Technical Adequacy and Acceptability of Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Measures of Academic Progress

Abstract

Curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R) and the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) are assessment tools widely employed for universal screening in schools. Although a large body of research supports the validity of CBM-R, limited empirical evidence exists supporting the technical adequacy of MAP or the acceptability of either measure for universal screening. Purposes of the current study were to replicate and extend prior research by (a) examining the extent to which CBM-R performance measures more than word reading skills, (b) evaluating the concurrent validity of MAP with CBM-R, (c) determining the potential benefit of administering MAP with CBM-R for universal screening, and (d) examining teachers’ acceptability of MAP and CBM-R. Participants included 802 students in Grades 1 to 5 who were administered three CBM-R probes and the MAP during universal screening and 86 elementary teachers who completed a universal screening assessments survey. Results provide evidence of the concurrent validity of MAP with CBM-R and suggest both measures are acceptable to teachers. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

curriculum-based measurement computer adaptive tests reading universal screening teacher acceptability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albano

A. D.

Christ

T. J.

(2012). Curriculum based measurement passages: Scaling, linking and equating (Tech. Rep. No. 10). Minneapolis: Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota.

Albano

A. D.

Rodriguez

M. C.

(2012). Statistical equating with measures of oral reading fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 43–59. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.002

Allinder

R. M.

Oats

R. G.

(1997). Effects of acceptability on teachers’ implementation of curriculum-based measurement and student achievement in mathematics computation. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 113–120. doi:10.1177/074193259701800205

Ardoin

S. P.

Eckert

T. L.

Christ

T. J.

Morena

L. S.

January

S.-A. A

Hine

J. F.

(2013). Examining variance in reading comprehension among developing readers: Words in context (curriculum-based measurement in reading) versus words out of context (word lists). School Psychology Review, 42, 243–261.

Ball

C. R.

Christ

T. J.

(2012). Supporting valid decision making: Uses and misuses of assessment data within the context of RTI. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 231–244. doi:10.1002/pits.21592

Bellinger

J. M.

DiPerna

J. C.

(2011). Is fluency-based story retell a good indicator of reading comprehension? Psychology in the Schools, 48, 416–426. doi:10.1002/pits.20563

Christ

T. J.

Arañas

Y. A.

Kember

J. M.

Kiss

A. J.

McCarthy-Trentman

Monaghen

B. D.

. . . White

M. J.

(2014). Formative assessment system for teachers technical manual: earlyReading, CBMReading, aReading, aMath, and earlyMath. Minneapolis, MN: Formative Assessment System for Teachers.

Christ

T. J.

Ardoin

S. P.

Eckert

T. L.

(2010). Formative assessment instrumentation and procedures for reading (FAIP-R): Oral reading passages. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Christ

T. J.

White

M. J.

Ardoin

S. P.

Eckert

T. L.

(2013). Curriculum based measurement in reading: Consistency and validity across best, fastest, and question reading conditions. School Psychology Review, 42, 415–436.

10.

Deno

S. L.

(2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801

11.

Eckert

T. L.

Shapiro

E. S.

(1995). Teachers’ ratings of the acceptability of curriculum-based assessment methods. School Psychology Review, 24, 497–507.

12.

Foegen

Espin

C. A.

Allinder

R. M.

Markell

M. A.

(2001). Translating research into practice: Preservice teachers’ beliefs about curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 226–236. doi:10.1177/002246690103400405

13.

Fuchs

L. S.

Deno

S. L.

(1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–501.

14.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Hosp

M. K.

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. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0503_3

15.

Glover

T. A.

Albers

C. A.

(2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117–135. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.005

16.

Hamilton

Shinn

M. R.

(2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32, 228–240.

17.

Hauerwas

L. B.

Brown

Scott

A. N.

(2013). Specific learning disability and response to intervention: State-level guidance. Exceptional Children, 80, 101–120.

18.

Hintze

J. M.

Silberglitt

(2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372–386.

19.

Hosp

J. L.

Ardoin

S. P.

(2008). Assessment for instructional planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 69–77. doi:10.1177/1534508407311428

20.

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. Retrieved from https://aimswebtraining.pearson.com/downloads/PassagesTechnicalManual08252002.pdf

21.

Jenkins

J. R.

Fuchs

L. S.

van den Broek

Espin

Deno

S. L.

(2003a). Accuracy and fluency in list and context reading of skilled and RD groups: Absolute and relative performance levels. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 237–245. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00078

22.

Jenkins

J. R.

Fuchs

L. S.

van den Broek

Espin

Deno

S. L.

(2003b). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.719

23.

Kolen

M. J.

Brennan

R. L.

(2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking. New York, NY: Springer.

24.

LaBerge

Samuels

S. J.

(1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2

25.

Mellard

D. F.

McKnight

Woods

(2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 186–195. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00292.x

26.

Merino

Beckman

T. O.

(2010). Using reading curriculum-based measurements as predictors for the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) standardized test in Nebraska. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach, 6, 85–98.

27.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the national reading panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00–4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

28.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2009). Technical manual for measures of academic progress and measures of academic progress for primary grades. Lake Oswego, OR: Author.

29.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2014). NWEA by the numbers. Lake Oswego, OR: Author.

30.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2015). MAP Learning Continuum. Retrieved from https://www.nwea.org/assessments/map/learning-continuum

31.

Olsen

J. B.

(1990). Applying computerized adaptive testing in schools. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 23, 31–38.

32.

Reschly

A. L.

Busch

T. W.

Betts

Deno

S. L.

Long

J. D.

(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. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001

33.

Shapiro

E. S.

Eckert

T. L.

(1994). Acceptability of curriculum-based assessment by school psychologists. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 167–183. doi:10.1016/00224405(94)90009-4

34.

Stecker

P. M.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819. doi:10.1002/pits.20113

35.

Tucker

J. A.

(1985). Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction. Exceptional Children, 52, 199–204.

36.

University of Iowa. (2005). Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Form A. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.

37.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

Witt

J. C.

Gilbertson

(2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.004

38.

van der Linden

W. J.

Glas

C. A

. (Eds.). (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Springer.

39.

Wayman

M. M.

Wallace

Wiley

H. I.

Ticha

Espin

C. A.

(2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020401

40.

Wolf

M. M.

(1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214. doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203