Exploring Curriculum-Based Measurement in Elementary Science: Investigating Two Vocabulary-Matching Formats

Abstract

As content literacy intervention is expanded in schools, data-based decision-making practices need to also advance, especially in the areas of science. Vocabulary-matching curriculum-based measures (VM-CBM) may allow educators to identify students needing additional support in science vocabulary to assist with using and comprehending disciplinary language. Typically, VM-CBMs have been given in a one-page format, but there has been little investigation of modified presentation of VM items. Participants were 77 fourth grade students from a U.S. Midwestern rural school district. Students from four different classrooms were administered either typical one-page or multipage VM-CBM forms. Multipage forms produced strong alternate form reliability (r = .92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [.85, .96]). Typical forms produced a moderate reliability coefficient (r = .58, 95% CI = [.32, .76]). Regarding concurrent validity, multipage forms were also strongly correlated (r = .71, 95% CI = [.50, .84]; r = .72, 95% CI = [.51, .85]) while typical forms were weakly correlated (r = .40, 95% CI = [.10, .64]; r = .47, 95% CI = [.17, .69]) with a standardized state science assessment. The multipage format appears promising; however, further item level analysis is needed to determine the most efficient way to screen and support students in elementary science literacy.

Keywords

curriculum-based measurement content area assessment screening/benchmarking

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational, & Psychological Testing (U.S.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

Borsuk

E. 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

Busch

T. W.

Espin

C. 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

Conoyer

S. J.

Ford

J. W.

Alex Smith

Mason

E. N.

Lembke

E. S.

Hosp

J. 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

Conoyer

S. J.

Therrien

W. J.

White

K. K.

(2022). Meta-analysis of validity and review of alternate form reliability and slope for curriculum-based measurement in science and social studies. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 47(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508420978457

Darling-Hammond

Bae

Cook-Harvey

C. M.

Lam

Mercer

Podolsky

Stosich

E. L.

(2016). Pathways to new accountability through the every student succeeds act. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

Deno

S. L.

(1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298505200303

Espin

C. A.

Busch

T. W.

Lembke

E. S.

Hampton

D. D.

Seo

Zukowski

B. 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

Espin

C. A.

Busch

T. W.

Shin

Kruschwitz

(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

10.

Ford

J. W.

Conoyer

S. J.

Lembke

E. S.

Smith

R. A.

Hosp

J. 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

11.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086241

12.

Hallinen

(2019). STEM. Encyclopedia Britannica.

13.

Hosp

M. K.

Hosp

J. L.

Howell

K. W.

(2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. Guilford Publications.

14.

Hwang

McMaster

K. L.

Kendeou

(2023). A longitudinal investigation of directional relations between domain knowledge and reading in the elementary years. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.481

15.

Kim

J. S.

Burkhauser

M. A.

Mesite

L. M.

Asher

C. A.

Relyea

J. E.

Fitzgerald

Elmore

(2021). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000465.supp

16.

Lembke

E. S.

Allen

Cohen

Hubbuch

Landon

Bess

Bruns

(2017). Progress monitoring in social studies using vocabulary-matching curriculum-based measurement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12130

17.

Marston

D. B.

(1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In Shinn

M. R.

(Ed.), Curriculum based measurement assessing special children (pp.18–78). Guilford Press.

18.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2022). The Nation’s Report Card: 2019 science at grades 4, 8 and 12. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/science/nation/achievement/?grade=8

19.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2020). Academic screening tools chart rating rubrics. American Institutes for Research. https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/NCII_AcademicScreening_RatingRubric_2020-06-30.pdf

20.

Perfetti

Stafura

(2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. http://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687

21.

R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

22.

Romig

J. E.

Therrien

W. J.

Lloyd

J. W.

(2017). Meta-analysis of criterion validity for curriculum-based measurement in written language. The Journal of Special Education, 51(2), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466916670637

23.

Shin

McMaster

(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

24.

Tsagris

Frangos

C. C.

Frangos

(2013). Cronbach’s alpha and various formulas for confidence intervals. R package version 0.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Cronbach

25.

Vannest

K. J.

Parker

Dyer

(2011). Progress monitoring in grade 5 science for low achievers. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909343121

26.

Willse

J. T.

(2018). CTT: Classical Test Theory Functions. R package version 2.3.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CTT

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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.15 MB