This study examined reading tutors’ interpretation of reading progress-monitoring graphs. A think-aloud procedure was used to evaluate tutors at two points in time, before and after a year of service as an AmeriCorps reading tutor. During their service, the reading tutors received extensive training and ongoing coaching. Descriptive results showed a positive change from the Time 1–think-aloud (pretest) to the Time 2–think aloud (posttest). There were statistically significant changes from Time 1 to Time 2 for the majority of graph interpretation variables measured. Data suggest that the right type of support and training may serve to enable reading tutors to develop the skills to contribute to data-based decision-making within multitiered systems.
AIMSweb. (2012). Reading curriculum-based measurement administration and scoring guide. http://www.aimsweb.com/
2.
AitkenL. M.MarshallA.ElliottR.McKinleyS. (2011). Comparison of “think aloud” and observation as data collection methods in the study of decision making regarding sedation in intensive care patients. International Journal Ofnursing Studies, 48(3), 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.08.001
3.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Standard errors associated with progress monitoring outcomes from DIBELS, AIMSweb, and an experimental passage set. School Psychology Review, 38(2), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087808
4.
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), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.004
5.
ChristT. J.DesjardinsC. D. (2019). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: An evaluation of frequentist and Bayesian methods to model progress monitoring data. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917712174
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press.
10.
EspinC. A.WaymanM. M.DenoS. L.McMasterK. L.de RooijM. (2017). Data-based decision-making: Development of a method for studying teachers’ understanding of CBM graphs. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 32(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12123
11.
FastBridge Learning: FastBridge Learning Support. (2019). FAST projection line. Brown, R.
12.
FildermanM. J.TosteJ. R.DidionL. A.PengP.ClemonsN. H. (2018). Data-based decision making in reading interventions: A synthesis and meta-analysis of the effects for struggling readers. The Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918790001
13.
FormanS. G.ShapiroE. S.CoddingR. S.GonzalesJ. E.ReddyL. A.RosenfieldS. A.SanettiL. M. H.StoiberK. C. (2013). Implementation science and school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(2), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000019
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900503
15.
GallM.GallJ.BorgR. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
16.
JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3
NassajiH. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815572747
19.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001
20.
ShinJ.McMasterK. (2019). Relations between CBM (oral reading fluency and maze) and reading comprehension on state achievement tests: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 73, 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.005
21.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819.
22.
Van den BoschR. M.EspinC. A.ChungS.SaabN. (2017). Data based decision making: Teachers’ comprehension of curriculum based measurement progress monitoring graphs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12122
23.
van GeelM.KueningT.VisscherA. J.FoxJ. P. (2016). Assessing the effects of a school-wide data-based decision-making intervention on student achievement growth in primary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 360–394. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216637346
24.
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. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-3.296-309
25.
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(2), 110–120.
26.
WagnerD. L.HammerschmidtS. S. M.EspinC. A.SeifertK.McMasterK. L. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ interpretation of CBM progress monitoring data. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12125
