Meta-analysis was used to examine curriculum-based measurement in the content areas of social studies and science. Nineteen studies between the years of 1998 and 2020 were reviewed to determine overall mean correlation for criterion validity and examine alternate-form reliability and slope coefficients. An overall mean correlation of .59 was found for criterion validity; however, there was significant heterogeneity across studies, suggesting curriculum-based measure (CBM) format or content area may affect findings. Low to high alternative form reliability correlation coefficients were reported across CBM formats between .21 and .89. Studies investigating slopes included mostly vocabulary-matching formats and reported a range from .12 to .65 correct items per week with a mean of .34. Our findings suggest that additional research in the development of these measures in validity, reliability, and slope is warranted.
AdamsB. C.BellL. C.PerfettiA. (1995). A trading relationship between reading skill and domain knowledge in children’s text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 20(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544943
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational, & Psychological Testing (US). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educ Research Association.
3.
American Institutes for Research. (2018). National Center for Intensive Intervention: Academic progress monitoring tools chart. https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/
4.
*BeyersS. J.LembkeE. S.CursB. (2013). Social studies progress monitoring and intervention for middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413489162
5.
BorensteinM. (2005). Software for publication bias. In RothsteinH. R., et al. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis (pp. 193–220). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168.ch1
6.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.HigginsJ.RothsteinH. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley.
*BorsukE. R. (2010). Examination of an administrator-read vocabulary-matching measure as an indicator of science achievement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508410372081
9.
BuschT. W.EspinC. A. (2003). Using curriculum-based measurement to prevent failure and assess learning in the content areas. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4). 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770302800306
10.
CervettiG. N.WrightT. S.HwangH. (2016). Conceptual coherence, comprehension, and vocabulary acquisition: A knowledge effect?Reading and Writing, 29(4), 761–779.
11.
ChungS.EspinC. A. (2013). CBM Progress Monitoring in Foreign Language Learning for Secondary School Students: Technical Adequacy of Different Measures and Scoring Procedures. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(4), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413489723
12.
CochranW. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10, 101–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001666
13.
*ConoyerS. J.FordJ. W.SmithR. A.MasonE. N.LembkeE. S.HospJ. L. (2019). Examining curriculum-based measurement screening tools in middle school science: A scaled replication study. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(7), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918803493
14.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232.
15.
*EspinC. A.BuschT. W.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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413489724
16.
*EspinC. A.BuschT. W.ShinJ.KruschwitzR. (2001). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00015
17.
EspinC. A.CampbellH. (2012). They’re getting older . . . but are they getting better? The influence of curriculum based measurement on programming for secondary school students with learning disabilities. In EspinC.McMasterK. L.WaymanM. M.RöseS. (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 149–164). University of Minnesota Press.
18.
EspinC. A.ChungS.FoegenA.CampbellH. M. (2019). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary-school students. In PullenP. C.KennedyM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention and multi-tiered systems of support (pp. 307–331). Routledge.
19.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L. (1995). Curriculum-based measures for secondary students: Utility and task specificity of text-based reading and vocabulary measures for predicting performance on content-area tasks. Diagnostique, 20, 121–142.
20.
EspinC. A.FoegenA. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62(6), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299606200602
21.
*EspinC. A.ShinJ.BuschT. W. (2005). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Vocabulary matching as an indicator of progress in social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4). 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380041301
22.
EspinC. A.TindalG. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students. In ShinnM.R. (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. The Guilford School Practitioner Series.
23.
FewsterS.MacmillanP. (2002). School-based evidence for the validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading and writing. Remedial & Special Education, 23(3), 149–158.
24.
*FordJ. W.ConoyerS. J.LembkeE. S.SmithR. A.HospJ. L. (2018). A comparison of two content area curriculum-based measurement tools. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508417736753
25.
*FordJ. W.HospJ. L. (2019). Statement verification or science: Theory and examine technical adequacy of alternate forms. Exceptionality, 27(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2017.1375410
26.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
27.
GerstenR.ClarkeB.JordanN. C.Newman-GoncharR.HaymondK.WilkinsC. (2012). Universal Screening in Mathematics for the Primary Grades: Beginnings of a Research Base. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800403
28.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
29.
HospJ. L.FordJ. W.HuddleS. M.HensleyK. K. (2018). The importance of replication in measurement research: Using curriculum-based measures with postsecondary students with developmental disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508417727489
30.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
31.
