Curriculum-based measures of computational skills: A comparison of group performance in novel, reward, and neutral conditions

School Psychology Review

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 147-158

  Christ, Theodore J ^a   Schanding Jr , G Thomas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34147099467     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Calhoon, M. B., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and curriculum-based measurement on the mathematics performance of secondary students with disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 24, 235-245.
2. Carson, P. M., & Eckert, T. L. (2003). An experimental analysis of mathematics instructional components: Examining the effects of student-selected versus empirically-selected interventions, Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 35-54.
3. Christ, T. J., Johnson-Gros, K., & Hintze, J. M. (2005). An examination of computational fluency: The reliability of curriculum-based outcomes within the context of educational decisions. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 615-622.
4. Christ, T. J., & Vining, O. (2006). Curriculum based measurement procedures to develop multiple-skill mathematics computation probes: Evaluation of random and stratified stimulus-set arrangements. School Psychology Review, 35, 387-400.
5. Colon, E. P., & Kranzler, J. H. (2006). Effect of instructions on curriculum-based measurement of reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 318-328.
6. Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Stieber, S. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7, 303-323.
7. Daly, E. J., Martens, B. K., Hamler, K. R., Dool, E. J., & Eckert, T. L. (1999). A brief experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 83-94.
8. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
9. Deno, S. L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1-17). New York: Guildford Press.
10. Deno, S. L. (2002), Problem solving as best practices. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 37-56). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
11. Derr-Minneci, T. F. (1990). A behavioral evaluation of curriculum-based assessment for reading: Tester, setting, and task demand effects on high- vs. average- vs. low-level readers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 2669.
12. Derr-Minneci, T. F., & Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Validating curriculum-based measurement in reading from a behavioral perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 2-16.
13. Derr, T. F., & Shapiro, E. S. (1987). A behavioral evaluation of curriculum-based assessment in reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 7, 148-160.
14. 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.
15. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216-227.
16. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. N., & Al Otaiba, S. (2003). Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based measurement and the dual-discrepancy approach. In H. L. Swanson & K. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 431-449). New York: Guilford Press.
17. 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.
18. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488-500.
19. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1992). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58, 232-242.
20. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1996). Combining performance assessment and curriculum-based measurement to strengthen instructional planning. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 183-192.
21. Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. R. (1998). Monitoring basic skills progress: Basic math computation (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
22. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills: Benchmark goals. Retrieved November 2002 from Oregon University, Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement: http://dibels.uoregon.edu
23. Habedank, L. (1995). Best practices in developing local norms for problem solving in the schools. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology III (p. 701-715). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
24. Habedank-Stewart, L., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best practices in developing local norms for academic problem solving. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 737-752). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
25. Hintze, J. M., & Christ, T. I. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204-217.
26. Hintze, J. M., Christ, T. J., & Keller, L. A. (2002). The generalizability of CBM survey-level mathematics assessments: Just how many samples do we need? School Psychology Review, 31, 514-528.
27. Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372-386.
28. Jones, K. M., & Wickstrom, K. F. (2002). Done in sixty seconds: Further analysis of the brief assessment model for academic problems. School Psychology Review, 31, 554-568.
29. 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.), Curriculumbased measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guildford Press.
30. Martens, B. K., Eckert, T. L., Bradley, T. A., & Ardoin, S. P. (1999). Identifying effective treatments from a brief experimental analysis: Using single-case design elements to aid decision making. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 163-181.
31. Phillips, N. B., Hamlett, C. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1993). Combining classwide curriculum-based measurement and peer tutoring to help general educators provide adaptive education. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 148-156.
32. Shinn, M. R. (1988). Development of curriculum-based local norms for use in special education decision-making. School Psychology Review, 17, 61-80.
33. Shinn, M. R. (1989a). Identifying and determining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures, In M. R. Shinn (Ed,), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78), New York: Guilford Press.
34. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989b). Curriculum-based measurement; Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
35. Shinn, M. R. (1995). Best practices in curriculum based measurement and its use in the problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology III (pp. 547-567). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
36. Shinn, M. R. (2002). Best practices in using curriculumbased measurement in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 671-698). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
37. Shinn, M. R., Bamonto, S., Comachione, C., Parker, C., Peterson, K., Thurber, R., et al. (1997). Curriculumbased measurement and problem-solving assessmentTraining modules: University of Oregon.
38. Shinn, M. R., Gleason, M. M., & Tindal, G. (1989). Varying the difficulty of testing materials: Implications for curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 23, 223-233.
39. Shinn, M. R., & Hubbard, D. D. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement and problem solving assessment: Basic procedures and outcomes. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24, 1-20.
40. Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui, E. J., Good, R. H., Ill, Harn, B. A., Cole, C., & Braun, D. (2002). Building, implementing, and sustaining a beginning reading improvement model: Lessons learned school by school. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 537-569). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
41. Spicuzza, R., Ysseldyke, J., Lemkuil, A., Kosciolek, S., Boys, C., & Teelucksingh, E. (2001). Effects of curriculum-based monitoring on classroom instruction and math achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 521-542.
42. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. New York: Merrill.
43. Wollack, J. E. (2001). A treatment utility study of the Instructional Environment System-II and strategies and tactics for effective instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 61, 3059.