The technical adequacy of curriculum-based measures in the form of short and simple vocabulary-matching probes to predict students’ performance and progress in science at the secondary level was investigated. Participants were 198 seventh-grade students from 10 science classrooms. Curriculum-based measurements (CBM) were 5-min vocabulary-matching probes administered once weekly over a period of 14 weeks. Criterion measures were knowledge pre- and posttests, the science subtest of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), and course grades. Alternate-form reliability coefficients ranged from r = .64 to .84. Coefficients increased over time and by combining scores across probes. Correlations between scores on the vocabulary-matching and criterion measures ranged from r = .55 to .76. The estimated mean group growth rate on the vocabulary-matching measure was .63 correct matches per week, which was significantly different from zero. The measures produced significant interindividual differences in growth rates, and growth on the measures was related to performance on the ITBS, course grades, and pre–post gains on the knowledge test. Results provide initial support for the technical adequacy of vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance and progress in science.
ArmbrusterB. B.AndersonT. H. (1988). On selecting “considerate” content area textbooks. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 47–52. doi:10.1177/-74193258800900109
2.
BeanR. M.ZigmondN.HartmanD. K. (1994). Adapted use of social studies textbooks in elementary classrooms: Views of classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 47–52.
3.
BikelR. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It’s just regression!New York, NY: Guilford. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00111_6.x
4.
BorsukE. R. (2010). Examination of an administrator-read vocabulary-matching measure as an indicator of science achievement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 168–177.
5.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147–158. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.147
6.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models in social and behavioral research: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
CarlisleJ. F.AndrewsE. (1993). Monitoring learning-disabled students in mainstream science classes. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 217–237. doi:10.1007/BF02928183
9.
CarnevaleA. P.SmithN.MeltonM. (2011). STEM: Science, technology, engineering, mathematics: Executive summary (Report of the Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University). Retrieved from http://cew.georgetown.edu/stem/
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
12.
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 & Practice, 16, 142–151. doi:10.111/0938-8982.00015
13.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L. (1993). Performance in reading from content-area text as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 14(6), 47–59. doi:10.1177/074193259301400610
14.
EspinC. A.FoegenA. (1996). Validity of three general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497–514.
15.
EspinC. A.ShinJ.BuschT. W. (2005). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Vocabulary matching as an indicator of progress in social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 353–363. doi:10.1177/00222194050380041301
16.
EspinC. A.TindalG. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students. In ShinnM. (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 214–253). New York, NY: Guilford.
17.
FangZ. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520. doi:10.1080/09500690500339092
18.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. S. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00072
19.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
20.
GrovesF. H. (1995). Science vocabulary load of selected secondary science textbooks. School Sciences & Mathematics, 95, 231–235. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb15772.x
21.
HooverH. D.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A. (1993). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
22.
MasonL. H.HedinL. R. (2011). Reading science text: Challenges for students with learning disabilities and considerations for teachers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 214–222. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00342.x
23.
MastropieriM.ScruggsT. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377–410. doi:10.3102/00346543062004377
24.
MastropieriM.ScruggsT. E. (1994). Text versus hands-on science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 72–85. doi:10.1177/074193259401500203
25.
MessickS. (1989a). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5–11.
26.
MessickS. (1989b). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: Macmillan.
27.
MessickS. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.
28.
MoinL. J.MagieraK.ZigmondN. (2009). Instructional activities and group work in the US inclusive high school co-taught science class. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 677–697. doi:10.1007/s10763-008-9133
29.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2011 (NCES 2012-465). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. (2007). Science learning in special education: The case for constructed versus instructed learning. Exceptionality, 15, 57–74. doi:10.1080/09362830701294144
32.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
TherrienW. J.HughesC.HandB. (Eds.). (2011). Special issue on science. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 186–240. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00340.x
34.
TindalG.NoletV. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(7), 1–22.
35.
TindalG.NoletV. (1996). Serving students in middle school content classes: A heuristic study of critical variables linking instruction and assessment. Journal of Special Education, 29, 414–432.
VannestK. J.ParkerR.DyerN. (2011). Progress monitoring in grade 5 science for low achievers. Journal of Special Education, 44, 221–233.
38.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00070
39.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TicháR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020401
40.
YagerR. E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577–588. doi:10.1002/tea.3660200610
