The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between scores on two common curriculum-based measures (CBMs), oral reading fluency (ORF) and maze, and scores on the previous statewide assessment of reading in Oregon (Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills-Reading/Literature [OAKS-R]). Data obtained from three cohorts of eighth-grade students were used to examine CBM validity, and the relationship between student characteristics and OAKS-R performance. Positive relationships between ORF and maze scores and performance on the OAKS-R were obtained. In addition, the strength of the predictive relationships varied across cohorts, but not as a function of student characteristics. These results suggest that eighth-grade CBM data can be used as an efficient means to identify and intervene with those at risk of performing poorly on the end-of-year, high stakes accountability assessment. Consideration of the tradeoffs associated with using one or more CBMs in middle school is provided.
BakerD. L.BiancarosaG.ParkB. J.BousselotT.SmithJ. L.BakerS. K.. . . TindalG. (2015). Validity of CBM measures of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension on high-stakes reading assessments in Grades 7 and 8. Reading and Writing, 28, 57–104.
2.
BakerS. K.SmolkowskiK.KatzR.FienH.SeeleyJ.Kame’enuiE.Thomas BeckC. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing high poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37.
3.
CavanaughC. L.KimA.WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2004). Kindergarten reading interventions for at-risk students: Twenty years of research. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 9–21.
4.
ChardD. J.StoolmillerM.HarnB. A.WanzekJ.VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.Kame’enuiE. J. (2008). Predicting reading success in a multilevel schoolwide reading model: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 174–188. doi:10.1177/0022219407313588
5.
ChungS.EspinC. A.StevensonC. E. (2018). CBM maze-scores as indicators of reading level and growth for seventh-grade students. Reading and Writing, 31, 627–648.
6.
ClemensN. H.Keller-MargulisM. A.ScholtenT.YoonM. (2016). Screening assessment within a multi-tiered system of support: Current practices, advances, and next steps. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 187–213). Boston, MA: Springer.
7.
ConoyerS. J.LembkeE. S.HospJ. L.EspinC. A.HospM. K.PochA. L. (2017). Getting more from your maze: Examining differences in distractors. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33, 141–154. doi:10.1080/10573569.2016.1142913
8.
CrawfordL.TindalG.StieberS. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7, 303–323.
9.
DeckerD. M.HixsonM. D.ShawA.JohnsonG. (2014). Classification accuracy of oral reading fluency and maze in predicting performance on large-scale reading assessments. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 625-635.
10.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
11.
DentonC. A.CirinoP. T.BarthA. E.RomainM.VaughnS.WexlerJ.. . . FletcherJ. M. (2011). An experimental study of scheduling and duration of ‘‘tier 2” first-grade reading intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 208–230.
12.
EspinC.WallaceT.LembkeE.CampbellH.LongJ. D. (2010). Creating a progress monitoring system in reading for middle-school students: Tracking progress toward meeting high-stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research, 25, 60–75.
13.
FordJ. W.MissallK. N.HospJ. L.KuhleJ. L. (2016). Comparing two CBM maze selection tools: Considering scoring and interpretive metrics for universal screening. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 32, 329–353.
14.
FordJ. W.MissallK. N.HospJ. L.KuhleJ. L. (2017). Examining oral passage reading rate across three curriculum-based measurement tools for predicting grade-level proficiency. School Psychology Review, 46, 363–378. doi:10.17105/SPR-2016-0014.V46-4
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal measures of reading comprehension. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–28.
17.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades. A practice guide.
18.
JenkinsJ.FuchsL. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement: The paradigm, history, and legacy. In EspinC.McMasterK.RoseS.WaymanM. (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 7–24). University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.cttttxf9.5
19.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
20.
MarcotteA.HintzeJ. (2009). Incremental and predictive utility of formative assessment methods of reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 315–335.
21.
McCallM. S. (2005). Technical review of the Oregon Department of Education assessment system. Pottsboro, TX: Northwest Evaluation Association.
22.
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: American Council on Education.
23.
MuijselaarM. L.KendeouP.de JongP. F.van den BroekP. W. (2017). What does the CBM-Maze test measure?Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 120–132. doi:10.1080/10888438.2016.1263994
24.
Oregon Department of Education. (2007). 2006-2007 technical report: Oregon’s statwide assessment system reliability and validity. Salem, OR: Author.
25.
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.
26.
PerfettiC. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.
27.
PetscherY.KimY. S. (2011). The utility and accuracy of oral reading fluency score types in predicting reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 107–129.
28.
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.
29.
ReynoldsR. E. (2000). Attentional resource emancipation: Toward understanding the interaction of word identification and comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 169–195. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0403_1
30.
RitcheyK. D.SilvermanR. D.SchatschneiderC.SpeeceD. L. (2015). Prediction and stability of reading problems in middle childhood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 298–309.
31.
ShapiroE. S.SolariE.PetscherY. (2008). Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 316–328. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.03.002
32.
ShinJ. (2017). Relations between CBM (Oral Reading and Maze) and Reading Comprehension on State Achievement Tests: A Meta-Analysis (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, MN.
33.
ShinnM. R.BamontoS. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum based measurement: “Big ideas” and avoiding confusion. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), The Guilford school practitioner series. Advanced applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
34.
ShinnM. R.GoodR. H. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 138–154.
35.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002a). Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
36.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002b). Reading maze for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
37.
SilberglittB.BurnsM.MadyunN.LailK. (2006). Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 527–535.
38.
SnyderT. D.de BreyC.DillowS. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2014 (NCES 2016-006). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
39.
StevensonN. A. (2017). Comparing curriculum-based measures and extant datasets for universal screening in middle school reading. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42, 195–208.
40.
StevensonN. A.ReedD. K.TigheE. L. (2016). Examining potential bias in screening measures for middle school students by special education and low socioeconomic status subgroups. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 533–547. doi:10.1002/pits.21919
41.
TichaR.EspinC. A.WaymanM. M. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity and sensitivity to growth of Reading-Aloud and Maze-selection measures. Learning Disabilities Research, 24, 132–142.
42.
TindalG. (2012). Curriculum-based measures: Application with state assessments. In EspinC.McMasterK.RoseS.WaymanM. (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 237–246). University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.cttttxf9.23
43.
TolarT. D.BarthA. E.FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.VaughnS. (2012). Psychometric properties of maze tasks in middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37, 131–146.
44.
TorgesenJ. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7–26.
45.
ValenciaS. W.SmithA. T.ReeceA. M.LiM.WixsonK. K.NewmanH. (2010). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 270–291.
46.
WanzekJ.RobertsG.Linan-ThompsonS.VaughanS.WoodruffT. L.MurrayC. S. (2010). Differences in the relationship of oral reading fluency and high-stakes measures of reading comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 67–77.
47.
WileyH. I.DenoS. L. (2005). Oral Reading and Maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on state standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207–214.
48.
YeoS. (2010). Predicting performance on state achievement tests using curriculum-based measurement in reading: A multilevel meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 412–422.
