Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Language in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) allows the use of response-to-intervention (RTI) methodology in the identification of specific learning disabilities. However, there is no consensus on decision rules using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) for defining responsiveness. The purpose of this article is to describe how to apply generalizability (G) theory for making quantitative high-stakes RTI decisions. A sample of 68 first-grade students (36 females and 32 males) was randomly administered the first-grade Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills oral reading fluency probes and correct words per minute (CWPM) were calculated for conducting both a generalizability (G) study and a decision (D) study using G theory. The results showed that the average raw scores (CWPM) across 20 probes encompassed a wide range from a low of 69 CWPM to a high of 88 CWPM. In addition, 90.2% of the variance was due to student reading skill, 7.0% was due to unaccounted sources of error, and only 2.8% was due to passage or probe variability. Also, the increasing number of probes administered (from 1 to 9) considerably reduced the values of standard error of measurement and increased the reliability coefficients. An example is provided to demonstrate how to apply G theory in using CBM-R data to guide psychometrically valid RTI decisions at the individual student level.

Keywords

curriculum-based measurement reading/literacy progress monitoring

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Ardoin

S. P.

Christ

T. J.

(2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Estimates of standard error when monitoring progress using alternate passage sets. School Psychology Review, 38, 266–283.

Ardoin

S. R.

Christ

T. J.

Morena

L. S.

Cormier

D. C.

Klingbeil

D. A.

(2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.004

Betts

Pickard

Heistad

(2009). An investigation of the psychometric evidence of CBM-R passage equivalence: Utility of readability statistics and equating the alternate forms. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.001

Brennan

R. L.

(2001). Generalizability theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Christ

Ardoin

S. P.

(2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Passage equivalence and probe-set development. School Psychology Quarterly, 47, 55–75. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.004

Christ

T. J.

Hintze

J. M.

(2007). Psychometric considerations of reliability when evaluating response to intervention. In Jimmerson

S. R.

VanderHayDen

A. M.

Burns

M. K.

(Eds.), Response to intervention handbook (pp. 93–105). New York, NY: Springer.

Christ

T. J.

Silberglitt

(2007). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: The standard error of measurement. School Psychology Review, 36, 130–146.

Cummings

K. D.

Biancarosa

Schaper

Reed

D. K.

(2014). Rater error in curriculum-based measurement of oral reading. Journal of School Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.05.007

10.

Deno

S. L.

Fuchs

L. S.

Marston

Shin

(2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.

11.

Francis

D. J.

Santi

K. L.

Barr

Fletcher

J. M.

Varisco

Foorman

B. R.

(2008). Form effects on the estimation of students’ oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315–342. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.003

12.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92–99.

13.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.

14.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Hamlett

C. L.

Walz

Germann

(1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.

15.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Hosp

Jenkins

J. R.

(2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.

16.

Glover

T. A.

DiPerna

J. C.

(2007). Service delivery for response to intervention: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36, 526–540.

17.

Good

R. H.

Kaminski

R. A.

(Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement. Available from http://dibels.uoregon.edu

18.

Hale

Alfonso

Berninger

Bracken

Christo

Clark

. . . Yalof

(2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 33, 223–236.

19.

Harvill

L. M.

(1991). An NCME instructional module on standard error of measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(2), 33–41.

20.

Hintze

J. M.

Owen

S. V.

Shapiro

E. S.

Daly

E. J.

(2000). Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G theory to curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 52–68.

21.

Howe

K. B.

Shinn

M. M.

(2002). Standard reading assessment passages (RAPs) for use in general outcome measurement: A manual describing development and technical features. Available from http://www.aimsweb.com

22.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act. 20 U.S.C 1400 et seq. (2004).

23.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Clements

M. A.

Kalymon

K. M.

(2007). Response to intervention: Conceptual and methodological issues in implementation. In Jimerson

S. R.

Burns

M. K.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

(Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 25–52). New York, NY: Springer.

24.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Volpiansky

Clements

Ball

(2007). Professional development in implementing and sustaining multitier prevention models: Implications for response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 618–631.

25.

Petscher

Cummings

K. D.

Biancarosa

Fien

(2013). Advanced (measurement) applications of curriculum-based measurement in reading. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(2), 71–75. doi:10.1177/1534508412461434

26.

Poncy

B. C.

Skinner

C. H.

Axtell

P. K.

(2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute using curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 326–338. doi:10.1177/073428290502300403

27.

Shapiro

E. S.

(2013). Commentary on progress-monitoring with CBM-R and decision making: Problems found and looking for solution. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.003

28.

Wayman

M. M.

Wallace

Wiley

H. I.

Ticha

R. T.

Espin

C. A.

(2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum- based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85–120.

Applying Generalizability Theory for Making Quantitative RTI Progress-Monitoring Decisions

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References