Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review

Journal of Special Education

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 68-84

  McMaster, Kristen ^a   Espin, Christine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548825711     PISSN: 00224669     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00224669070410020301     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Berninger, V. W. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 161-196.
2. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1985). California achievement test. Monterey, CA: Author.
3. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1996). CTB/McGraw-Hill, TerraNova, Monterey, CA: Author.
4. De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings: Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 92-106.
5. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
6. Deno, S. L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children Special Education and Pediatrics: A New Relationship, 48, 368-371.
7. Deno, S., Marston, D., Mirkin, P., Lowry, L., Sindelar, P., & Jenkins, J. (1982). The use of standard tasks to measure achievement in reading, spelling, and written expression: A normative and developmental study (Vol. IRLD-RR-87). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
8. Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P., & Marston, D. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of written expression and performance on standardized achievement tests (Vol. IRLD-RR-22). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
9. Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
10. Espin, C. A., De La Paz, S., Scierka, B. J., & Roelofs, L. (2005). The relationship between curriculum-based measures in written expression and quality and completeness of expository writing for middle school students. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 208-217.
11. Espin, C. A., Scierka, B. J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary school students. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 15, 5-27.
12. Espin, C., Shin, J., Deno, S. L., Skare, S., Robinson, S., & Benner, B. (2000). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency for middle school students. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 140-153.
13. Espin, C., Wallace, T., Campbell, H., Lembke, E. S., Long, J. D., & Ticha, R. (2006). Predicting the success of secondary-school students on state standards tests: Validity and reliability of curriculum-based measures in written expression. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14. 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.
15. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92-99.
16. Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. (1982). Use of aggregation to improve the reliability of simple direct measures of academic performance (Vol. IRLD-RR-94). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
17. Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Naquin, G. M., & Slider, N. J. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternative measures for curriculum-based measurement in writing. School Psychology Review, 31, 477-497.
18. Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Slider, N. J., Hoffpauir, L. D., & Whitmarsh, E. L. (2004). An examination of the criterion validity and sensitivity to brief intervention of alternate curriculum-based measures of writing skill. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 291-300.
19. Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1978). Test of written language. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
20. Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of written language-Third edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
21. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Frisbie, D. A., & Dunbar, S. B. (1996). Iowa tests of basic skills. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
23. Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (Research Report No. 3). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
24. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004)(reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990)
25. Jewell, J., & Malecki, C. K. (2005). The utility of CBM written language indices: An investigation of production-dependent, production- independent, and accurate-production scores. School Psychology Review, 34, 27-44.
26. Jones, D., & Christensen, C. A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students' ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44-49.
27. Lee, L., & Canter, S. M. (1971). Developmental sentence scoring. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 36, 335-340.
28. Lembke, E., Deno, S. L., & Hall, K. (2003). Identifying an indicator of growth in early writing proficiency for elementary school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 23-35.
29. Madden, R., Gardner, E. F., Rudman, H. C., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J. C. (1978). Stanford achievement test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
30. 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.
31. Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford Press.
32. Marston, D., & Deno, S. (1981). The reliability of simple, direct measures of written expression (Vol. IRLD-RR-50). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
33. Marston, D., Deno, S. L., & Tindal, G. (1983). A comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques in measuring pupil progress (Vol. IRLD-RR-126). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
34. Marston, D., Lowry, L., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. (1981). An analysis of learning trends in simple measure of reading, spelling, and written expression: A longitudinal study (Vol. IRLD-RR-49). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
35. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299-325.
36. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. The American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
37. Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning and NCS Pearson. (2002). Minnesota Basic Skills Test (BST) technical manual for the academic year 2001-2002.
38. Mitzel, H. C., & Borden, C. F. (2000). LEAP for the 21st century: 1999 operational final technical report. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
39. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The nation's report card: Writing. Retrieved April 23, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/writing/
40. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002)
41. Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (1997). Using CBM to explore a consequential basis for the validity of a state-wide performance assessment. Diagnostique, 22, 147-163.
42. Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
43. Parker, R. I., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991a). Countable indices of writing quality: Their suitability for screening-eligibility decisions. Exceptionality, 2, 1-17.
44. Parker, R. I., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991b). Progress monitoring with objective measures of writing performance for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(1), 61-73.
45. Shinn, M. R., Ysseldyke, J., Deno, S. L., & Tindal, J. (1982). A comparison of psychometric and functional differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving (Vol. IRLD-RR-71). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
46. Speece, D. L., Case, L. P., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 147-156.
47. Taylor, R. L. (2003). Assessment of exceptional students: Educational and psychological procedures. (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
48. Thorndike, R. M. (2005). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
49. Tindal, G., Germann, G., & Deno, S. L. (1983). Descriptive research on the Pine County norms: A compilation of findings (Vol. IRLD-RR-132). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
50. Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991). Analyzing student writing to develop instructional strategies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 237-245.
51. Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Deno, S. L. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Vol. IRLD-RR-109). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
52. Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1989a). Assessment of written expression for students in compensatory and special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 169-183.
53. Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1989b). Development of written retell as a curriculum-based measure in secondary programs. School Psychology Review, 13, 328-343.
54. Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating written expression. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 211-218.
55. Videen, J., Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Vol. IRLD-RR-84). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
56. Watkinson, J. T., & Lee, S. W. (1992). Curriculum-based measures of written expression for learning-disabled and nondisabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 184-192.
57. Weissenburger, J. W., & Espin, C. A. (2005). Curriculum-based measures of writing across grade levels. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 153-169.
58. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson psychoeducational battery (Rev. ed.). Allen, TX: DLM.