Effect of instructions on curriculum-based measurement of reading

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 318-328

  Colón, Elayne Proesel ^a   Kranzler, John H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum based measurement; Fluency; Instructions; Reading; Responsiveness to intervention

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750194929     PISSN: 07342829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0734282906287830     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Derr-Minneci, T. F., & Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Validating curriculum-based measurement in reading from a behavioral perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 2-16.
2. Evans-Hampton, T. N., Skinner, C. H., Henington, C., Sims, S., & McDaniel, C. E. (2002). An investigation of situational bias: Conspicuous and covert timing during curriculum-based measurement of mathematics across African American and Caucasian students. School Psychology Review, 31, 529-539.
3. Frye, E. (1968). Graph for estimating reliability. Journal of Reading, 11, 513-516.
4. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27, 216-227.
5. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
6. Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Best practices in defining student goals and outcomes. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 539-546). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
7. Hintze, J. M., Callahan, J. E., Matthews, W. J., Williams, S. A., & Tobin, K. G. (2002). Oral reading fluency and prediction of reading comprehension in African American and Caucasian elementary school children. School Psychology Review, 31, 540-553.
8. 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.
9. Jensen, A. R. (1986). Methodological and statistical techniques for the chronometric study of mental abilities. In C. Reynolds & V. L. Willson (Eds.), Methodological and statistical advances in the study of individual differences (pp. 507-587). New York: Plenum.
10. Miller, M. D., & Jordan, L. (1996, April). The generalizability of curriculum-based measures in reading. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
11. Roberts, M., & Smith, D. D. (1980). The relationship among correct and error oral reading rates and comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 54-64.
12. Shinn, M. R. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.
13. Shinn, M. R., & Bamonto, S. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: "Big ideas" and avoiding confusion. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 1-31). New York: Guilford.
14. Shinn, M. R., & Shinn, M. M. (2004). Administering and scoring of reading curriculum based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcomes measurement. Retrieved October 2004 from www.aimsweb.com
15. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.