Researchers and practitioners have questioned whether scoring procedures used with curriculum-based measures of writing (CBM-W) capture growth in complexity of writing. We analyzed data from six independent samples to examine two potential scoring metrics for picture word CBM-W (PW), a sentence-level CBM task. Correct word sequences per response (CWSR) and words written per response (WWR) were compared with the current standard metric of correct word sequences (CWS). Linear regression analyses indicated that CWSR predicted scores on standardized norm-referenced criterion measures in more samples than did WWR or CWS. Future studies should explore the capacity of CWSR and WWR to show growth over time, stability, diagnostic accuracy, and utility for instructional decision making.
AbbottR. D.BerningerV. W.FayolM. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 281–298. doi:10.1037/a0019318
2.
AllenA. A.PochA. L.LembkeE. S. (2017). An exploration of alternative scoring methods using curriculum-based measurement in early writing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41, 85–99.
3.
BermanR. A. (2014). Linguistic perspectives on writing development. In ArfeB.DockrellJ.BerningerV. (Eds.), Writing development in children with hearing loss, dyslexia, or oral language problems: Implications for assessment and instruction (pp. 16–32). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199827282.003.0002
4.
BerningerV. W.AmtmannD. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice.
5.
BerningerV. W.VaughanK. B.AbbottR. D.AbbottS. P.RoganL. W.BrooksA.. . . GrahamS. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652–666. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.652
6.
BultéB.HousenA. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005
7.
CampbellH.EspinC. A.McMasterK. (2013). The technical adequacy of curriculum-based writing measures with English learners. Reading and Writing, 26, 431–452.
8.
CokerD. L.RitcheyK. D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of writing in kindergarten and first grade: An investigation of production and qualitative scores. Exceptional Children, 76, 175–193. doi:10.1177/001440291007600203
9.
CokerD. L.RitcheyK. D. (2014). Universal screening for writing risk in kindergarten. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39, 245–256. doi:10.1177/1534508413502389
10.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
11.
DenoS. L.MarstonD.MirkinP.LowryL.SindelarP.JenkinsJ. (1982). The use of standard tasks to measure achievement in reading, spelling, and written expression: A normative and developmental study (Research Report No. 87). Minneapolis: Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of Minnesota.
12.
DenoS. L.ReschlyA. L.LembkeE. S.MagnussonD.CallenderS. A.WindramH.StachelN. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 44–55.
13.
GansleK. A.NoellG. H.VanDerHeydenA. M.NaquinG. M.SliderN. J. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternate measures for curriculum-based measurement in writing. School Psychology Review, 31, 477–497.
14.
GansleK. A.VanDerHeydenA. M.NoellG. H.ResetarJ. L.WilliamsK. L. (2006). The technical adequacy of curriculum-based and rating-based measures of written expression for elementary school students. School Psychology Review, 35, 435–450.
15.
GrahamS.BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D.AbbottS. P.WhitakerD. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170–182. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170
16.
HayesJ. R.BerningerV. W. (2014). Cognitive processes in writing: A framework. In ArfeB.DockrellJ.BerningerV. (Eds.), Writing development in children with hearing loss, dyslexia, or oral language problems: Implications for assessment and instruction (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199827282.003.0001
HousenA.KuikenF. (Eds.). (2009). Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency (CAF) in second language acquisition research [Special issue]. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473. doi:10.1093/applin/amp048
19.
JewellJ.MaleckiC. K. (2005). The utility of CBM written language indices: An investigation of production-dependent, production-independent, and accurate-production scores. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 27–44.
20.
JonesD.ChristensenC. (1999). The relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44–49. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.44
21.
LembkeE.AllenA.PochA. (2014). Screening using curriculum based measurement in writing in Grades 1-3: Missouri. Columbia: University of Missouri.
22.
LembkeE.DenoS. L.HallK. (2003). Identifying an indicator of growth in early writing proficiency for elementary school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4), 23–35.
23.
McCutchenD. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children’s writing. In MacArthurC. A.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 115–130). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
McMasterK.BrandesD.HerrigesM.JungP. (2014). Screening using Curriculum Based Measurement in Writing in Grades 1-3: Minnesota. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
25.
McMasterK. L.DuX.PétursdóttirA. L. (2009). Technical features of curriculum-based measures for beginning writers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 41–60.
26.
McMasterK. L.DuX.YeoS.DenoS. L.ParkerD.EllisT. (2011). Curriculum-based measures of beginning writing: Technical features of the slope. Exceptional Children, 77, 185–206.
27.
McMasterK. L.EspinC. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing a literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68–84.
28.
ParkerR.TindalG.HasbrouckJ. (1991). Countable indices of writing quality: Their suitability for screening-eligibility decisions. Exceptionality, 2, 1–17. doi:10.1080/09362839109524763
29.
Pearson. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
RitcheyK. D.CokerD. L. (2014). Identifying writing difficulties in first grade: An investigation of writing and reading measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 54–65. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12030
32.
RitcheyK. D.McMasterK. L.Al OtaibaS.PuranikC. S.KimY.ParkerD. C.OrtizM. (2016). Indicators of fluent writing in beginning writers. In CummingsK.PetcherY. (Eds.), The fluency construct (pp. 21-66). New York, NY: Springer.
33.
TindalG.ParkerR. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating written expression. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 211–218.
34.
VideenJ.MarstonD.DenoS. L. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Vol. IRLD-RR-84, p. 61). Minneapolis: Minnesota University, Minneapolis Inst for Research on Learning Disabilities.
