In this study, 12 students receiving special education services were systematically monitored from two reading curricula concurrently throughout the academic year. Long range goal sampling was used to select measurement passages from two sources: their instructional reading program, which contained highly controlled vocabulary and the curriculum of the mainstream, representing a traditional basal. Paired t-tests were computed to ascertain whether the curriculum made an impact on several indices of performance, some of which were static (measured once, like first performance level in baseline) and others which were dynamic (measured over time, like the average slope of improvement throughout a phase). Although some differences in performance were significant in both static and dynamic indices, performance changes over time were quite comparable in both curricula.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association
2.
Bruner, E. (1983). Reading Mastery II. Chicago: Science Research Associates
3.
Bruner, E., & Hanner, A. (1982). Reading mastery III. Chicago: Science Research Associates
4.
Cassidy, J., Roettger, D., Wixson, K.K. (1987). Scribner reading series. New York: Scribner Educational Publishers
5.
Clymer, T., & Fenn, T. (1979). Reading 720 rainbow edition. Lexington, MA: Ginn
6.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D., Mirkin, P.K., Lowry, L., Sindelar, P., & Jenkins, J. (1982). The use of standard tasks to measure achievement in reading, spelling, and written expression: A normative and developmental study. (Research Report No. 87). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
7.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 35–45.
8.
Englemann, S., & Bruner, E. (1974). Distar I. (2nd edition). Chicago: Science Research Associates
9.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem-solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19 (8), 1–16.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1981). Reliability and validity of curriculum-based informal reading inventories. (Research Report No. 59). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
11.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1992). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58 (3), 232–243.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53 (3), 199–208.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9 (2), 20–29.
14.
Fuchs, L., Tindal, G., & Deno, S. (1981). Effects of varying item domain and sample duration on technical characteristics of daily measures in reading. (Research Report No. 48). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
15.
Gickling, E., & Havertape, J. (1981). Curriculum-based assessment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota School Psychology Inservice Training Network
16.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2–5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24 (3), 41–44.
17.
Madden, R., Gardner, E.R., Rudman, H., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J.C. (1978). Stanford Achievement Test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
18.
Marston, D., & Deno, S.L. (1982). Implementation of direct and repeated measurement in the school setting. (Research Report No. 106). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
19.
Marston, D., Deno, S.L., & Tindal, G. (1983). Comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement tasks in measuring pupil performance. (Research Report No. 126). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
20.
Marston, D., Lowry, L., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1981). An analysis of learning trends in simple measures of reading, spelling, and written expression: A longitudinal study. (Research Report No. 49). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
21.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.) Educational measurement (third edition) (pp. 13–98). New York: Macmillan.
22.
Mirkin, P.K., & Deno, S.L. (1979). Formative evaluation in the classroom: An approach to improving instruction. (Research Report No. 10). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
23.
Mirkin, P.K., Deno, S., Fuchs, L., Wesson, C., Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Kuehnle, K. (1981). Procedures to develop and monitor progress on I.E.P. goals. (Training Manual). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
24.
Roddi, D., & Germann, G. (1988). Sheri. Computer software for the Apple II series. Rush City, MN: St. Croix River Valley.
25.
Shinn, M., Gleason, M., & Tindal, G. (1989). Varying the difficulty of testing materials: Implications for curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 23 (2), 223–233.
26.
Tindal, G., & Deno, D. (1981). Daily measurement of reading: Effects of varying the size of the item pool. (Research Report No. 55). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
27.
Tindal, G., Germann, G., & Deno, S. (1983). Descriptive research on the Pine County norms: A compilation of findings. (Research Report No. 132). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
28.
Tindal, G., Marston, D., Deno, S., & Germann, G. (1982). Curriculum differences in direct repeated measures of reading. (Research Report No. 93). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
29.
White, O. (1974). A pragmatic approach to the description of progress in the single case. University of Oregon: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
30.
Wilson, R.G., & Rudolph, M.K. (1980). Merrill linguistic reading program (3rd edition). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
31.
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (1973). Woodcock reading test manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc
