The response in response to intervention: Evaluating the utility of assessing maintenance of intervention effects

Psychology in the Schools

Volumn 43, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 713-725

  Ardoin, Scott P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746099280     PISSN: 00333085     EISSN: 15206807     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pits.20181     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ardoin, S.P., Suldo, S.M., Witt, J.C., Aldrich, S., & McDonald, E. (2005). Accuracy of readability estimates' predictions of CBM performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 1-22.
2. Ardoin, S.P., Witt, J.C., Connell, J.E., & Koenig, J.L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 362-380.
3. Christ, T.J. (2006). Short term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimates of standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128-133.
4. Christ, T.J. (2006, April). Does CBM have error?: Standard error and confidence intervals. Poster presentation at the annual conference for the National Association of School Psychologists, Anaheim, CA.
5. Compton, D.L., Appleton, A.C., & Hosp, M.K. (2004). Exploring the relationship between text-leveling systems and reading accuracy and fluency in second grade students who are average and poor decoders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 176-184.
6. 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.
7. Derr-Minneci, T.F., & Shapiro, E.S. (1992). Validating curriculum-based measurement in reading from a behavioral perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 2-16.
8. Eckert, T.L., Ardoin, S.P., Daisey, D.M., & Scarola, M.D. (2000). Empirically evaluating the effectiveness of reading interventions: The use of brief experimental analysis and single case designs. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 463-473.
9. Eckert, T.L., Ardoin, S.P., Daly, E.J., III, & Martens, B.K. (2002). Improving oral reading fluency: A brief experimental analysis of combining an antecedent intervention with consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 271-281.
10. Elliott, S.N., & Fuchs, L.S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessments as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224-233.
11. Fair, R., & Strickland, D. (1995). Treasury of literature. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
12. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1997). Use of curriculum-based measurement in identifying students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30, 1-14.
13. Germann, G., & Tindal, G. (1985). An application of curriculum-based assessment: The use of direct and repeated measurement. Exceptional Children, 52, 244-265.
14. Hintze, J.M., & Christ, T.J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204-217.
15. Hintze, J.M., & Shapiro, E.S. (1997). Curriculum-based measurement and literature-based readings: Is curriculum-based measurement meeting the needs of changing reading curricula? Journal of School Psychology, 35, 351-375.
16. 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.
17. Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act, 108 Cong. Sess. (April 2004).
18. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004). [Amending 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq.].
19. Marston, D., & Tindal, G. (1996). Best practices in performance monitoring. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology III. Bethesda, MD: NASP.
20. 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.
21. Shinn, M.R. (2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 1, pp. 671-697). Bethesda, MD: NASP.
22. Shinn, M.R., Ysseldyke, J.E., Deno, S.L., & Tindal, G.A. (1986). A comparison of differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving on measures of classroom performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 545-552.
23. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on implementation of Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Jessup, MD: Education Publishing Association.