Using Curriculum-Based Assessment and Curriculum-Based Measurement to Guide Elementary Mathematics Instruction: Effect on Individual and Group Accountability Scores

Assessment for Effective Intervention

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 15-31

  Vanderheyden, Amanda M ^a   Burns, Matthew K ^b  

^a Vail Unified School District   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992915220     PISSN: 15345084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/073724770503000302     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Badian, N. (1999). Persistent arithmetic, reading or arithmetic, or reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 45–70.
2. Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197.
3. Bums, M.K. (2002). Utilizing a comprehensive system of assessment to intervention using curriculum-based assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 8–13.
4. Bums, M.K. (2004a). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–175.
5. Bums, M.K. (2004b). Using curriculum-based assessment in the consultative process: A useful innovation or an educational fad. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15, 63–78.
6. Bums, M.K., Dean, V.J., & Klar, S. (2004). Using curriculum-based assessment in the responsiveness to intervention diagnostic model for learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29 (3), 47–56.
7. Bums, M.K., MacQuarrie, L.L., & Campbell, D.T. (1999). The difference between instructional assessment (curriculum-based assessment) and curriculum-based measurement: A focus on purpose and result. Communiqué, 27, 18–19.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Daly, E.J., & McCurdy, M. (2002). Getting it right so they can get it right: An overview of the special series. School Psychology Review, 31, 453–458.
10. Daly, E.J., Witt, J.C., Martens, B.K., & Dool, E.J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554–574.
11. Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
12. Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: Afundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1–17). New York: Guilford Press.
13. Deno, S., & Mirkin, P.K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
14. Enggren, P., & Kovaleski, J.F. (1996). Instructional assessment. Harrisburg, PA: Instructional Support System of Pennsylvania.
15. Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum? Exceptional Children, 61, 15–24.
16. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.
17. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 85–95.
18. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Stecker, P.M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 617–641.
19. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Kams, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergartners' mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–510.
20. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Kams, K., Hamlett, C.L., Katzaroff, M., & Dutka, S. (1997). Effects of task-focused goals on low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 513, 543.
21. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D.C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.
22. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Phillips, N.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Kams, K. (1995). Acquisition and transfer effects of classwide peer-assisted learning strategies in mathematics for students with varying learning histories. School Psychology Review, 24, 604–620.
23. Gickling, E.E., & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculum-based assessment. Minneapolis, MN: School Psychology Inservice Training Network.
24. Gickling, E., & Rosenfield, S. (1995). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 587–595). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
25. Gickling, E.E., Shane, R.L., & Croskery, K.M. (1989). Developing math skills in low-achieving high school students through curriculum-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 18, 344–356.
26. Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205–218.
27. Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward a proactive/prevention model of decision-making for early literacy skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 326–336.
28. Gravois, T.A., & Gickling, E.E. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 885–898). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
29. Greenwood, C.R., Carta, J.J., & Hall, R.V. (1988). The use of peer tutoring strategies in classroom management and educational instruction. School Psychology Review, 17, 258–275.
30. Griffin, S., & Case, R. (1997). Re-thinking the primary school math curriculum: An approach based on cognitive science. Issues in Education, 3, 1–49.
31. Haladyna, T.M. (1998). Review of the Stanford Achievement Test (9th ed.). In J. C. Impara & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 928–930). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
32. Harcourt Publishers. (2003). Harcourt math. Orlando, FL: Author.
33. Kovaleski, J.F., Tucker, J.A., & Duffy, D.J. (1995). School reform through instructional support: The Pennsylvania Initiative (Part I). Communiqué, 23(8).
34. Loveless, T. (2003). Trends in math achievement: The importance of basic skills. Paper presented at the Secretary's Summit on Mathematics. February 6, 2003. Retrieved November 20, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/progs/mathscience/loveless.html.
35. Manzo, K.K., & Galley, M. (2003). Math climbs, reading flat on '03 NAEP. Education Week, 23(12), 1, 18.
36. 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.
37. Marston, D., Mirkin, P., & Deno, S. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to traditional screening, referral, and identification. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 109–117.
38. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
39. 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. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
40. Saffer, N. (1999). Core subjects and your career. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 43(2), 26–40.
41. Saxon Publishers. (2004). Saxon math. Norman, OK: Saxon Publishers.
42. Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2004). Assessment in special and inclusive education (9th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
43. Shapiro, E.S. (2000). School psychology from an instructional perspective: Solving big, not little problems. School Psychology Review, 29, 560–572.
44. Shapiro, E.S., & Ager, C. (1992). Assessment of special education students in regular education programs: Linking assessment to instruction. Elementary School Journal, 92, 283–296.
45. Shinn, M.R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 90–129). New York: Guilford Press.
46. Shinn, M. (1995). Best practices in curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 547–567). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
47. 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.
48. Shinn, M.R., Tindal, G.A., & Spira, D.A. (1987). Special education referrals as an index of teacher tolerance: Are teachers imperfect tests? Exceptional Children, 54, 32–40.
49. Tucker, J.A. (1985). Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction. Exceptional Children, 52, 199–204.
50. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Mathematics and science initiative concept paper. Retrieved November 20, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/progs/mathscience/concept_paper.pdf.
51. VanDerHeyden, A.M. (2001). Comparison of several methods for identifying students in need of special services in the schools: Accuracy of the problem validation screening model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.
52. 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.
53. Witt, J.C., Daly, E., & Noell, G. (2000). Functional assessments. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.