The purpose of this investigation was to identify the most problematic barriers to effective implementation of Curriculum-based measures in special education programs as perceived by administrators and teachers. Two studies using the Delphi Probe procedure were conducted. The studies were conducted with 56 special education administrators and 146 special education teachers. Administrators and teachers included in the survey had experience in implementing curriculum-based measurement in their programs, schools, and school districts. Results of the administrator Delphi indicated that the greatest barriers included teacher data utilization, logistical concerns, and the difficulties inherent to introducing change into systems. Results of the teacher Delphi indicated that the greatest problems were logistical and concerns with the face validity of the measures. Implications of the findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9, 458–467.
2.
Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., & Gustafson, D.H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company
Deno, S.L. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36, 5–10.
5.
Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Council for Exceptional Children: Reston, VA.
6.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 18, 16–26.
7.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D.B., & Mirkin, P.K. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
8.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Wesson, C. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16, 99–104.
9.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1990). Making educational research more important, Exceptional Children, 57, 102–107.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis, Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1989). Enhancing curriculum-based measurement through computer applications: Review of research and practice. School Psychology Review, 18, 317–327.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10 (2), 43–52.
14.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do it. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford Press.
15.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52, 266–276.
16.
Marston, D., Deno, S.L., & Tindal, G. (1983). A comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques in measuring pupil progress [Research Report No. 126]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
17.
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.
18.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1987). Effective instruction for special education. Boston: Little, Brown and Company
19.
Shinn, M.R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press
20.
Skiba, R., Wesson, C., & Deno, S.L. (1982). The effects of training teachers in the use of formative evaluation in reading: An experimental control comparison (Research Report No. 88). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
21.
Slavin, R.E. (1990). On making a difference. Educational Researcher, 19, 30–34.
Tindal, G., Marston, D.B., & Deno, S.L. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement. (Research Report No. 109). Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
24.
Wesson, C., Fuchs, L.S., Tindal, G.A., Mirkin, P.K., & Deno, S.L. (1986). Facilitating the efficiency of ongoing curriculum-based measurement. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 84–88.
25.
Wesson, C., King, R.P., & Deno, S.L. (1984). Direct and frequent measurement of student performance: If it's good for us, why don't we do it?. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 45–48.
26.
Wesson, C., Skiba, R., Sevcik, B., & King, R., Deno, S.L. (1984). The effects of technically adequate instructional data on achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 17–22.
