An analysis of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement: Examining the role of growth in student outcomes

Remedial and Special Education

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 46-57

  Clarke, Ben ^a   Baker, Scott ^a   Smolkowski, Keith ^b   Chard, David J ^c  

^a Pacific Institutes for Research   (United States)

^b OREGON RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Early numeracy; Mathematics assessment and instruction; Progress monitoring; Screening

Indexed keywords

EID: 39749098427     PISSN: 07419325     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0741932507309694     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716-723.
2. Baker, S., Gersten, R., Katz, R., Chard, D., & Clarke, B. (2002). Preventing mathematics difficulties in young children: Focus on effective screening of early number sense delays (Technical Report No. 0305). Eugene, OR: Pacific Institutes for Research.
3. Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Fien, H., Seeley, J., Kame'enui, E., et al. (n.d.). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low performing high poverty schools: Going to scale with reading first. Unpublished manuscript.
4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
5. Berch, D. B. (1998, April 9-10). Mathematical cognition: From numerical thinking to mathematics education. Paper presented at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD.
6. Berch, D. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 333-339.
7. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
8. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
10. Chard, D., Clarke, B., Baker, S., Otterstedt, J., Braun, D., & Katz, R. (2005). Using measures of number sense to screen for difficulties in mathematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(2), 3-14.
11. Clarke, B., Baker, S., Chard, D., Braun, D., & Otterstedt, J. (2006). Developing and validating measures of number sense to identify students at risk for mathematics disabilities. Unpublished manuscript.
12. Clarke, B., & Shinn, M. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234-248.
13. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
14. 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: Guilford.
15. Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 307-314.
16. Floyd, R. G., Hojnoski, R., & Key, J. (2006). Preliminary evidence of the technical adequacy of the preschool numeracy indicators. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 627-644.
17. Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188-192.
18. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 40-65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19. Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 18-28.
20. Griffin, S. (1998, April). Fostering the development of whole number sense. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
21. Griffin, S., Case, R., & Siegler, R. S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 24-49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (1996a). Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9) (9th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.
23. Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (1996b). Stanford Early School Achievement Test (SESAT-2) (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.
24. Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
25. Laird, P. D. (1988). Learning from good and bad data. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
26. Li, F., Duncan, T. E., McAuley, E., Harmer, P., & Smolkowski, K. (2000). A didactic example of latent curve analysis applicable to the study of aging. Journal of Aging and Health, 72(3), 388-425.
27. Little, R. J. A. (1995). Modeling the drop-out mechanism in repeated-measures studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(431), 1112-1122.
28. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.
29. Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-288). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.
30. 2I2 fit indices for structural equation models: A brief note of clarification. Structural Equation Modeling, 2(3), 246-254.
31. Murray, D. M. (1998). Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Murray, D. M. (2001). Statistical models appropriate for designs often used in group-randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine, 20(9/10), 1373-1386.
33. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998-2004). Mplus: User's guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
34. Myung, I. (2000). The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44(1), 190-205.
35. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2005 (Report No. NCES-2006-453). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
36. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
37. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematics Learning Study Committee.
38. Nich, C., & Carroll, K. (1997). Now you see it, now you don't: A comparison of traditional versus random-effects regression models in the analysis of longitudinal follow-up data from a clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(2), 253-262.
39. Okamoto, Y., & Case, R. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children's central conceptual structures in the domain of number. In R. Case, Y. Okamoto, S. Griffin, R. S. Siegler, & D. P. Keating (Eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (pp. 27-58). Chicago: Society for Research in Child Development.
40. SAS Institute. (2005). SAS OnlineDoc® 9.1.3: SAS/STAT 9 user's guide. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from http://9doc.sas.com/sasdoc/
41. Scott, A. J., & Holt, D. (1982). The effect of two-stage sampling on ordinary least squares methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77(380), 848-854.
42. Shinn, M. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
43. Shinn, M. R. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.
44. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
45. Steiger, J. H. (2000). Point estimation, hypothesis testing, and interval estimation using the RMSEA: Some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(2), 149-162.
46. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10.
47. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement (Rev. ed.). Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.