2012
DOI: 10.1177/1534508412457872
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling Nonlinear Growth With Three Data Points

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to demonstrate ways to model nonlinear growth using three testing occasions. We demonstrate our growth models in the context of curriculum-based measurement using the fall, winter, and spring passage reading fluency benchmark assessments. We present a brief technical overview that includes the limitations of a growth model with three time points, and how nonlinear growth can be modeled and the associated limitations. We present results for a piecewise growth mixture modeling appr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To ensure that the linear model provided the best description for the data, a nonlinear growth model was equally estimated. Since our data had only three data points, we modeled nonlinear growth ( * , 1, 2) by freely estimating the first slope factor (Kamata et al, 2012 ; Nese, 2013 ). Assumptions of nonlinear growth were not supported ( b = −0.25, SE = 0.23, p = 0.278).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To ensure that the linear model provided the best description for the data, a nonlinear growth model was equally estimated. Since our data had only three data points, we modeled nonlinear growth ( * , 1, 2) by freely estimating the first slope factor (Kamata et al, 2012 ; Nese, 2013 ). Assumptions of nonlinear growth were not supported ( b = −0.25, SE = 0.23, p = 0.278).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and Time 2, and the second slope representing the change between Time 2 and Time 3) and estimated. Note that since the model specified in this manner is just-identified, no fit indices are available (Kamata et al, 2013). The results indicated a significant increase in perceived difficulty between the first and the second measurement point (M = .42), and a somewhat less steep decrease between the second and the third measurement point (M = .19).…”
Section: Mean-level Changesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The bulk of studies on ORF growth, however, has predominantly used one of three standardized passage sets-AIMSweb (AIMSweb, 2002), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Kaminski & Good, 1996), or easyCBM (Alonzo, Tindal, Ulmer, & Glasgow, 2006). At the same time, researchers have explicitly documented effects from these specific measures to report on (a) various analytical models (e.g., linear vs. piecewise growth mixture models or growth mixture modeling using easyCBM as reported by Kamata, Nese, Patarapichayatham, & Lai, 2013), (b) programs (e.g., Reading First using DIBELS as investigated by S. K. Baker et al, 2008), or (c) student demographics (e.g., disaggregated analyses by one or more student sample characteristics such language, Al Otaiba et al, 2009), again using DIBELS. Generally, growth has been documented within rather than across years, primarily because of the lack of comparability in passages over grade levels.…”
Section: Orf Growth Research and Its Extensionsmentioning
confidence: 99%