The purpose of this study was to provide preliminary evidence of the criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) for reading, mathematics, and written expression with postsecondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID). The participants included 41 postsecondary students with ID enrolled in a 2-year certificate program at a large Midwestern university. CBMs were administered to participants using standardized procedures, and results were compared with performance on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. Descriptive statistics were calculated as were bivariate correlations between CBM measures and the content-appropriate criterion measure. Results are discussed in terms of the potential use of CBMs as indicators of academic performance for postsecondary students with ID.

Replication is a foundation of the development of a knowledge base in an evidence-based field such as education. This study includes two direct replications of Hosp, Hensley, Huddle, and Ford which found evidence of criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) for reading and mathematics with postsecondary students with developmental disabilities (DD). Participants included two cohorts of postsecondary students with DD enrolled in a 2-year certificate program at a large Midwestern university (n = 24 and 21). Using the same standardized procedures as Hosp et al., participants were administered CBMs for Oral Passage Reading (OPR), Maze, Math Computation, and Math Concepts and Applications. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between CBMs and the content-appropriate Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Third Edition were calculated. No significant differences in criterion-related validity coefficients between cohorts were found but differences between the correlations for Math Computation and Math Concepts and Applications identified in Hosp et al. were not found in either replication cohort.

laughed, feeling like it was impossible at the time. Thanks to my colleagues at the Iowa Department of Education for their encouragement and support. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Michelle Hosp and Dr. Barbara Guy for giving me the push I needed to commit to the process. To those who served on my committee, thank you for your time and assistance with my research project. Dr. John Hosp, my advisor and dissertation chair, thank you for keeping things humorous as you provided mentorship, guidance, and feedback. Thank you to Dr. Anne Foegen for providing me with many opportunities. To Dr. Allison Bruhn, Dr. Kristen Missall, and Dr. Suzanne Woods-Groves, thank you for your time and feedback, it is truly appreciated. To my family, thank you for your love and support. Special thanks to my mother, Dr. Phyllis Anderson, for putting up with me when I made a mess of your house and fixing eggs for me every morning, and for being a role model for how to stay connected to the real needs of classroom teachers and students. To my husband, Shane, I can never thank you enough for putting up with me, never complaining when I spent half of the last four years away from home, and for helping me with all my tech needs. And to Ruby, the best dog ever, thank you for always sitting with me as I read and write. To my cohort members, classmates, and friends made through this process, this wouldn't have been near as much fun without you! Special thanks to Kari, Sally, Jeremy, and Kris for your support.

As the number of computerized curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tools increases, it is necessary to examine whether or not student performance can generalize across a variety of test administration modes (i.e., paper or computer). The purpose of this study is to compare math fact fluency on paper versus computer for 197 upper elementary students. Students completed identical sets of probes on paper and on the computer, which were then scored for digits correct, problems correct, and accuracy. Results showed a significant difference in performance between the two sets of probes, with higher fluency rates on the paper probes. Because decisions about levels of student support and interventions often rely on measures such as these, more research in this area is needed to examine the potential differences in student performance between paper-based and computer-based CBMs.

Special education has a long tradition of valuing a continuum of placements and services to meet individual students' needs (Deno 1970). The alignment with response to intervention (RTI) and the provision of evidence-based intervention is strong. In this chapter, we discuss the research base and characteristics of RTI as they relate to students with learning disabilities (LD) and special education services in general. We discuss RTI as both a system of educational service delivery as well as a method for determining eligibility for special education services as a student with LD. Both definitions and approaches are important to examining the intersection of RTI and special education and there is a good amount of overlap.The authors begin this chapter with definitions of some of the key terms that are important to the treatment of the topic throughout the rest of the chapter. Next, the research base in relation to some key components of RTI and how they link to the needs of students with LD and the provision of special education services are presented. These include (a) eligibility and exit determinations, (b) tiered delivery of services, (c) evidencebased practices (EBPs), (d) universal screening, and (e) progress monitoring. Finally, some directions for future research in this area that are derived from prior research and gaps therein as well as implications of the current research base for the implementation of RTI are provided. Definitions• Aptitude-achievement discrepancy: A method for identifying students with LD. It includes comparing a student's performance on a standardized, norm-referenced achievement test to a test of cognitive ability. A student is determined to have a LD if his/her achievement score is less than would be predicted given his/her cognitive ability. The RTI framework can be used as an alternative method for identifying students with LD.• Child Find: A federal mandate that requires school districts to locate, identify, and evaluate children with disabilities, from birth to age 21, to ensure provision of a free and appropriate public education through special education and/or related services.• Curriculum-based measurement (CBM): A measurement system which uses instruments and metrics highly associated with the curriculum a student is expected to learn. Thus, little inference is required regarding the determination of students' skill level.• Evidence-based practices (EBPs): Instructional practices that are supported by high-