Replication is a foundation of the development of a knowledge base in an evidence-based field such as education. This study includes two direct replications of Hosp, Hensley, Huddle, and Ford which found evidence of criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) for reading and mathematics with postsecondary students with developmental disabilities (DD). Participants included two cohorts of postsecondary students with DD enrolled in a 2-year certificate program at a large Midwestern university (n = 24 and 21). Using the same standardized procedures as Hosp et al., participants were administered CBMs for Oral Passage Reading (OPR), Maze, Math Computation, and Math Concepts and Applications. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between CBMs and the content-appropriate Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement–Third Edition were calculated. No significant differences in criterion-related validity coefficients between cohorts were found but differences between the correlations for Math Computation and Math Concepts and Applications identified in Hosp et al. were not found in either replication cohort.
CookB. (2014). A call for examining replication and bias in special education research. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 233–246.
2.
CookB.CollinsL.CookS.CookL. (2016). A replication by any other name: A systematic review of replicative intervention studies. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 223–234.
3.
CrockerL.AlginaJ. (2006). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L. (1993a). Content-specific and general reading disabilities of secondary-level students identification and educational relevance. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 321–337. doi:10.1177/002246699302700304
6.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L. (1993b). Performance in reading from content area text as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 47–59. doi:10.1177/074193259301400610
7.
Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No 107-279, SS 112 (2002).
8.
Faggella-LubyM.LombardiA.LalorA. R.DukesL.III. (2014). Methodological trends in disability and higher education research: Historical analysis of the journal of postsecondary education and disability. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27, 357–368.
9.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020101
10.
GallM.GallJ.BorgW. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
11.
GearyD. C. (2013). Early foundations for mathematics learning and their relations to learning disabilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 23–27.
12.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.
13.
GilbertD.KingG.PettigrewS.WilsonT. (2016). Comment on “estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.”Science, 351, 1037.
14.
GrossJ.HudsonC.PriceD. (2009). The long term costs of numeracy difficulties. Every child a chance trust and KPMG. East Sussex, UK: National Numeracy.
15.
HartD.GrigalM.SaxC.MartinezD.WillM. (2006). Postsecondary education options for students with intellectual disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 134–150.
16.
HelwigR.AndersonL.TindalG. (2002). Using a concept-grounded, curriculum-based measure in mathematics to predict statewide test scores for middle school students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 102–112. doi:10.1177/00224669020360020501
17.
HelwigR.TindalG. (2002). Using general outcome measures in mathematics to measure adequate yearly progress as mandated by Title I. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 9–18. doi:10.1177/073724770202800102
18.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–180.
19.
HospJ. L.HensleyK.HuddleS. M.FordJ. W. (2014). Using curriculum-based measures with postsecondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 247–357.
20.
HuaY.HendricksonJ. M.TherrienW. J.Woods-GrovesS.RiesP. S.ShawJ. J. (2012). Effects of combined reading and question generation on reading fluency and comprehension of three young adults with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27, 135–146.
21.
HuaY.TherrienW. J.HendricksonJ. M.Woods-GrovesS.RiesP.ShawJ. (2012). Effects of combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on young adults with severe intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 42, 72–83.
22.
IyengarS.SullivanS.NicholasB.BradshawT.RogowskiK.BallD. (2007). To read or not to read: A question of national consequence (Research Division Report No. 47). National Endowment for the Arts.
23.
JanuaryS.ArdoinS. (2012). The impact of context and word type on students’ maze task accuracy. School Psychology Review, 41, 262–271.
24.
JohnsonE.SemmelrothC.AllisonJ.FritschT. (2013). The technical properties of science content maze passages for middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 214–223. doi:10.1177/1534508413489337
25.
Joint Committee on Standards in Educational and Psychological Testing. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
26.
KendeouP.PapadopoulosT.SpanoudisG. (2012). Processing demands of reading comprehension tests in young readers. Learning and Instruction, 22, 354–367.
27.
KennedyC. (2005). Single case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson.
28.
LemonsC.KingS.DavidsonK.BerryessaT.GajjarS.SacksL. (2016). An inadvertent concurrent replication: Same roadmap, different journey. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 213–222.
29.
LewandowskiL. J.CoddingR. S.KleinmannA. E.TuckerK. L. (2003). Assessment of reading rate in postsecondary students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 134–144.
30.
LimingD.WolfM. (2008). Job outlook by education. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 52(2), 2–29.
31.
MakelM.PluckerJ. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43, 304–316.
32.
MakelM.PluckerJ.FreemanJ.LombardiA.SimonsenB.CoyneM. (2016). Replication of special education research: Necessary but far too rare. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 205–212.
33.
MatherN.HammillD. D.AllenE. A.RobertsR. (2004). Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
34.
MatherN.HammillD. D.AllenE. A.RobertsR. (2014). Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency—Second Edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
38.
NeumanS. (Chair). (2002, February). Scientifically-based research. Symposium conducted at the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/research/page_pg2.html
39.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
40.
NosekB. A.SpiesJ. R.MotylM. (2012). Scientific utopia II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631.
41.
PapayC.BambaraL. (2011). Postsecondary education for transition-age students with intellectual and other developmental disabilities: A national survey. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(1), 78–93.
42.
ParkerR.HasbrouckJ.TindalG. (1992). The maze as a classroom-based reading measure: Construction methods, reliability, and validity. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 195–218.
43.
PashlerH.HarrisC. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531–536.
44.
Pearson Education. (2013). AIMSweb. San Antonio, TX: Author.
45.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. 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
46.
Riley-TillmanT. C.BurnsM. K. (2009). Single case design for measuring response to educational intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
47.
Riverside. (2011). Woodcock-Johnson III normative update. Itasca, IL: Author.
48.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. (2007). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
49.
SchmidtS. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13, 90–100.
50.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
51.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
52.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
53.
Steiner-KhamsiG. (2006). The economics of policy borrowing and lending: A study of late adopters. Oxford Review of Education, 32, 665–678.
54.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
55.
TherrienW.MathewsH.HirschS.SolisM. (2016). Progeny review: An alternative approach for examining the replication of intervention studies in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 235–243.
TorgesenJ. K. (2005). Recent discoveries from research on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In SnowlingM.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521-537). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
58.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. A. (2010). TOSREC: Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
59.
WaymanM. M.McMasterK. L.SáenzL. M.WatsonJ. A. (2010). Using curriculum-based measurement to monitor secondary English language learners’ responsiveness to peer-mediated reading instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26, 308–332.
60.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TicháR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020401
61.
WebbL.MethaA. (2016). Foundations of American education (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Woods-GrovesS.TherrienW.HuaY.HendricksonJ.ShawJ.HughesC. (2012). Effectiveness of an essay writing strategy for post-secondary students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 210–222.
