Implementing Curriculum-Based Measurement in Special and Regular Education Settings

Marston, Douglas; Magnusson, Deanne

doi:10.1177/001440298505200307

Cited by 95 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second reason reading fluency rates have been used as an effective progress monitoring tool is because oral reading fluency has been shown to be sensitive to student growth over short periods of time (Fuchs, Tindal, & Deno, 1981;Marston & Magnusson, 1985;. Assessment of growth over a short period of time is an essential component of a tiered model of reading instruction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment

Shapiro

Solari

Petscher

2008

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study examined the diagnostic accuracy of two screening measures of risk for future difficulties in reading comprehension, as well as the degree to which adding a screening measure of reading comprehension enhanced the prediction of Oral Reading Fluency to outcomes of student reading performance on the state high stakes assessment for grades 3 through 5. Data from fall and winter assessments of the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) and 4Sight Benchmark Assessment (4Sight) measures along with outcomes on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) across a total of 1000 students from 6 schools were examined using indices of diagnostic efficiency, ROC curve, and logistic regression analyses. Results showed that the addition of a measure of reading comprehension (4Sight) to DORF enhanced the decision making process for identifying students at risk for reading difficulties, especially for those students at higher elementary grades and those who achieved benchmark levels on the DORF. Although DORF alone showed a good level of prediction to the statewide assessment, the combination of the DORF plus 4Sight measures resulted consistently in the best predictive outcomes. Suggestions are made to consider alternative cut points for the DORF and 4Sight measures. Keywords RTI; Reading comprehension; Oral reading fluencyResults of statewide assessment, often called high-stakes testing, have important implications for districts, teachers, and individual students that impact district level decision making and policy. Usually administered once during the school year, statewide assessments do not provide information about student growth over shorter time periods and provide even less information to guide effective instruction for students who are at-risk (Shephard, 2000). The value and potential impact placed on high-stakes testing has encouraged school districts to put into place more frequent monitoring of student academic outcomes during the school year to identify those students potentially at risk for not reaching proficiency levels prior to the administration of the high-stakes test. Such identification could allow districts to put in place programs to focus instruction for such students in areas that would improve student outcomes on the high-stakes test.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment

Shapiro

Solari

Petscher

2008

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Growth was far more evident using the CBM measures and was more in line with teacher evaluations as well. Marston and Magnusson (1985) reported similar findings in a ten week study. The DIBELS measures developed by Kaminski & Good ( 1998) were developed to monitor growth in the acquisition of critical early literacy skills (Good, Gruba, & Kaminski 2001).…”

Section: Advantages Of Cbm and Dibels Measuressupporting

confidence: 75%

Norming of CBM reading and writing and DIBELS instruments for School District No. 57 (Prince George)

Cook¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These standardized measurement procedures produce reliable data that also have demonstrated validity for making special education programming decisions (cf., Germann & Tindal, 1985;Marston & Magnusson, 1985).…”

Section: How To Measure and Score Written Expression Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Developing Curriculum-Based Measurement Systems For Data-Based Special Education Problem Solving

Deno¹,

Fuchs²

1987

Exceptional

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementing Curriculum-Based Measurement in Special and Regular Education Settings

Cited by 95 publications

References 11 publications

Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment

Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment

Norming of CBM reading and writing and DIBELS instruments for School District No. 57 (Prince George)

Developing Curriculum-Based Measurement Systems For Data-Based Special Education Problem Solving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About