Long-term diagnostic accuracy of curriculum-based measures in reading and mathematics

School Psychology Review

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 374-390

  Keller Margulis, Milena A ^b   Shapiro, Edward S ^a   Hintze, John M ^c  

^a LEHIGH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Lehigh University ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54549112037     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Fien, H., Seeley, J. R., Kame'Enui, D. J., et al. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high-poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 38(1), 18-37.
2. Barger, J. (2003). Comparing the DIBELS oral reading fluency indicator and the North Carolina end of grade reading assessment (Technical Report). Asheville, NC: North Carolina Teacher Academy.
3. Buck, J., & Torgeson, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Technical Report 1). Tallahassee: Florida Center for Reading Research.
4. Burns, M. K., & Senasac, B. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393-406.
5. Cizek, G. J. (2006). TerraNova, The Second Edition. Retrieved on April 23, 2006, from Mental Measurements Yearbook online version.
6. Compton, D. L. (2000). Modeling the growth of decoding skills in first-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 219-259.
7. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2001). Technical quality: TerraNova, Second Edition. Monterey, CA: Author.
8. Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 37-53.
9. Data Recognition Corporation. (2005, December). Technical report for the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment: 2005 reading and mathematics. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Department of Education.
10. Deno, S. D. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
11. Deno, S. D. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
12. Edformation. (2002). AIMSweb progress monitoring and improvement system. Available from http://www.aimsweb.com/
13. Elliott, S. N., Huai, N., & Roach, A. T. (2007). Universal and early screening for educational difficulties: Current and future approaches. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 137-161.
14. Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121-139.
15. Fuchs, D., Deshler, D. D., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: Multimethod studies of identification and classification issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 189-195.
16. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Thompson, A., Roberts, P. H., Kubek, P., et al. (1994). Technical features of a mathematics concepts and applications curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique, 19(4), 23-49.
17. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
18. Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Monitoring Basic Skills Progress: Basic Math Computation (2nd ed.) [computer program]. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
19. Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring Basic Skills Progress: Basic Math Concepts and Applications (2nd ed.) [computer program], Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
20. Fuchs, L. S., Tindal, G., Fuchs, D., Shinn, M. R., Deno, S. L., & Germann, G. (1983). Technical adequacy of basal readers' mastery tests: Holt Basic Series (Research Report No. 130). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
21. Fuchs, L. S., Tindal, G., Shinn, M. R., Fuchs, D., Deno, S. L., & Germann, G., (1983). Technical adequacy of basal readers' mastery tests: Ginn 720 Series (Research Report No. 122). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
22. Glover, T. A., & Albers, C. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2), 117-135.
23. Good, R. H., & Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61-88). New York: Guilford Press.
24. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement Available from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/
25. Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
26. Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2002). Using general outcomes measurement in mathematics to measure adequate yearly progress as mandated by Title I. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 9-18.
27. Hintze, J., & 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. Jitendra, A. K., Szcesniak, E., & Deatline-Buchman, A. (2005). An exploratory validation of curriculum-based mathematical word problem-solving tasks as indicators of proficiency for third graders. School Psychology Review, 34, 358-371.
29. Johnson R. L., & Mazzie, D. (2006). TerraNova, The Second Edition. Retrieved on April 23, 2006, from Mental Measurements Yearbook online version.
30. Keller, M. A., & Shapiro, E. S. (2005). General outcome measures and performance on standardized tests: An examination of long-term predictive validity. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists Convention, Atlanta, GA.
31. Madansky, A. (1988). Prescriptions for working statisticians. New York: Springer-Verlag.
32. 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.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford Press.
33. McGlinchey, M. T., & Hixon, M. D. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33, 193-203.
34. McMaster, K., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68-84.
35. Mead, R., Smith, R. M., Swanlund, A., & Van Beusekom, K. (2004, November). Technical analysis: Pennsylvania System of School Assessment: 2004 Reading and Mathematics PSSA. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/cwp/view.asp?a=108&Q=108328& a_and_tNav=6395&a_and_tNav=.
36. National Math Advisory Panel. (2007, January). Preliminary report: National Math Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: Author.
37. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2002). Handbook for report interpretation: 2002 PSSA mathematics and reading assessment for grades 5, 8, and 11. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
38. Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesson, J. K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third-grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343-366.
39. Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
40. Shapiro, E. S., Keller, M. A., Edwards, L., Lutz, G., & Hintze, J. M. (2006). General outcome measures and performance on state assessment and standardized tests: Reading and math performance in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 42, 19-35.
41. Shapiro, E. S., Solari, E., & Petscher, J. (in press). Use of an assessment of reading comprehension in addition to oral reading fluency to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment for students. Learning and Individual Differences.
42. Shaw, R., & Shaw, D. (2002). DIBELS oral reading fluency-based indicators of third grade reading skills for Colorado State Assessment Program (CSAP). (Technical Report). Eugene: University of Oregon.
43. Shinn, M. R. (ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
44. Silberglitt, B., Burns, M. K., Madyun, N. H., & Lail, K. E. (2006). Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 527-535.
45. Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J. M. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304-325.
46. Silbertglitt, B., & Hintze, J,. (2007). How much growth can we expect? A conditional analysis of R-CBM growth rates by level of performance. Exceptional Children, 74, 71-84.
47. Spache, G. (1953). A new readability formula for primary-grade reading materials. The Elementary School Journal, 55, 410-413.
48. Speece, D. L. (2005). Hitting the moving target known as reading development: Some thoughts on screening children for secondary interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 487-493.
49. 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.
50. Stage, S. A., & Jacobsen, M. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407-419.
51. Swets, J. A. (1988). Measuring the diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285-1293.
52. Swets, J. A. (1996). Signal detection theory and ROC analysis in psychology and diagnostics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53. Thurber, R. S., Shinn, M. R., & Smolkowski, K. (2002). What is measured in mathematics tests? Construct validity of curriculum-based mathematics measures. School Psychology Review, 31, 498-513.
54. Tindal, G. Marston, D., & Deno, S. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Research Report No. 109). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
55. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 15-29.
56. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (in press). Examination of the utility of various measures of mathematics proficiency. Assessment for Effective Intervention.
57. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 225-256.
58. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., Nacquin, G., & Noell, G. (2001). The reliability and validity of curriculum-based measurement readiness probes for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 30, 363-382.
59. Vander Meer, C. D., Lentz, F. E., & Stollar, S. (2005). The relationship between oral reading fluency and statewide achievement testing in Ohio (Technical Report). Eugene: University of Oregon.
60. Vanderwood, M. L., Linklater, D., & Healy, K. (2008). Predictive accuracy of nonsense word fluency for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 5-17.
61. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.
62. Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Tichá, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85-120.