The utility of CBM written language indices: An investigation of production-dependent, production-independent, and accurate-production scores

School Psychology Review

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 27-44

  Jewell, Jennifer ^a   Malecki, Christine Kerres ^b  

^a Woodford Co Spec Educ Association   (United Kingdom)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17544380791     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. 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.
2. Deno, S. L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368-371.
3. Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Marston, D. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of written expression and performance on standardized achievement tests (Rep. No. 22). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
4. Elliott, 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.
5. Espin, C., Shin, J., Deno, S.L., Skare, S., Robinson, S., & Benner, B. (2000). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency for middle school students. Journal of Special Education, 34, 140-153.
6. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1997). Use of curriculum-based measurement in identifying students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(3), 1-16.
7. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1990). Curriculum-based measurement: A standardized, long-term goal approach to monitoring student progress. Academic Therapy, 25, 615-632.
8. Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1978). The Test of Written Language. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
9. Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (1997). Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement.
10. Knoff, H. M., & Dean, K. R. (1994). Curriculum-based measurement of at-risk students' reading skills: A preliminary investigation of bias. Psychological Reports, 75, 1355-1360.
11. Kranzler, J. H., Miller, M. D., & Jordan, L. (1999). An examination of racial/ethnic and gender bias on curriculum-based measurement of reading. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 327-342.
12. Madden, R., Gardner, E. F., Rudman, H. C., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J. C. (1978). Stanford Achievement Test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
13. Malecki, C. K., & Jewell, J. (2003). Developmental, gender, and practical considerations in scoring curriculum-based measurement writing probes. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 379-390.
14. Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum Based Measurement: Assessing Special Children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford Press.
15. Marston, D., & Deno, S. (1981). The reliability of simple, direct measures of written expression (Rep. No. 50). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
16. Marston, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1986). Measuring pupil progress: A comparison of standardized achievement tests and curriculum-related measures. Diagnostique, 11, 77-90.
17. Moran, M. R. (1987). Options for written language assessment. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19, 1-10.
18. Parker, R., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991). Countable indices of writing quality: Their suitability for screening-eligibility decisions. Exceptionality, 2, 1-17.
19. Shinn, M. R. (1995). Best practices in curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology - III (pp. 547-567). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
20. Shinn, M. R., Ysseldyke, J., Deno, S., & Tindal, G. (1982). A comparison of psychometric and functional differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving (Rep. No. 71). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
21. Stiggins, R. J. (1982). A comparison of direct and indirect writing assessment methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 101-114.
22. Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991). Analyzing student writing to develop instructional strategies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 237-245.
23. Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1989). Assessment of written expression for students in compensatory and special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 169-183.
24. Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating written expression. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 211-218.
25. Videen, J., Deno, S., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Rep. No. 84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
26. Watkinson, J. T., & Lee, S. W. (1992). Curriculum-based measures of written expression for learning-disabled and nondisabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 184-191.
27. Williams, E. J. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 21, 396-399.