Curriculum-Based Measures and Performance on State Assessment and Standardized Tests

Abstract

General outcome measures (GOMs) provide educators with a means to evaluate student progress toward curricular objectives. Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is one type of GOM that has a long history in the research literature with strong empirical support. With the increased emphasis on instruction linked to state standards and statewide achievement tests, the relationship between CBM and these measures has been called into question. This study examined the relationships between CBM of reading, math computation, and math concepts/applications and the statewide standardized achievement test as well as published norm-referenced achievement tests in two districts in Pennsylvania. Results showed that CBM had moderate to strong correlations with midyear assessments in reading and mathematics and both types of standardized tests across school districts. The data suggest that CBM can be one source of data that could be used to potentially identify those students likely to be successful or fail the statewide assessment measure.

Assessment: Periodic Assessment to Monitor Progress

“…As noted by Shapiro et al (2006), "Given the expense and time required to administer norm-referenced achievement tests, CBM offers a potentially inexpensive way for districts to do large-scale screening" (p. 32). Including screening data in a progress monitoring graph can enhance the reliability of the slope through the inclusion of additional data points and provides a reference point for future performance on a subsequent high-stakes assessments, something that many measures of growth may not be able to do (Schatschneider et al 2008).…”

Curriculum-Based Measurement as a Predictor of Performance on a State Assessment: Diagnostic Efficiency of Local Norms

“…Instead of using generic norms, various statistical methods can be employed to generate cut scores that are specific to the sample and the measurements and maximize diagnostic accuracy. Only a handful of studies have generated sample-specific cut scores and reported diagnostic accuracy Keller-Margulis et al, 2008;Roehrig et al, 2008;Shapiro et al, 2006;Stage & Jacobsen, 2001;Wood, 2006). Often the generated cut scores were similar to generic benchmarks; however, in a few cases, to elicit acceptable diagnostic accuracy, the generated cut scores were discrepant.…”

“…Due to identified and potential moderators of the relationship between R-CBM and state reading tests (e.g., time interval of testing, proportion of certain population subgroups, passage creation), R-CBM benchmarks may not function similarly across states or districts (Yeo, 2009). Furthermore, because state reading tests differ greatly based on level of difficulty and required proficiency (Peterson & Hess, 2005) and format of questions (Yeo, 2009), R-CBM benchmarks may not produce the same diagnostic accuracy across states (Shapiro et al, 2006). Instead of using generic norms, various statistical methods can be employed to generate cut scores that are specific to the sample and the measurements and maximize diagnostic accuracy.…”

“…Often the generated cut scores were similar to generic benchmarks; however, in a few cases, to elicit acceptable diagnostic accuracy, the generated cut scores were discrepant. The statistical methodologies utilized in these studies included using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves Keller-Margulis et al, 2008;Roehrig et al, 2008;Shapiro et al, 2006), analysis of variance (ANOVA; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001), logistic regression, discriminant analysis, or the equipercentile method . Although different methodologies have their advantages, logistic regression and ROC curves appear to perform most satisfactorily .…”

“…The rationale is to use R-CBM data to identify preemptively those students who are at risk of failing statewide achievement tests (Shapiro, Keller, Lutz, Santoro, & Hintze, 2006). To do this, R-CBM benchmarks must be developed that can predict with a high likelihood the outcome (success or failure) on a state achievement test.…”