Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth

Journal of Special Education

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 164-172

  Shin, Jongho ^a   Deno, Stanley L ^a   Espin, Christine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034348041     PISSN: 00224669     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/002246690003400305     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual differences in terms of Matthew effects in reading: Results from a Dutch longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1373-1399.
2. Bereiter, C. (1963). Some persisting dilemmas in the measurement of change. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in measuring (pp. 3-20). Madison: University of Wisconsin.
3. Bradley, J. M., Ackerson, G., & Ames, W. S. (1978). The reliability of the maze procedure. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 291-296.
4. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147-158.
5. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Harcourt Brace.
7. Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure "change" - Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68-80.
8. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1985). California achievement test. Monterey, CA: Author.
9. Deno, L. S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
10. Deno, L. S. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement (pp. 1-17). New York: Guilford.
11. Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
12. Espin, C. A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students' performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497-514.
13. Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1994). Measurement of change: Assessing behavior over time and within a developmental context. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 29-58). Baltimore: Brookes.
14. Francis, H. (1992). Patterns of reading development in the first school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 225-232.
15. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
16. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45-58.
17. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Waltz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
18. Good, R. R, & Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61-88). New York: Guilford.
19. Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
20. Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421-432.
21. Labouvie, E. W. (1982). The concept of change and regression toward the mean. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 251-257.
22. Lord, F. M. (1956). The measurement of growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 421-435.
23. Lord, F. M. (1963). Elementary models for measuring change. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in measuring (pp. 21-38). Madison: University of Wisconsin.
24. Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why it is. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford.
25. Marston, D., Deno, S. L., & Tindal, G. (1983). A comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques in measuring pupil progress (Research Rep. No. 126). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
26. Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52, 266-276.
27. O'Connor, E. F. (1972). Extending classical test theory to the measurement of change. Review of Educational Research, 42, 73-97.
28. Parker, R. I., Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). The maze as a classroom-based reading measure: Construction methods, reliability, and validity. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 195-218.
29. Parker, R. I., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. E. (1989). Initial validation of two classroom-based measures of reading comprehension. Diagnostique, 14, 222-240.
30. Phillips, N. B., Hamlett, C. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1993). Combining classwide curriculum-based measurement and peer tutoring to help general educators provide adaptive education. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 148-156.
31. Robinson, S. L., DePascale, C., & Roberts, F. (1989). Computer-delivered feedback in group-based instruction: Effects for learning disabled students in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5, 28-35.
32. Shin, J. (1999). Reading-skill development and instructional practices facilitating reading growth for students with and without learning disabilities: A 1-year longitudinal study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
33. Shin, J., Espin, C., Deno, S. L., & McConnell, S. (1999). Technical characteristics of curriculum-based measurement in examining academic skill development and factors facilitating student growth in special education. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.
34. Shin, J., Deno, S. L., Robinson, S. L., & Marston, D. (in press). Predicting classroom achievement from active responding on a computer-based groupware system. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 53-60.
35. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
36. Willet, J. B. (1989). Questions and answers in the measurement of change. Review of Research in Education, 15, 345-421.
37. Willet, J. B., & Sayer, A. G. (1994). Using covariance structure analysis to detect correlates and predictors of individual change over time. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 363-381.