Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading: Recent advances

International Journal of Disability, Development and Education

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 57-82

  Madelaine, Alison ^a   Wheldall, Kevin ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1642327340     PISSN: 1034912X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1034912042000182201     Document Type: Review

References (115)

1. Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1982). Classification decisions in learning disabilities. Educational and Psychological Research, 2, 117-129.
2. Allinder, R. M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Effects of differential implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 62, 525-535.
3. Allinder, R. M., & Eccarius, M. A. (1999). Exploring the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement in reading for children who use manually coded English. Exceptional Children, 65, 271-283.
4. Allinder, R. M., & Eicher, D. D. (1994). Bouncing back: Regression and recoupment among students with mild disabilities following spring break. Special Services in the Schools, 8, 129-142.
5. Allinder, R. M., & Oats, R. G. (1997). Effects of acceptability on teachers' implementation of curriculum-based measurement and student achievement in mathematics computation. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 113-120.
6. Arthaud, T. J., & Rankin, J. L. (1996). Effects of differential feedback upon the oral reading fluency of secondary students with learning disabilities. Diagnostique, 21, 41-57.
7. Arthaud, T. J., Vasa, S. F., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2000). Reading assessment and instructional practices in special education. Diagnostique, 25, 205-227.
8. Bain, S. K., & Garlock, J. W. (1992). Cross-validation of criterion-related validity for CBM reading passages. Diagnostique, 17, 202-208.
9. Baker, S. K., & Good, R. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561-578.
10. Baker, S. K., Plasencia-Peinado, J., & Lezcano-Lytle, V. (1998). The use of curriculum-based measurement with language-minority students. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 175-213). New York: The Guilford Press.
11. Bates, C., & Nettlebeck, T. (2001). Primary school teachers' judgements of reading achievement. Educational Psychology, 21, 179-189.
12. 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.
13. Burns, M. K., Tucker, J. A., Hauser, A., Thelen, R. L., Holmes, K. J., & White, K. (2002). Minimum reading fluency rate necessary for comprehension: A potential criterion for curriculum-based assessments. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 1-7.
14. Conte, K. L., & Hintze, J. M. (2000). The effects of performance feedback and goal setting on oral reading fluency within curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique, 25, 85-98.
15. CTB/MacGraw-Hill (1983). Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, Forms U and V. Monterey, CA: Author.
16. Davis, L. B., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Whinnery, K. (1995). "Will CBM help me learn?" Student perception of the benefits of curriculum-based measurement. Education and Treatment of Children, 18, 19-32.
17. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
18. Deno, S. L. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36, 5-10.
19. Deno, S. L. (1998). Academic progress as incompatible behavior: Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) as intervention. Beyond Behavior, 9(3), 12-17.
20. Deno, S. L. (2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 3-11.
21. 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.
22. Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507-524.
23. Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
24. Derr-Minneci, & Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Validating curriculum-based measurement in reading from a behavioral perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 2-16.
25. Dunn, E. K., & Eckert, T. L. (2002). Curriculum-based measurement in reading: A comparison of similar versus challenging material. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 24-46.
26. Eckert, T. L., Shapiro, E. S., & Lutz, J. G. (1995). Teachers' ratings of the acceptability of curriculum-based assessment methods. School Psychology Review, 24, 497-511.
27. Elliot, S. N., & Fuchs, L. S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessment as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224-233.
28. Espin, C. A., & Deno, S. L. (1994-5). Curriculum-based measures for secondary students: Utility and task specificity of text-based reading and vocabulary measures for predicting performance on content-area tasks. Diagnostique, 20, 121-142.
29. 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.
30. Espin, C. A., & Tindal, G. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 214-253). New York: The Guilford Press.
31. Faykus, S. P., & McCurdy, B. L. (1998). Evaluating the sensitivity of the maze as an index of reading proficiency for students who are severely deficient in reading. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 1-21.
32. Fewster, S., & MacMillan, P. D. (2002). School-based evidence for the validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading and writing. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 149-156.
33. Foegen, A., Espin, C. A., Allinder, R. M., & Markell, M. A. (2001). Translating research into practice: Preservice teachers' beliefs about curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 226-236.
34. Fuchs, D., Fernstrom, P., Reeder, P., Bowers, J., & Gilman, S. (1992). Vaulting barriers to mainstreaming with curriculum-based measurement and transenvironmental programming. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 34-38.
35. Fuchs, L. S. (1992). Classwide decisionmaking with computerized curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 30-33.
36. Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Computer applications to address implementation difficulties associated with curriculum-based measurement. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 89-112). New York: The Guilford Press.
37. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1992). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58, 232-242.
38. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum? Exceptional Children, 61, 15-24.
39. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45-58.
40. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress towards the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28, 659-671.
41. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Furguson, C. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement, using a maze task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436-450.
42. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
43. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Hamlett, C. L. (2003). The potential for diagnostic analysis within curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 13-22.
44. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
45. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20-28.
46. Glor-Scheib, S., & Zigmond, N. (1993). Exploring the potential motivational properties of curriculum-based measurement in reading among middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4, 35-43.
47. Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators or foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
48. Green, S. (2001). Use of CBM oral reading in the general education classroom. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(3), 1-13.
49. Hagan-Burke, S., & Jefferson, G. L. (2002). Using data to promote academic benefit for included students with mild disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 46, 112-118.
50. Hartman, J. M., & Fuller, M. L. (1997). The development of curriculum-based measurement norms in literature-based classrooms. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 377-389.
51. Hasbrouk, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in Grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(3), 41-44.
52. Hasbrouk, J. E., Woldbeck, T., Ihnot, C., & Parker, R. I. (1999). One teacher's use of curriculum-based measurement: A changed opinion. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 118-126.
53. Hintze, J. M., Daly, E. J., III, & Shapiro, E. S. (1998). An investigation of the effects of passage difficulty levels on outcomes of oral reading fluency progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 27, 433-445.
54. Hintze, J. M., & Pelle Petitte, H. A. (2001). The generalizability of CBM oral reading fluency measures across general and special education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 158-170.
55. 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, 351-375.
56. Hintze, J. M., Shapiro, E. S., Conte, K. L., & Basile, I. M. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Criterion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level assessment. School Psychology Review, 26, 535-553.
57. Hintze, J. M., Shapiro, E. S., & Lutz, J. G. (1994). The effects of curriculum on the sensitivity of curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 188-202.
58. Howe, K. B., & Shinn, M. M. (2001). Standard reading assessment passages (RAPs) for use in general outcome measurement: A manual describing development and technical features. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from http://www.edformation.com/Documents/PassagesTechnicalManual.pdf.
59. Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421-432.
60. Karlsen, B., & Gardner, E. (1985). Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
61. Koslin, B. L., Koslin, S., Zeno, S. M., & Ovens, S. H. (1989). The Degrees of Reading Power Test: Primary and Standard Forms. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
62. Kranzler, J. H., Brownell, M. T., & Miller, M. D. (1998). The construct validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading: An empircial test of a plausible rival hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 399-415.
63. MacMillan, P. (2000). Simultaneous measurement of reading growth, gender and relative age effects: Many-faceted Rasch applied to CBM reading scores. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1, 393-408.
64. Macquarie University Special Education Centre. (1998). Making Up Lost time In Literacy (MULTILIT) Reading Tutor Program. Sydney: Author.
65. Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (1998). Towards a curriculum-based passage reading test for monitoring the performance of low-progress readers using standardised passages: A validity study. Educational Psychology, 18, 471-478.
66. Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (1999). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: A critical review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 71-85.
67. Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2002a). Establishing tentative norms and identifying gender differences in performance for a new passage reading test. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 40-45.
68. Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2002b). Further progress towards a standardised curriculum-based measure of reading: Calibrating a new passage reading test against the New South Wales Basic Skills Test. Educational Psychology, 22, 461-471.
69. Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2002c). Identifying low-progress readers: Rankings of student reading performance on the basis of teacher judgment compared with a curriculum-based measurement procedure. Manuscript submitted for publication.
70. Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2002d). A comparison of two quick methods for identifying low-progress readers: Teacher judgment versus curriculum-based measurement. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 26, 32-47.
71. Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2003). Can teachers discriminate low-progress readers from average readers in regular classes? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 4-7.
72. Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2004). Teachers' reactions to curriculum-based passage reading test data. Special Education Perspectives, 13(1).
73. Markell, M. A., & Deno, S. L. (1997). Effects of increasing oral reading: Generalization across reading tasks. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 233-250.
74. Marston, D., Diment, K., Allen, D., & Allen, L. (1992). Monitoring pupil progress in reading. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 21-25.
75. Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1988). Curriculum-based measurement: District level implementation. In J. Graden, J. Zins, & M. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative education delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 137-172). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
76. Marston, D., Mirkin, P., & Deno, S. L. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to traditional screening, referral and identification. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 109-117.
77. Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do it? In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: The Guilford Press.
78. Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Accommodating diversity through Peabody Classwide Peer Tutoring. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 46-50.
79. Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., Roberts, H., & Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Preparing students with special needs for reintegration: Curriculum-based measurement's impact on transenvironmental programming. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 615-624.
80. McMaster, K., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2002). Monitoring the academic progress of children who are unresponsive to generally effective early reading intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27(4), 23-33.
81. Mehrens, W. A., & Clarizio, H. F. (1993). Curriculum-based measurement: Conceptual and psychometric considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 241-254.
82. Morgan, S. K., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (1995). Technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement for Braille readers. School Psychology Review, 24, 94-103.
83. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359-370.
84. Neale, M. D. (1988). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability - Revised. Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research.
85. New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2000). Data on disk: Basic Skills Tests 2000. Sydney: Author.
86. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. (1981). Burt Word Reading Test: New Zealand Revision. Wellington, NZ: Lithoprint (NZ) Ltd.
87. Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. (1997). Using CBM to explore a consequential basis for the validity of a state-wide performance assessment. Diagnostique, 22, 147-163.
88. Parker, R., Hasbrouk, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Greater validity for oral reading fluency: Can miscues help? The Journal of Special Education, 25, 492-503.
89. Pemberton, J., Dyck, N., Horton, B., & Kaff, M. (2002). How teachers used reading performance charts compiled weekly by a technical support agency. Preventing School Failure, 46, 174-178.
90. Plasencia-Peinado, J., & Alvarado, J. (2000). Assessing students with emotional and behavioral disorders using curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26, 59-66.
91. Potter, M. L., & Wamre, H. M. (1990). Curriculum-based measurement and developmental reading models: Opportunities for cross-validation. Exceptional Children, 57, 16-25.
92. Powell-Smith, K. A., & Bradley-Klug, K. L. (2001). Another look at the "C" in CBM: Does it really matter if curriculum-based measurement reading probes are curriculum-based? Psychology in the Schools, 38, 299-312.
93. Powell-Smith, K. A., & Stewart, L. H. (1998). The use of curriculum-based measurement in the reintegration of students with mild disabilities. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 54-308). New York: The Guilford Press.
94. Reece, J. L., Myers, C. L., Nofsinger, C. O., & Brown, R. D. (2000). Retention of academic skills over the summer months in alternative and traditional calendar schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 166-174.
95. Schulte, A. C., Villwock, D. N., Whichard, S. M., & Stallings, C. F. (2001). High stakes teasting and expected progress standards for students with learning disabilities: A five year study of one district. School Psychology Review, 30, 487-506.
96. Scott, V. G., & Weishaar, M. K. (2003). Curriculum-based measurement for reading progress. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 153-159.
97. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994-5). Assessment of students with learning disabilities: Current issues and future directions. Diagnostique, 20, 17-31.
98. Shin, J., Deno, S. L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 164-172.
99. Shinn, M. R. (1988). Development of curriculum-based local norms for use in special education decision-making. School Psychology Review, 17, 61-80.
100. Shinn, M. R., Collins, V. L., & Gallagher, S. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model with students from minority backgrounds. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 143-174). New York: The Guilford Press.
101. Shinn, M. R., & Habedank, L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement in special education problem identification and certification decisions. Preventing School Failure, 36, 11-15.
102. Shinn, M. R., Knutson, N., Good, R. H., Tilly, W. D., & 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.
103. Shinn, M. R., Powell-Smith, K. A., Good, R., III, & Baker, S. (1997). The effects of reintegration into general education reading instruction for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 59-79.
104. Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.
105. Stage, S. A. (2001). Program evaluation using hierarchical linear modelling with curriculum-based measurement reading probes. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 91-112.
106. Stage, S. A., & Jacobsen, M. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407-419.
107. Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Using curriculum-based measurement for assessing reading progress and for making instructional decisions. Retrieved August 21, 2001, from http://onlineacademy.org.
108. Swain, K. D., & Allinder, R. M. (1996). The effects of repeated reading on two types of CBM: Computer maze and oral reading with second-grade students with learning disabilities. Diagnostique, 21, 51-66.
109. Swain, K. D., & Allinder, R. M. (1997). An exploration of the use of curriculum-based measurement by elementary special educators. Diagnostique, 23, 87-104.
110. Wesson, C. L. (1992). Using curriculum-based measurement to create instructional groups. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 17-20.
111. Wheldall, K. (1996). The Wheldall Assessment of Reading Passages (WARP): Experimental edition. Unpublished manuscript, Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Sydney.
112. Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (2000). An evaluation of MULTILIT 'Making Up Lost Time In Literacy'. Sydney: Macquarie University Special Education Centre.
113. Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (1997). Should we measure reading progress and if so how? Extrapolating the curriculum-based measurement model for monitoring low-progress readers. Special Education Perspectives, 6, 29-35.
114. Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2000). A curriculum-based passage reading test for monitoring the performance of low-progress readers: The development of the WARP. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47, 371-382.
115. Wilson, M. S., Schendel, J. M., & Ulman, J. E. (1992). Curriculum-based measures, teachers' ratings, and group achievement scores: Alternative screening measures. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 59-76.