Another look at the "C" in CBM: Does it really matter if curriculum-based measurement reading probes are curriculum-based?

Psychology in the Schools

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 299-312

  Powell Smith, Kelly A ^a   Bradley Klug, Kathy L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035385001     PISSN: 00333085     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pits.1020     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Barnett, D.W., & Macmann, G.M. (1992). Decision-reliability and validity: Contributions and limitations of alternative assessment strategies. The Journal of Special Education, 25(4), 431-452.
2. Bradley-Klug, K.L., Shapiro, E.S., Lutz, J.G., & DuPaul, G.J. (1998). Evaluation of oral reading rate as a curriculum-based measure within literature-based curriculum. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 183-197.
3. Bruce, B., Rubin, A., & Starr, K. (1981). Why readability formulas fail (Report No. BBN-R-4715). Champaign, IL: University of Ilinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.
4. Chall, J.S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
5. Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
6. Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
7. Deno, S.L. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36, 5-10.
8. Deno, S.L., Deno, D., Marston, D., & Marston, D. (1987). Test of reading fluency: Measures for screening and progress monitoring. Minneapolis, MN: Children's Educational Services.
9. Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513-516, 575-578.
10. Fry, E. (1969). Validation of the Fry readability graph across primary grade levels. The Reading Teacher, 22 (6), 534-538.
11. Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1982). Developing goals and objectives for educational programs. Washington: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
12. Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488-500.
13. Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1992). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58, 232-242.
14. Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum? Exceptional Children, 61, 15-24.
15. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of student progress: How much growth can we expect. School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
16. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20-28.
17. Fuchs, L.S., & Shinn, M.R. (1989). Writing CBM IEP objectives. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 130-152). New York: Guilford Press.
18. Good, R.H. III, & Shinn, M.R. (1990). Forecasting accuracy of slope estimates for reading curriculum-based measurement: Empirical evidence. Behavioral Assessment, 12, 179-193.
19. Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S.G. (1988). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
20. Hintze, J.M., & Shapiro, E.S. (1997). Curriculum-based measurement and literature-based reading: Is curriculum-based measurement meeting the needs of changing reading curricula? Journal of School Psychology, 35, 351-357.
21. Hintze, J.M., Shapiro, E. S., & Lutz, J.G. (1994). The effects of curriculum on the sensitivity of curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 28, 188-202.
22. Howell, K.W., Fox, S.L., & Morehead, M.K. (1993). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
23. Johnston, D. (1993). CBA training institute: Creating measurement materials. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), University of Oregon CBM Training Modules (4th ed.). (Available from University of Oregon, School Psychology Program, Department of Applied Behavioral and Communication Sciences, College of Education, 5208 University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-5208.)
24. Klare, G.R. (1988). The formative years. In B.L. Zakaluk & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Readability : Its past, present, and future (pp. 17-34). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
25. Macmillan Reading Program: Connections. (1987). New York: Macmillan-McGraw Hill.
26. Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. . Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford Press.
27. McConnell, C. (1983). Readability: Blind faith in numbers? Journal of Economic Education, 14, 65-71.
28. Powell-Smith, K.A., Shinn, M.R., Stoner, G., & Good, R.H. III (2000). Parent tutoring in reading using literature and curriculum materials: Impact on student reading achievement. School Psychology Review, 29 (1) 5-27.
29. Rodrigues, M., & Stieglitz, E.L. (1997). User's guide for Readability Master 2000 (Version 1.1). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
30. Scribner Reading Series. (1987). New York: Scribner Educational Publishers.
31. Shinn, M.R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
32. Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H. III, & Stein, S. (1989). Summarizing trend in student achievement: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 21, 459-479.
33. Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H. III, Knutson, N., Tilly, W.D. III, & Collins, V.L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459-479.
34. Templeton, S., Cain, C.T., & Miller, J.O. (1981). Reconceptualizing readability: The relationship between surface and underlying structure analyses in predicting the difficulty of basal reader stories. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 382-387.
35. Wheeler, G., & Sherman, T.F. (1983. April). Readability formulas revisited. Science and Children, 38-40.