A Comparison of Two Content Area Curriculum-Based Measurement Tools

Abstract

In the present study, two types of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tools in science, Vocabulary Matching (VM) and Statement Verification for Science (SV-S), a modified Sentence Verification Technique, were compared. Specifically, this study aimed to determine whether the format of information presented (i.e., SV-S vs. VM) produces differences in alternate form reliability and validity of scores or any differences in accuracy of prediction of scores on the state standardized science assessment. Overall, 25 eighth-grade science students were administered two SV-S and two VM forms with identical items along with spring eighth-grade maze passages from Aimsweb. Students had recently taken the eighth-grade state science test. Results regarding technical adequacy for each CBM tool were consistent with past findings. However, this study extends the literature base on CBM tools in science by providing evidence for using standards to develop VM forms. In addition, despite probable ceiling effects, additional evidence was found for the potential of SV-S as a CBM tool in science.

Keywords

curriculum-based measurement CBM science screening middle school

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beyers

S. J.

Lembke

E. S.

Curs

(2013). Social studies progress monitoring and intervention for middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 224–235. doi:10.1177/1534508413489162

Borsuk

E. R.

(2010). Examination of an administrator-read vocabulary-matching measure as an indicator of science achievement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 168–177.

Busch

Espin

C. A.

(2003). Using curriculum-based measurement to prevent failure and assess learning in content areas. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 49–58. doi:10.1177/073724770302800306

Data Recognition Corporation. (2013). Iowa Assessments—Mathematics and reading alignment student reports: Grades 3–8, 10 and 11. Maple Grove, MN. Retrieved from https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/Iowa%20Report%20Math%20and%20Reading%20October%202013.pdf

Deno

(1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232. doi:10.1177/001440298505200303

Denton

C. A.

Barth

A. E.

Fletcher

J. M.

Wexler

Vaughn

Cirino

P. T.

. . . Francis

D. J.

(2011). The relations among oral and silent reading fluency and comprehension in middle school: Implications for identification and instruction of students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 109–135.

Espin

C. A.

Busch

Lembke

E. S.

Hampton

D. D.

Seo

Zukowski

B. A.

(2013). Curriculum-based measurement in science learning: Vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance and progress. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 203–213. doi:10.1177/1534508413489724

Espin

C. A.

Busch

Shin

Kruschwitz

(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:10.1111/0938-8982.00015

Ford

J. W.

Hosp

J. L.

(in press). Statement verification for science: Theory and examining technical adequacy of alternate forms. Exceptionality.

10.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188-193.

11.

Hosp

J. L.

Ford

J. W.

(2014). Investigating the relation of a modified sentence verification task of science knowledge with the science test of the Iowa Assessments (Internal Iowa Measurement Research Foundation report, unpublished).

12.

Hosp

M. K.

Hosp

J. L.

Howell

K. W.

(2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

13.

Lee

Miller

E. C.

Januszyk

(2014). Next Generation Science Standards: All standards, all students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 223–233.

14.

Marcotte

A. M.

Hintze

J. M.

(2009). Incremental and predictive utility of formative assessment methods of reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 315–335.

15.

Marston

D. B.

(1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. Curriculum-Based Measurement: Assessing Special Children, 1, 18–78.

16.

Meng

X. L.

Rosenthal

Rubin

D. B.

(1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.

17.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2015). Missouri Assessment Program grade-level assessments technical report 2015: Final. Maple Grove, MN: Data Recognition Corporation.

18.

Mooney

Lastrapes

R. E.

(2016). The benchmarking capacity of a general outcome measure of academic language in science and social studies. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41, 209–219. doi:10.1177/1534508415624648

19.

Mooney

Lastrapes

R. E.

Marcotte

A. M.

Matthews

A. M.

(2016). Validity of two general outcome measures of student science and social studies achievement. Baltic Journal of Special Education, 34, 167-187.

20.

Mooney

McCarter

K. S.

Russo

R. J.

Jr. Blackwood

D. L.

(2013). Examining an online content general outcome measure: Technical features of the static score. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 249–260.

21.

Pearson. (2012). Aimsweb technical manual. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.

22.

Shinn

M. R.

Shinn

M. M.

(2002). Administration and scoring of curriculum-based measurement maze for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.

23.

Squires

(2012). Curriculum alignment research suggests that alignment can improve student achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85, 129–135.

24.

Tabachnick

Fidell

(2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

25.

Williams

(2001). GRADE: Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. New York, NY: Pearson.