Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a method for monitoring student growth in an academic area and evaluating the effects of instructional programs on that growth (Deno, 1985). CBM was designed to be part of a problem-solving approach to special education whereby the academic difficulties of students would be viewed as problems to be solved rather than as immutable characteristics within a child (Deno, 1990). In the problem-solving approach, teachers were the "problem solvers" who constantly evaluated and modified students' instructional programs. For a problem-solving approach to be effective, it was necessary for teachers to have a tool that could be used to evaluate growth in response to instruction. CBM was developed to serve that purpose. Two separate but related concerns drove the initial research into the development of CBM (Deno, 1985). The first was the concern for technical adequacy. If teachers were to use the measures to make instructional decisions, the measures would have to have demonstrated reliability and validity. The second was the concern for practicality. If teachers were to use the measures on an ongoing and frequent basis to evaluate instructional programs, the measures would have to be simple, efficient, easily understood, and inexpensive. These dual concerns led to the concept of "vital signs," or indicators of student performance (Deno, 1985). CBM measures were conceptualized to be short samples of work that would be indicators, or vital signs, of academic performance. The samples would need to be valid and reliable with respect to the broader academic domain they were representing, but would also need to be designed to be given on a frequent and repeated basis. In 1989, Marston reviewed the existing research on CBM. At that time, CBM was viewed primarily as a progressmonitoring tool in basic skills for special education students at the elementary-school level (although there were discussions and instances of its uses more broadly, for example, see Shinn, 1989). Research in reading focused on two measures: word identification and reading aloud. The results of Marston's

The validity and reliability of curriculum-based measures in reading as indicators of performance and progress for secondary-school students were examined. Thirty-five grade 8 students completed reading aloud and maze-selection measures weekly for 10 weeks. Criterion measures were the state standards test in reading and the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement. Different time frames for each measure were compared. Most alternate-form reliability coefficients were above .80. Criterion-related validity coefficients ranged from .77 to .89. No differences related to time were found. Only maze selection reflected significant growth, with an average increase of 1.29 correct choices per week. Maze growth was related to the reading performance level and to change on the Woodcock-Johnson III from pre-to posttest.

In this special issue, we explore the decision-making aspect of data-based decision-making. The articles in the issue address a wide range of research questions, designs, methods, and analyses, but all focus on data-based decision-making for students with learning difficulties. In this first article, we introduce the topic of data-based decision-making and provide an overview of the special issue. We then describe a small, exploratory study designed to develop a method for studying teachers' understanding and interpretation of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) graphs. Specifically, we examine whether think-alouds scored for coherence, specificity, reflectivity, and accuracy differentiate teachers with more or less understanding of CBM data. We conclude the article by discussing the importance of, and the need for, research on teachers' understanding, interpretation, and use of data for instructional decision-making.

No abstract