The purpose of this preliminary study was to explore the reliability of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) vocabulary-matching forms with students in an introduction to special education course in a college setting. Data from 84 students enrolled in a teacher preparation program across three semesters were examined. Results suggest low to moderate alternate form reliability with adjacent forms (r = .49) compared to the mean of two weekly forms (r = .65). Future directions on form development to strengthen reliability are discussed as well as implications for CBM use in college classrooms as a formative assessment tool.
BeyersS. J.LembkeE. S.CursB. (2013). Social studies progress monitoring and intervention for middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 224–235. doi:10.1177/1534508413489162
2.
BiancarosaC.SnowC. E. (2006). A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
3.
BorsukE. R. (2010). Examination of an administrator-read vocabulary-matching measures as an indicator of science achievement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 168–177. doi:10.1177/1534508410372081
4.
BravoM. A.CervettiG. N. (2008). Teaching vocabulary through text and experience in content areas. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary instruction (pp. 130–149). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
5.
BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T.KielyM. T.DanielsonL. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76, 357–377. doi:10.1177/001440291007600307
6.
CauleyK. M.McMillanJ. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83, 1–6. doi:10.1080/00098650903267784
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
CuvoA. J. (2003). On stimulus generalization and stimulus classes. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 77–83. doi:1053–0819/03/0300–0077/0
9.
De ArmentS. T.ReedE.WetzelA. P. (2013). Promoting adaptive expertise: A conceptual framework for special educator preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 317–230. doi:10.1177/0888406413489578
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801
12.
EspinC. A.BuschT.LembkeE. S.HamptonD. D.SeoK.ZukowskiB. 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
13.
EspinC. A.BuschT.ShinJ.KruschwitzR. (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
14.
EspinC. A.FoegenA. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497–514.
15.
EspinC. A.ShinJ.BuschT. W. (2005). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Using vocabulary matching as an indicator of progress in social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 353–363. doi:10.1177/00222194050380041301
16.
EspinC. A. (n.d.). Expert connection: Curriculum-based measures: Are there ways to use CBM in content areas? Retrieved from TeachingLD website: http://teachingld.org/questions/12
17.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188–193.
18.
GlazerN. (2014). Formative plus summative assessment in large undergraduate courses: Why both?International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 26, 276–286.
19.
HallahanD. P.KauffmanJ. M.PullenP. C. (2015). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education (13th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
20.
HarmonJ. M.WoodK. D.HendrickW. B. (2008). Vocabulary instruction in middle and secondary content classrooms: Understandings and direction from research. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary instruction (pp. 150–181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
21.
HatanoG.InagakiK. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In StevensonH.AzumaH.HakutaK. (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York, NY: Freeman.
22.
HayesA. F.KrippendorffK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.
23.
HenningsD. G. (2000). Contextually relevant word study: Adolescent vocabulary development across the curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 268–279.
24.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
25.
KennedyM. J.IhleF. M. (2012). The old man and the sea: Navigating the gulf between special educators and the content area classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 44–54.
26.
KennedyM. J.WagnerD.StegallJ.LembkeE.MiciakJ.AlvesK. D.. . . HirschS. E. (2016). Using content acquisition podcasts to improve teacher candidate knowledge of curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 82, 303–320.
27.
KnightP. T. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 275–286. doi:10.1080/03075070220000662
28.
LarsonW. C.WardC. (2006). Developing a predictor of university students’ course grades using curriculum-based measurement: An initial investigation. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37, 45–60. doi:10.1080/10790195.2006.10850192
29.
LembkeE. S.AllenA.CohenD.HubbuchC.LandonD.BessJ.BrunsH. (2017). Progress monitoring in social studies using vocabulary matching curriculum-based measurement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 112–120. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12130
30.
LemkeJ. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
31.
MooneyP.LastrapesR. 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
32.
NicolD. J.Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090
33.
Phythian-SenceC.WagnerR. K. (2007). Vocabulary acquisition: A primer. In WagnerR. K.MuseA. E.TannenbaumK. R. (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
34.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
35.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ.BoltS. (2012). Assessment: In special and inclusive education. Cengage Learning. Boston, MA.
36.
ScheelerM. C.BudinG.MarkelzA. (2016). The role of teacher preparation in promoting evidence-based practice in schools. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14(2), 171–187.
37.
ShinJ.DenoS. L.EspinC. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 164–172. doi:10.1177/002246690003400305
38.
YorkeM. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477–501. doi:10.1023/A:1023967026413
