Curriculum-Based Measurement in the Content Areas

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of curriculum-based measures as indicator of growth in content-area learning. Participants were 58 students in 2 seventh-grade social studies classes. CBM measures were student- and administrator-read vocabulary-matching probes. Criterion measures were performance on a knowledge test, the social studies subtest of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), and student grades. Both the student- and examiner-read measures reflected change in performance; however, only the student-read measure resulted in interindividual differences in growth rates. Significant relations were found between the growth rates generated by the student-read vocabulary measure and student course grades, ITBS scores, and growth on the knowledge test. These results support the validity of a vocabulary-matching measure as an indicator of student learning in the content areas. The results are discussed in terms of the use of CBM as a system for monitoring performance and evaluating interventions for students with learning disabilities in content-area classrooms.

Exploring the Reliability of Curriculum-Based Measurement as a Formative Assessment in a College Classroom

“…At the postsecondary level, the vocabulary-matching CBMs demonstrated evidence of moderate alternate form reliability and the coefficients for the combined adjacent forms were on average larger ( r = .65) than the single adjacent forms ( r = .49). These findings are lower overall than in previous research where coefficients of .80 and above were common (Beyers et al, 2013; Espin et al, 2001; Espin et al, 2005). However, this study aligns with previous research finding that combined adjacent forms provide larger reliability coefficients and thus a more stable estimate of student performance than single forms or test scores (Beyers et al, 2013; Lembke et al, 2017).…”

“…Forms two through 10 were given once a week for the remainder of the semester. Administration directions were adapted from the work of Espin (n.d.). All assessments were administered via paper-pencil and collected.…”

“…Vocabulary-matching CBM has become more prevalent at the secondary level, as it has the most potential utility for identifying students with difficulties comprehending and acquiring content area knowledge when compared to other measures, such an oral reading fluency task (reading a passage in 1 min and counting total words read), Maze task (reading a passage and having to determine the correct word in a sentence from a multiple-choice item), or Sentence Verification Technique (reading a passage and then indicating whether a group of sentences are congruent with the passages just read; Espin & Foegen, 1996; Mooney & Lastrapes, 2016). More recently, vocabulary-matching CBM measures have been developed as a method to identify and monitor student performance in content areas that include a significant amount of content-specific vocabulary, such as social studies (Beyers, Lembke, & Curs, 2013; Espin, Busch, Shin, & Kruschwitz, 2001; Espin, Shin, & Busch, 2005; Lembke et al, 2017) and science (Borsuk, 2010; Espin et al, 2013).…”

“…Multiple forms are created after identifying a pool of terms in a specific content area. Each form is then given on a regular basis (typically weekly) to assess student comprehension of academic language used within the curriculum (Espin et al, 2001; Espin et al, 2005).…”

Conceptual Replications of the Critical Content Monitoring General Outcome Measure in Science Content

“…The present study provided the first set of data for the curriculum-sampled measures of academic vocabulary. Fourth, growth data have only been reported for vocabulary matching studies (e.g., Espin et al, 2013; Espin, Shin, & Busch, 2005) and focused on weekly administrations over 11- to 25-week time frames. What has yet to be reported, both in the general outcome measure literature for science and social studies content and for CCM specifically, are benchmark growth scores.…”