Replication studies in special education are necessary to strengthen the foundation upon which instruction and intervention for students with disabilities are built. J. Jenkins et al. (2017) found intermittent reading fluency progress monitoring schedules did not delay decision-making and were similar in decision-making accuracy to the traditional weekly progress monitoring schedule. Results of the current pilot study, although underpowered, conceptually replicated the original claims and extended their work by investigating their questions in the area of mathematics computation. Implications for research and practice are shared.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.004
2.
BanerjeeR.MovahedazarhoulighS.MillenK.LucknerJ. L. (2018). Building evidence in early childhood special education: A systematic review of replication intervention studies. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 37(4), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112141774819
3.
BulutO.CormierD. C. (2018). Validity evidence for progress monitoring with star reading: Slope estimates, administration frequency, and number of data points. Frontiers in Education, 3, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00068
4.
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(1), 19–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.001
5.
ClarkeB.NeseJ. F.AlonzoJ.SmithJ. L. M.TindalG.Kame’enuiE. J.BakerS. K. (2011). Classification accuracy of easyCBM first-grade mathematics measures: Findings and implications for the field. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(4), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508411414153
6.
CoddingR. S.PetscherY.TruckenmillerA. (2015). CBM reading, mathematics, and written expression at the secondary level: Examining latent composite relations among indices and unique predictions with a state achievement test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037520
7.
CookB. G. (2014). A call for examining replication and bias in special education research. Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514528995
8.
CookB. G.CollinsL. W.CookS. C.CookL. (2016). A replication by any other name: A systematic review of replicative intervention studies. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516637198
9.
CookB. G.LloydJ. W.MelorD.NosekB. A.TherrienW. J. (2018). Promoting open science to increase the trustworthiness of evidence in special education. Exceptional Children, 85(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918793138
10.
CoyneM. D.CookB. G.TherrienW. J. (2016). Recommendations for replication research in special education: A framework for systematic, conceptual replications. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516648463
FieldA.MilesJ.FieldZ. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. SAGE.
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.SteckerP. M. (2021). Bringing data-based individualization to scale: A call for the next-generation technology of teacher supports. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(5), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420950654
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.WalzL.GermannG. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1993.12085636
GeselS. A.LemonsC. J. (2020). Comparing schedules of progress monitoring using curriculum-based measurement in reading: A replication study. Exceptional Children, 87(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920924845
18.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
19.
IoannidisJ. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464056
20.
JanuaryS.-A. A.Van NormanE. R.ChristT. J.ArdoinS. P.EckertT. L.WhiteM. J. (2019). Evaluation of schedule frequency and density when monitoring progress with curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology, 34(1), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000274
21.
JenkinsJ.SchulzeM.MartiA.HarbaughA. G. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement of reading growth: Weekly versus intermittent progress monitoring. Exceptional Children, 84(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917708216
22.
JenkinsJ. R.ZumetaR.DupreeO.JohnsonK. (2005). Measuring gains in reading ability with passage reading fluency. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(4), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00140.x
23.
JibanC. L.DenoS. L. (2008). MBSP computation: Comparison of desirable characteristics for a grade level and cross-grade common measure (Technical report #3). Research Institute on Progress Monitoring.
24.
KelleyB.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2008). Curriculum-based evaluation and math: An overview. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(4), 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508407313490
25.
LembkeE. S.HamptonD.BeyersS. J. (2012). Response to intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21596
26.
LemonsC. J.KingS. A.DavidsonK. A.BerryessaT. L.GajjarS. A.SacksL. H. (2016). An inadvertent concurrent replication: Same roadmap, different journey. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516631116
27.
MakelM. C.PluckerJ. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14545513
28.
MakelM. C.PluckerJ. A.FreemanJ.LombardiA.SimonsenB.CoyneM. (2016). Replication of special education research: Necessary but far too rare. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516646083
29.
MellardD. F.McKnightM.WoodsK. (2009). Response to Intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(4), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00292.x
30.
NelsonP. M.Van NormanE. R.KlingbeilD. A.ParkerD. C. (2017). Progress monitoring with computer adaptive assessments: The impact of data collection schedule on growth estimates. Psychology in the Schools, 54(5), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22015
31.
NosekB. A.EbersoleC. R.DeHavenA. C.MellorD. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
32.
RosenthalR. (1991). Replication in behavioral research. In NeuliepJ. W. (Ed.), Replication research in the social sciences (pp. 1–39). SAGE.
33.
SchmidtS. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015108
34.
SwainK. D.HagamanJ. L. (2020). Elementary special education teachers’ use of CBM data: A 20-year follow-up. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2019.1678009
35.
TherrienW. J.MathewsH. M.HirschS. E.SolisM. (2016). Progeny review: An alternative approach for examining the replication of intervention studies in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516646081
36.
Van NormanE. R.NelsonP. M.ParkerD. C. (2016). Technical adequacy of growth estimates from a computer adaptive test: Implications for progress monitoring. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(3), 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq00001
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.
