Comparing computer-adaptive and curriculum-based measurement methods of assessment

School Psychology Review

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 295-305

  Shapiro, Edward S ^a   Gebhardt, Sarah N ^a  

^a LEHIGH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84868666254     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Batsche, G., Elliot, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., & Prasse, D. ( 2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
2. Christ, T. J., Scullin, S., Tolbize, A., & Jiban, C. ( 2008). Implications of recent research: Curriculum-based measurement of math computation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 198-205.
3. Cooper, J. D., & Pikulski, J. J. ( 2006). Houghton Mifflin reading. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
4. Data Recognition Corporation. ( 2010). Technical report for the 2010 Pennsylvania System of School Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.pde.state. pa.us
5. Evans, J. D. ( 1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole Publishing.
6. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. ( 1991). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58, 232-242.
7. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Bryant, J. D., Hamlett, C. L., & Seethaler, P. M. ( 2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, 73, 311-330.
8. Johnson, E. S., Jenkins, J. R., & Petscher, Y. ( 2010). Improving the accuracy of a direct route screening process. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 131-140.
9. Keller-Margulis, M. A., Shapiro, E. S., & Hintze, J. M. ( 2008). Long-term diagnostic accuracy of curriculumbased measures in reading and mathematics. School Psychology Review, 37, 74-390.
10. McBride, J. R., Ysseldyke, J., Milone, M., & Stickney, E. ( 2010). Technical adequacy and cost benefit of four measures of early literacy. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 189-204. doi: 10.1177/ 0829573510363796
11. McGraw-Hill. ( 2005). MacMillan/McGraw-Hill math. New York, NY: Educational and Professional Publishing Group of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
12. National Center on Response to Intervention. ( 2010). Screening tools chart. Retrieved March 15,2011, from http://www.rti4success.org/tools-charts/ screening.php
13. NCS Pearson ( 2012). AlMSweb progress monitoring and RTI systems. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
14. Renaissance Learning. ( 1998). Accelerated Math computer program. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning.
15. Renaissance Learning. ( 2011). STAR Math: Understanding reliability and validity. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. Retrieved from http:// research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/135.pdf
16. Shapiro, E. S. ( 2012). New thinking in response to intervention: A comparison of computer-adaptive tests and curriculum-based measurement within RTI. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning.
17. 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, 15-31.
18. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Naquin, G. (2003). Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204-227. (Pubitemid 36990037)
19. Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. ( 2007). Effect of technologyenhanced continuous progress monitoring on math achievement. School Psychology Review, 36, 453-367.