A curriculum-based passage reading test for monitoring the performance of low-progress readers: The development of the WARP

International Journal of Disability, Development and Education

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 371-382

  Wheldall, Kevin ^a   Madelaine, Alison ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937322068     PISSN: 1034912X     EISSN: 1465346X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/713671151     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. DENO, S.L., 1985. Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52: 219–232.
2. DENO, S.L., 1987. Curriculum-based measurement. Teaching Exceptional Children, 20: 41–42.
3. DENO, S.L., and FUCHS, L.S., 1987. Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8): 1–16.
4. DENO, S.L., MARSTON, D., and MIRKIN, P., 1982. Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 46: 368–371.
5. DENO, S.L., MIRKIN, P.K., and CHIANG, B., 1982. Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49: 36–45.
6. DENO, S.L., MIRKIN, P.K., and WESSON, C., 1984. How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16: 99–104.
7. FUCHS, L.S., and DENO, S.L., 1991. Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57: 488–500.
8. FUCHS, L.S., and DENO, S.L., 1992. Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58: 232–242.
9. FUCHS, L.S., and DENO, S.L., 1994. Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum?. Exceptional Children, 61: 15–24.
10. FUCHS, L.S., DENO, S.L., and MIRKIN, P.K., 1984. The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21: 440–460.
11. FUCHS, L.S., and FUCHS, D., 1986. Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53: 199–208.
12. FUCHS, L.S., FUCHS, D., and HAMLETT, C.L., 1989a. Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2): 43–52.
13. FUCHS, L.S., FUCHS, D., and HAMLETT, C.L., 1989b. Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83: 103–110.
14. FUCHS, L.S., FUCHS, D., HAMLETT, C.L., and ALLINDER, R.M., 1991. The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57: 443–452.
15. FUCHS, L.S., FUCHS, D., and MAXWELL, L., 1988. The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2): 20–28.
16. GOYEN, J.D., 1977. Adult illiteracy in Sydney, Canberra: Australian Association of Adult Education.
17. GRAFF, H., 1995. The labyrinths of literacy: Reflections on literacy past and present, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
18. HASBROUK, J.E., and TINDAL, G., 1992. Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 18: 41–44.
19. JENKINS, J.R., and JEWELL, M., 1993. Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59: 421–432.
20. LUKE, A., and GILBERT, P., 1993. Literacy in contexts: Australian perspectives and issues, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
21. MADELAINE, A., and WHELDALL, K., 1998. Towards a curriculum-based passage reading test for monitoring the performance of low-progress readers using standardised passages: A validity study. Educational Psychology, 18: 471–478.
22. MADELAINE, A., and WHELDALL, K., 1999. Curriculum-based measurement of reading: A critical review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46: 71–85.
23. MARSTON, D., and MAGNUSSON, D., 1988. “ Curriculum-based measurement: District level implementation ”. In Alternative education delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students, Edited by: GRADEN, J., ZINS, J., and CURTIS, M., 137–172. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
24. MCKAY, M., 1996. The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability Revised-Systematically biased?. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66: 259–266.
25. MEHRENS, W.A., and CLARIZIO, H.F., 1993. Curriculum-based measurement: Conceptual and psychometric considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 30: 241–254.
26. MICROSOFT CORPORATION. 1993-1995. Microsoft Word version 6.0.1 for Power Macintosh [Computer Software], Santa Rosa, CA: Author.
27. NEALE, M.D., 1988. Neale Analysis of Reading Ability--Revised, Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
28. POTTER, M.L., and WAMRE, H.M., 1990. Curriculum-based measurement and developmental reading models: Opportunities for cross-validation. Exceptional Children, 57: 16–25.
29. RODDEN-NORD, K., and SHINN, M.R., 1991. The range of reading skills within and across general education classrooms: Contributions to understanding special education for students with mild handicaps. The Journal of Special Education, 24: 441–453.
30. SHINN, M.R., ed. 1989. Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children, New York: The Guilford Press.
31. WHELDALL, K., 1996. The Wheldall Assessment of Reading Passages: Experimental edition, Sydney: Macquarie University Special Education Centre.
32. WHELDALL, K., and BEAMAN, R., 2000. An evaluation of MULTILIT: Making up lost time in literacy, Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
33. WHELDALL, K., and MADELAINE, A., 1997. Should we measure reading progress and if so how? Extrapolating the curriculum based measurement model for monitoring low-progress readers. Special Education Perspectives, 6: 29–35.