Curriculum-based measurement: Conceptual and psychometric considerations

Abstract

This review of published literature and research critically examines the conceptual and psychometric problems associated with curriculum-based measurement (CBM) as they relate to eligibility decision making and programming for special education. I t is concluded that although CBM can provide a useful supplement in assessing and remediating academic difficulties, it suffers from many of the criticisms leveled at traditional assessments as well as some unique limitations of its own. It is concluded that CBM, to be of most value, needs to be part of a larger systematic psychoeducational assessment program rather than a replacement for it.

Identifying low‐progress readers: Comparing teacher judgment with a curriculum‐based measurement procedure

“…As PRTs have established technical characteristics and can quickly and easily be administered, taking as little as one minute per student, they would be suitable for initial identification of students experiencing reading problems in addition to being used for monitoring reading progress (Deno, 1987;Fuchs & Deno, 1992;Mehrens & Clarizio, 1993;Rodden-Nord & Shinn, 1991). Several authors have used PRTs in studies involving screening and referral (Marston, Mirkin, & Deno, 1984;Rodden-Nord & Shinn, 1991).…”

Further Progress Towards a Standardised Curriculum-based Measure of Reading: Calibrating a new passage reading test against the New South Wales Basic Skills Test

“…Several authors have discussed the disadvantages of this method, however, which include variations in readability (between basal reading schemes, books at the same level in the same scheme, and within books), possible student familiarity with passages and the fact that passages taken from books represent only part of a story (which can affect comprehension) (Fuchs & Deno, 1994;Hasbrouk & Tindall, 1992;Mehrens & Clarizio, 1993;Wheldall & Madelaine, 1997). It should also be noted that using passages strictly from grade level text necessitates a changing metric from year to year since the number of words typically read correctly per minute will obviously be different at different levels of grade level text.…”

Curriculum‐based assessment of reading skills: Considerations and caveats for school psychologists

“…By extension then, assessments based in curricula that do not contain appropriate content may not promote efficient and effective instruction for some children. In other words, if CBAs of reading are not grounded adequately in the constructs (i.e., cognitive processes) that underlie the ability to read, CBA will fall prey to the same critique that its supporters have made against norm-based assessmentshat academic skills are not measured "directly" enough (Heshusius, 1991;Mehrens & Clarizio, 1993). 2 In this article, and in the literature on the validity of assessment (Cronbach, 1990;Linn & Gronlund, 1995;Messick, 1989Messick, , 1994Messick, , 1995Moss, 1992), directness is defined, in part, as the relationship of the assessment to the curriculum (which is a defining feature of CBA), and of the relationship of the curriculum to the constructs that underlie it (which is not part of CBA).…”