Huedo-MedinaT. B.Sánchez-MecaJ.Marín-MartínezF.BotellaJ. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?Psychological Methods, 11(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193
32.
*JohnsonE.SemmelrothC.AllisonJ.FritschT. (2013). The technical properties of science content maze passages for middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(4), 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413489337
33.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R.McCoyJ. D.TwymanT.TindalG. (2006). Using a concept maze to assess student understanding of secondary-level content. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(2), 39–50.
34.
KilgusS. P.MetheS. A.MagginD. M.TomasulaJ. L. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (R-CBM): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology, 52(4), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.06.002
35.
LeeO.MillerE. C.JanuszykR. (2014). Next generation science standards: All standards, all students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 223–233.
36.
*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(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12130
37.
MarinoM. T.BeecherC. C. (2010). Conceptualizing RTI in 21st-century secondary science classrooms: Video games’ potential to provide tiered support and progress monitoring for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 299–311.
38.
MarstonD. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). Guilford Press.
39.
*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(4), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508415624648
40.
*MooneyP.LastrapesR. E. (2019). Replicating criterion validity in science content for the combination of critical content monitoring and sentence verification technique. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 44(4), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418758362
41.
*MooneyP.LastrapesR. E. (2020). Conceptual replications of the critical content monitoring general outcome measure in science content. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 45(2). 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418791733
42.
*MooneyP.LastrapesR. E.MarcotteA. M. S.MatthewsA. M. (2016). Validity of two general outcome measures of science and social studies achievement. Specialusis Ugdymas/Special Education, 1(34). https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291308000104
43.
*MooneyP.McCarterK. S.RussoR. J.BlackwoodD. L. (2013). Examining an online content general outcome measure: Technical features of the statistic score. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413488794
44.
*MooneyP.McCarterK. S.RussoR. J.BlackwoodD. L. (2014). The structure of an online assessment of science and social studies content: Testing optional formats of a general outcome measure. Social Welfare Interdisciplinary Approach, 4, 81–93.
45.
*MooneyP.McCarterK. S.SchravenJ.CallicoatteS. (2013). Additional performance and progress validity findings targeting the content-focused vocabulary matching. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291308000104
46.
*MooneyP.McCarterK. S.SchravenJ.HaydelB. (2010). The relationship between content area general outcome measurement and statewide testing in sixth-grade world history. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(3). 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508409346052
47.
MooneyP.SchravenJ.CoxB. (2010). Test-retest reliability of vocabulary matching in sixth-grade world history. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach, 6, 29–40.
48.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2014). The nation’s report card: 2014 U.S. history, geography, and civics assessments. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
49.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2016). The nation’s report card: 2015 science at grades 4, 8 and 12. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
50.
RomigJ. E.TherrienW. J.LloydJ. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of criterion validity for curriculum-based measurement in written language. The Journal of Special Education, 5(2). 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466916670637
51.
RoyerJ. M.HastingsC. N.HookC. (1979). A sentence verification technique for measuring reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(4), 355–363.
ShinJ.McMasterK. (2019). Relations between CBM (oral reading 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
54.
TroiaG. A. (2006). Meaningful assessment of content-area literacy for youth with and without disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(2), 69–80. https://doi-org./10.1177/073724770603100206
55.
TymanT.TindalG. (2007). Extending curriculum-based measurement into middle/secondary schools: The technical adequacy of the concept maze. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1300/J370v24n01_03
56.
*VannestK. J.ParkerR.DyerN. (2011). Progress monitoring in grade 5 science for low achievers. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909343121
57.
VaughnS.FallA.-M.RobertsG.WanzekJ.SwansonE.MartinezL. R. (2019). Class percentage of students with reading difficulties on content knowledge and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775117
58.
VaughnS.SwansonE. A.RobertsG.WanzekJ.Stillman-SpisakS. J.SolisM.SimmonsD. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.039
59.
YeoS. (2011). Reliability generalization of curriculum-based measurement reading aloud: A meta-analytic review. Exceptionality, 19(2), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2011.562094
60.
YeoS.FearringtonJ. Y.ChristT. J. (2012). Relation between CBM-R and CBM-mR slopes: An application of latent growth modeling. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(3), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508411420129
61.
ZuckerT. A.WilliamsJ. M.BellE. R.AsselM. A.LandryS. H.Monsegue-BaileyP.. . . BhavsarV. (2016). Validation of a brief, screening measure of low-income pre-kindergarteners’ science and engineering knowledge. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.018
