The current study evaluated whether goal-setting practices that account for seasonal developmental patterns of reading growth decreased the number of weeks data needed to be collected in order to yield accurate response to intervention decisions for a sample of 224 third-grade students. The extent to which more complex decision-making practices improve upon the accuracy of current frameworks across periods of 4 to 8 weeks was also explored. Spring proficiency status on a curriculum-based measurement of reading assessment was used as the reference for classification accuracy. Using a goal line based upon fall to winter grade-level benchmarks tended to produce higher levels of accuracy, kappa, and sensitivity than goal lines based upon fall to spring benchmarks. Collectively, the observed results highlight the potential benefit of establishing seasonal goal lines and suggest that relatively simplistic and accessible approaches to decision-making may result in similar decisions when compared with analytically complex approaches.
AIMSweb. (2012). ROI growth norms. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
2.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J.MorenaL. S.CormierD. C.KlingbeilD. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18.
3.
ChristT. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimating standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133.
4.
ChristT. J.AranasY. A.KemberJ. M.KissA. J.McCarthy-TrentmanA.MonaghenB. D.. . . WhiteM. J. (2014). Formative assessment system for teachers technical manual: Earlyreading, cbmreading, areading, and earlymath. Minneapolis, MN: Formative Assessment System for Teachers.
5.
ChristT. J.DesjardinsC. D. (2018). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: An evaluation of frequentist and Bayesian methods to model progress monitoring data. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36, 55–73.
6.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
7.
CummingsK. D.ParkY.Bauer SchaperH. A. (2013). Form effects on DIBELS next oral reading fluency progress-monitoring passages. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 91–104.
8.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
9.
DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurements to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
10.
FildermanM. J.TosteJ. R.DidionL. A.PengP.ClemensN. H. (2018). Data-based decision making in reading intervention: A synthesis and meta-analysis of the effects of struggling readers. The Journal of Special Education, 52, 174–187.
11.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57–61.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.FergusonC. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement, using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436–450.
14.
GelmanA.CarlinJ. B.SternH. S.DunsonD. B.VehtariA.RubinD. B. (2013). Bayesian data analysis (3rd ed.) Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
15.
GilksW. R.RichardsonS.SpiegelhalterD. J. (1996). Introducing Markov chain Monte Carlo. In GilksW. R.RichardsonS.SpiegelhalterD. (Eds.), Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice (pp. 19–45). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
16.
GoodR. H.Powell-SmithK. A.DeweyE. (2015, February). Making reliable and stable progress decisions: Slope or pathways of progress?Poster presented at the Annual Pacific Coast Research Conference, Coronado, CA.
17.
HintzeJ. M.WellsC. S.MarcotteA. M.SolomonB. G. (2018). Decision-making accuracy of CBM progress-monitoring data. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36, 74–81.
18.
JenkinsJ. R.GraffJ. J.MigliorettiD. L. (2009). Estimating reading growth using intermittent CBM progress monitoring. Exceptional Children, 75, 151–163.
19.
KamataA.NeseJ. F. T.PatarapichayathamC.LaiC. (2013). Modeling nonlinear growth with three data points: Illustration with benchmarking data. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 105-116. doi: 10.1177/1534508412457872
20.
KruschkeJ. K. (2014). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R and BUGS. New York, NY: Academic Press.
MellardD. F.McKnightM.WoodsK. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 186–195.
23.
MercerS. H.LyonsA. F.JohnstonL. E.MillhoffC. L. (2015). Robust regression for slope estimation in curriculum-based measurement progress monitoring. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 176–183.
24.
MirkinP. K.DenoS. L. (1979). Formative evaluation in the classroom: An approach to improving instruction (Research Report No. 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 754).
25.
NeseJ. F.BiancarosaG.AndersonD.LaiC. F.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2012). Within-year oral reading fluency with CBM: A comparison of models. Reading and Writing, 25, 887–915.
26.
ParkerD. C.Van NormanE. R.NelsonP. M. (2018). Decision rules for progress monitoring in reading: Accuracy during a large scale tier II intervention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 219–228.
27.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.ClemensN. H. (2012). Defensible progress monitoring data for medium-and high-stakes decisions. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 141–151.
28.
PlummerM. (2003, March). Jags: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
PlummerM.BestN.CowlesK.VinesK. (2006). CODA: Convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News, 6, 7–11.
31.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469.
32.
SchatschneiderC.WagnerR. K.CrawfordE. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 308–315.
33.
SkibaR.WessonC.DenoS. L. (1982). The effects of training teachers in the use of formative evaluation in reading: An experimental-control comparison (Research Report No. 88). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
34.
SolomonB. G.ForsbergO. J. (2017). Bayesian asymmetric regression as a means to estimate and evaluate oral reading fluency slopes. School Psychology Quarterly, 32, 539–551.
35.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
36.
TolarT. D.BarthA. E.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.VaughnS. (2014). Predicting reading outcomes with progress monitoring slopes among middle grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 46–57.
37.
Van NormanE. R.ChristT. J. (2016). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Accuracy of recommendations from three-point decision rules. School Psychology Review, 45, 296–309.
38.
Van NormanE. R.ChristT. J.NewellK. W. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement of reading progress monitoring: The importance of growth magnitude and goal setting in decision making. School Psychology Review, 46, 320–328.
39.
Van NormanE. R.NelsonP. M. (2019). The influence of trend estimation method on forecasting curriculum-based measurement of reading performance. Journal of School Psychology, 74, 44–57.
40.
Van NormanE. R.NelsonP. M.ParkerD. C. (2019). Curriculum-based measurement of reading decision rules: Strategies to improve the accuracy of treatment recommendations. School Psychology Review, 47, 333–344.
41.
Van NormanE. R.ParkerD. C. (2018). A comparison of common and novel curriculum-based measurement of reading decision rules to predict spring performance for students receiving supplemental interventions. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43, 110–120.
42.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TichaR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85-120.
43.
YeoS.KimD. I.Branum-MartinL.WaymanM. M.EspinC. A. (2012). Assessing the reliability of curriculum-based measurement: An application of latent growth modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 275–292.
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.
