The current availability of research examining the precision of single-skill mathematics (SSM) curriculum-based measurements (CBMs) for progress monitoring is limited. Given the observed variance in administration conditions across current practice and research use, we examined potential differences between student responding and precision of slope when SSM-CBMs were administered individually and in group (classroom) conditions. No differences in student performance or measure precision were observed between conditions, indicating flexibility in the practical and research use of SSM-CBMs across administration conditions. In addition, findings contributed to the literature examining the stability of SSM-CBMs slopes of progress when used for instructional decision-making. Implications for the administration and interpretation of SSM-CBMs in practice are discussed.
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, 266–283.
2.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J.MorenL. 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.
BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M.JibanC. (2006). Assessing the instructional levels for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.
4.
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.
5.
ChristT. J.DesjardinsC. D. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: An evaluation of frequentist and Bayesian methods to model progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36, 55–73.
6.
ChristT. J.Johnson-GrosK. N.HintzeJ. M. (2005). An examination of alternative assessment durations when assessing multiple-skill computational fluency: The generalizability and dependability of curriculum-based outcomes within the context of educational decisions. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 615–622. https://.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20107
7.
ChristT. J.ScullinS.TolbizeA.JibanC. L. (2008). Implications of recent research: Curriculum-based measurement of math computation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 198–205. https://.doi.org/10.1177/1534508407313480
8.
ChristT. J.ViningO. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement procedures to develop multiple-skill mathematics computation probes: Evaluation of random and stratified stimulus-set arrangements. School Psychology Review, 35, 387–400.
9.
ChristT. J.ZopluogluC.MonaghenB. D.Van NormanE. R. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Multi-study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset quality on progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 19–57.
10.
ClarkeB.ShinnM. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248.
11.
ColónE. P.KranzlerJ. H. (2006). Effects of instructions on curriculum-based measurement of reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 318–328. https://.doi.org/10.1177/0734282906287830
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Council for Exceptional Children.
14.
Derr-MinecciT. F.ShapiroE. S. (1992). Validating curriculum-based measurement in reading from a behavioral perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 2–16.
15.
DuhonG. J.HouseS.HastingsK.PoncyB.SolomonB. (2015). Adding immediate feedback to explicit timing: An option for enhancing treatment intensity to improve mathematics fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 74–87. https://.doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-923-y
16.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139. https://.doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410020101
17.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
18.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219. https://.doi.org/10.2307/1511189
19.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2004). Determining adequate yearly progress from kindergarten through grade 6 with curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29, 25–37. https://.doi.org/10.1177/073724770402900405
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (1990). Curriculum-based measurement: A standardized long-term goal approach to monitoring student progress. Academic Therapy, 25, 615–632.
21.
HawkinsR. O.Musti-RaoS.HughesC.BerryL.McGuireS. (2009). Applying a randomized interdependent group contingency component to classwide peer tutoring for multiplication fact fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 300–318.
22.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J.KellerL. A. (2002). The generalizability of CBM survey-level mathematics assessments: Just how many samples do we need?School Psychology Review, 31, 514–528.
23.
HojnoskiR. L.SilberglittB.FloydR. G. (2009). Sensitivity to growth over time of the Preschool Numeracy Indicators with a sample of preschoolers in head start. School Psychology Review, 38, 402–418.
24.
Keller-MargulisM. A.ShapiroE. S.HintzeJ. M. (2008). Long-term diagnostic accuracy of curriculum-based measures in reading and mathematics. School Psychology Review, 37, 374–390.
25.
MetheS. A.BrieschA. M.HulacD. (2015). Evaluating procedures for reducing measurement error in math curriculum-based measurement probes. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 99–113. https://.doi.org/10.1177/1534508414553295
26.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2019). 2019 Mathematics assessment report card: Summary data tables with additional detail for average scores and achievement levels for states and jurisdictions. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/NDE
27.
NelsonP. M.ParkerD. C.Van NormanE. R. (2018). Subskill mastery among elementary and middle school students at risk in mathematics. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 722–736.
PoncyB. C.SolomonB. G.DuhonG.SkinnerC.MooreK.SimonsS. (2015). An analysis of learning rate and curricular scope: Caution when choosing academic interventions based on aggregated outcomes. School Psychology Review, 44, 289–305.
30.
ShapiroE. S. (2011). Academic skills problems (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
31.
SolomonB. G.PayneL. L.CampanaK. V.MarrE. A.BattistaC.SilvaA.DawesJ. M. (2020). Single-skill math curriculum-based measurement: The effect of set size on magnitude and precision of slope. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38, 724–739.
32.
SolomonB. G.PoncyB. C.BattistaC.CampanaK. V. (2020). A review of common rates of improvement when implementing whole-number operation math interventions. School Psychology, 35, 353–362.
33.
StraitG. G.SmithB. H.PenderC.MaloneP. S.RobertsJ.HallJ. D. (2015). The reliability of randomly generated math curriculum-based measurements. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 247–253. https://.doi.org/10.1177/1
ThornbladS. C.ChristT. J. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Is 6 weeks of daily progress monitoring enough?School Psychology Review, 43, 19–29.
37.
VanDerHeydenA. M.BroussardC. (2021). Construction and examination of math subskill mastery measures. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 46(3), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508419883947
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.
