National test data indicate that some students do not perform well in writing, suggesting a need to identify students at risk for poor performance. Research supports Written Expression Curriculum-Based Measurement (WE-CBM) as an indicator of writing proficiency, but it is less commonly used in practice. This study examined the usability of WE-CBM compared with Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement (R-CBM). Participants included 162 teachers who were given examples of WE-CBM and R-CBM and then completed a usability measure for both curriculum-based measurement (CBM) types. Teachers not only rated WE-CBM as usable but also rated R-CBM significantly higher in usability, with no significant differences in acceptability. Practical implications that may inform modifications to WE-CBM are discussed.
AllinderR. M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Effects of differential implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 62, 525–535.
2.
AllinderR. M.OatsR. 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
3.
AmatoJ. M.WatkinsM. W. (2011). The predictive validity of CBM writing indices for eighth-grade students. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 195–204.
BowenD. J.KreuterM.SpringB.Cofta-WoerpelL.LinnanL.WeinerD.. . . FernandezM. (2009). How we design feasibility studies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36, 457–452. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002
6.
BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M.NeugebauerS. R.Riley-TillmanT. C. (2013). Assessing influences on intervention implementation: Revision of the usage rating profile-intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 81–96. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.08.006
ChafouleasS. M.BrieschA. M.Riley-TillmanT. C.McCoachD. B. (2009). Moving beyond assessment of treatment acceptability: An examination of the factor structure of the Usage Rating Profile—Intervention (URP-I). School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 36–37. doi:10.1037/a0015146
9.
ChafouleasS. M.MillerF. G.BrieschA. M.NeugebauerS. R.Riley-TillmanT. C. (2012). Usage Rating Profile—Assessment. Storrs: University of Connecticut.
10.
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
11.
CokerD. L.RitcheyK. D. (2014). Universal screening for writing risk in kindergarten. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39, 245–256.
12.
The Conference Board. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st Century workforce. Prepared with The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resources Management. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=250&Itemid=64
13.
DenoS. L.MarstonD.MirkinP. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
14.
Diercks-GranseeB.WeissenburgerJ. W.JohnsonC. L.ChristensenP. (2000). Curriculum-based measures of writing for high school students. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0741932508324398
15.
Diercks-GranseeB.WeissenburgerJ. W.JohnsonC. L.ChristensenP. (2009). Curriculum-based measures of writing for high school students. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 360–371.
16.
EckertT. L.HintzeJ. M. (2000). Behavioral conceptions and applications of acceptability: Issues related to service delivery and research methodology. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 123–148. doi:10.1037/h0088782
17.
EckertT. L.ShapiroE. S.LutzJ. G. (1995). Teachers’ ratings of the acceptability of curriculum-based assessment methods. School Psychology Review, 24, 497–511.
18.
EspinC.ShinJ.DenoS.SkareS.RobinsonS.BennerB. (2000). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency for middle school students. Journal of Special Education, 34, 140–153. doi:10.1177/002246690003400303
19.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, England: SAGE.
20.
FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 30–37.
21.
FoegenA.EspinC. A.AllinderR. M.MarkellM. 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
22.
GansleK. A.GilbertsonD. N.VanDerHeydenA. M. (2006). Elementary school teachers’ perceptions of curriculum-based measures of written expression. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 11, 1–17.
23.
GansleK. A.VanDerHeydenA. M.NoellG. H.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.
HamptonD. D.LembkeE. S. (2016). Examining the technical adequacy of progress monitoring using early writing curriculum-based measures. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32, 336–352. doi:10.1080/10573569.2014.973984
26.
ewellJ.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, 27–44.
27.
KazdinA. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259–273.
28.
Keller-MargulisM. A.MercerS. H.ThomasE. (2016). Generalizability theory reliability of written expression curriculum-based measurement in universal screening. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 383–392. doi:10.1037/spq0000126
29.
Keller-MargulisM. A.PayanA.JaspersK. E.BrewtonC. (2016). Validity and diagnostic accuracy of written expression curriculum-based measurement for students with diverse language backgrounds. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32, 174–198. doi:10.1080/10573569.2014.964352
30.
MaleckiC. K.JewellJ. (2003). Developmental, gender, and practical considerations in scoring curriculum-based measurement writing probes. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 379–390. doi:10.1002/pits.10096
31.
MarstonD. (1981). An analysis of learning trends in simple measure of reading, spelling, and written expression: A longitudinal study (Vol. IRLD-RR-49, pp. 36). Minneapolis: Minnesota University, Minneapolis Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
32.
McMasterK.EspinC. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68–84.
33.
McMasterK. L.CampbellH. (2008). New and existing curriculum-based writing measures: Technical features within and across grades. School Psychology Review, 37, 550–556.
34.
MercerS. H.MartínezR. S.FaustD.MitchellR. R. (2012). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measurement in writing with narrative and expository prompts relative to passage copying speed in 10th grade students. School Psychology Quarterly, 27, 85–95. doi:10.1037/a0029123
35.
MillerF. G.ChafouleasS. M.Riley-TillmanT. C.FabianoG. A. (2014). Teacher perceptions of the usability of school-based behavior assessments. Behavioral Disorders, 39, 201–210.
36.
MillerF. G.NeugebauerS. R.ChafouleasS. M.BrieschA. M.Riley-TillmanT. C. (2013, August). Examining innovation usage: Construct validation of the usage rating profile–assessment. Poster presentation at the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, Hawaii.
37.
NastasiB. K.TruscottS. D. (2000). Acceptability research in school psychology: Current trends and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 117–122. doi:10.1037/h0088781
38.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES2012-470). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
39.
ReimersT. M.WackerD. P.KoepplG. (1987). Acceptability of behavioral interventions: A review of the literature. School Psychology Review, 16, 12–227.
40.
RitcheyK. D.CokerD. L.Jr. (2013). An investigation of the validity and utility of two curriculum-based measurement writing tasks. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29, 89–119. doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.741957
41.
RosenfieldS. (2000). Crafting usable knowledge. American Psychologist, 55, 1347–1355. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1347
42.
ShapiroE. S.EckertT. L. (1993). Curriculum-based assessment among school psychologists: Knowledge, use, and attitudes. Journal of School Psychology, 31, 375–383. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(93)90002-Z
43.
Sterling-TurnerH. E.WatsonT. S. (2002). An analog investigation of the relationship between treatment acceptability and treatment integrity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 39–50. doi:10.1023/A:1014333305011
44.
TindalG.ParkerR. (1989). Assessment of written expression for students in compensatory and special education programs. Journal of Special Education, 23, 169–183.
45.
TrillingB.FadelC. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
46.
VideenJ.DenoS.MarstonD. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Rep. No. 84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
47.
WhiteS.KimY. Y.ChenJ.LiuF. (2015). Performance of fourth-grade students in the 2012 NAEP computer-based writing pilot assessment: Scores, text length, and use of editing tools (Working Paper Series. NCES 2015-119). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
48.
WittJ. C.MartensB. K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 510–517.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
