Has curriculum-based assessment become a staple of school psychology practice? An update and extension of knowledge, use, and attitudes from 1990 to 2000

School Psychology Review

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 249-257

  Shapiro, Edward S ^a   Angello, Lisa Marie ^b,d   Eckert, Tanya L ^c  

^a LEHIGH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Ivymount School   (United States)

^c SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Home Consultation Services   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3943071703     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Allinder, R. M., & Oats, R. G. (1997). Effects of acceptability on teachers' implementation of curriculum-based measurement and student achievement in mathematics computation. Remedial & Special Education, 18, 113-120.
2. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
3. Curtis, M. J., Hunley, S. A., Walker, K. J., & Baker, A. C. (1999). Demographic characteristics and professional practices in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 28, 104-116.
4. Eckert, T. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1999). Methodological issues in analog acceptability research: Are teachers' acceptability ratings of assessment methods influenced by experimental design? School Psychology Review, 28,5-16.
5. Eckert, T. L., Shapiro, E. S., & Lutz, J. G. (1995). Teachers' ratings of the acceptability of curriculum-based assessment methods. School Psychology Review, 24, 497-511.
6. 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.
7. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Teacher planning for students with learning disabilities: Differences between general and special educators. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 120-128.
8. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Philiips, N. B., & Bentz, J. (1994). Class wide curriculum-based measure-ment: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60, 518-537.
9. Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder, L. H. (1991). Research methods in social relations. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
10. Kame'enui, E., Francis, D., Fuchs, L., Good, R. H., III, O'Connor, R., Simmons, D.C., Tindal, G., & Torgesen, J. (2002). An analysis of reading assessment instruments for K-3. Eugene, OR:Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
11. nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
12. Shapiro, E. S., & Eckert, T. L. (1993). Curriculum-based assessment among school psychologists: Knowledge, use, and attitudes. Journal of School Psychology, 31, 375-383.
13. Shapiro, E. S., & Eckert, T. L. (1994). Acceptability of curriculum-based assessment by school psychologists. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 167-184.
14. 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 Press.
15. Shinn, M. R., & Marston, D. (1985). Differentiating mildly handicapped, low-achieving, and regular education students: A curriculum-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 31-38.
16. Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 128-134.