progress measurement system in reading for middle-school students: Tracking progress towards meeting high stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 60–75.
8.
Eurydice. (2001). Foreign language teaching in schools in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.
10.
HaleG. A.StansfieldC. W.RockD. A.HicksM. M.ButlerF. A.OllerJ. W. (1989). The relation of multiple-choice cloze items to the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Language Testing, 6, 47–76.
NationI. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A review of the research. RELC Journal, 13, 14–36.
13.
Nederlands Instituut van Psychologen. (2011). Documentatie van tests en testresearch in Nederland: Researchbeschrijving Volg- en Adviessysteem (VAS) [Documentation of tests and research on tests in the Netherlands: Description of research of Monitoring and Advice System (VAS)]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Boom test uitgevers.
14.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2003). Technical manual for the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress and Achievement Level Tests. Portland, OR: Author.
15.
SandbergK. L.ReschlyA. L. (2011). English learners: Challenges in assessment and the promise of curriculum-based measurement. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 144–154.
16.
SkinnerM. E.SmithA. T. (2011). Creating success for students with learning disabilities in postsecondary foreign language courses. International Journal of Special Education, 26, 42–57.
17.
SparksR. L. (2006). Is there a disability for learning a foreign language?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 544–557.
18.
SparksR. L.JavorskyJ.PhilipsL. (2005). Comparison of the performance of college students classified as ADHD, LD, and LD/ADHD in foreign language courses. Language Learning, 55, 151–177.
19.
TaylorW. L. (1956). Recent developments in the use of “cloze procedure.”Journalism Quarterly, 33, 42–48.
20.
TicháR.EspinC. A.WaymanM. M. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading-aloud and maze-selection measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 132–142.
21.
TolarT. D.BarthA. E.FrancisD. F.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.VaughnS. (2012). Psychometric properties of maze tasks in middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 131–146.
22.
VerspoorM.De BotK.Van ReinE. (2010). Binnen- en buitenschools taalcontact en het leren van Engels [Language exposure within and outside of school, and the learning of the English language]. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 11, 14–33.
23.
WallaceC. (2008). Vocabulary: The key to teaching English language learners to read. Education Digest, 73, 36–39.
24.
WangM. (2011). Learning a second language. In MayerR. E.AlexanderP. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research in learning and instruction (pp. 127–147). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
WaymanM.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TicháR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
