Approximately, 283 sixth-grade students completed four randomly generated Math Curriculum–Based Measures (M-CBMs) from interventioncentral.org twice during a fall semester. These M-CBMs measured foundational skills in addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. We found that using mean fluency or accuracy scores from four M-CBMs produced more reliable test–retest estimates (e.g., r = .86–.88) in comparison with using individual scores (e.g., r = .55–.73). We also found that aggregated (mean or median) and individual M-CBM scores were strongly correlated (e.g., r = .82–.85) with the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT) math section, an annual state standardized test. However, only aggregated M-CBMs produced efficient cut scores useful in detecting students who would pass or fail the PACT.
CoddingR. S.PetscherY.TruckenmillerA. (2015). CBM reading, mathematics, and written expression at the secondary level: Examining latent composite relations among indices and unique predictions with a state achievement test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 437–450.
2.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS.AikenL. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801
5.
FoegenA.DenoS. L. (2001). Identifying growth indicators for low-achieving students in middle school mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 4–16.
6.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020101
7.
Hajian-TilakiK. (2013). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for medical diagnostic test evaluation. Caspian Journal of Internal Medicine, 4, 627–635.
8.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
9.
HuynhH.BartonK.MeyerP.PorcheaS.GallantD. (2005). Consistency and predictive nature of vertically moderated standards for South Carolina’s 1999 Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests of language arts and mathematics. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 115–128.
MeehlP. E.RosenA. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194–216.
SchaferJ. L.GrahamJ. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.
14.
ShapiroE. S. (2011). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15.
ShapiroE. S.KellerM. A.LutzJ. G.SantoroL. E.HintzeJ. M. (2006). Curriculum-based measures and performance on state assessment and standardized tests: Reading and math performance in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 19–35.
16.
SmolkowskiK.CummingsK. D.StryckerL. (2016). An introduction to the statistical evaluation of fluency measures with signal detection theory. In CummingsK. D.PetscherY. (Eds.), The fluency construct (pp. 187–221). New York, NY: Springer.
17.
StevensonN. A. (2015). Predicting proficiency on statewide assessments: A comparison of curriculum-based measures in middle school. Journal of Educational Research, 108, 492–503.
18.
StraitG. G. (2008). Psychometric properties of a brief basic math skill assessment for middle school students: Simultaneous assessment of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina, Columbia.
19.
StraitG. G.SmithB.PenderC.MaloneP.RobertsJ.HallJ. (2015). The reliability of randomly generated math curriculum-based measurements. Assessment of Effective Interventions, 40, 247–253. doi:10.1177/1534508415588075
20.
ThurberR. S.ShinnM. R.SmolkowskiK. (2002). What is measured in mathematics tests? Construct validity of curriculum-based mathematics measures. School Psychology Review, 31, 498–513.
