Scoring measures of word dictation curriculum‐based measurement in writing: Effects of incremental administration

Abstract

Spelling has been identified as a key transcription skill that emerges during the elementary years as students learn how to write and subsequently develop fluency with writing, making the assessment of spelling a critical component of evaluation systems within schools. This includes the use of curriculum‐based measures of writing (CBM‐W). This study examined the extent to which word dictation CBM‐W administered during the Fall, Winter, and Spring of an academic year maintained technical adequacy across 1‐min time intervals in grades 1–3. Results revealed moderate predictive and concurrent validity estimates with the Spelling subtest of the Weschler Individual Achievement Test‐III. Statistically significant differences existed between and within grade levels across each minute of administration and across Fall, Winter, and Spring time points for all scoring procedures.

Technical Adequacy of a Spelling Curriculum-Based Measure for English Language Learners in the First Through Third Grades

“…Many WD metrics, particularly the accurate-production metrics, met the reliability standards for screening (r ≥ .80) set forth by Salvia and colleagues (2017). Accurate-production WD metrics also met the r ≥ .50 criterion validity coefficients commonly accepted within the CBM-Writing literature (McMaster, Ritchey, et al, 2011) and aligned with prior research employing WD with the general population (Keller-Margulis et al, 2019;Poch et al, 2019). Accurate-production metrics displayed consistently higher coefficients with the ACCESS-W than the other ACCESS subtests across second and third grades whereas CLS did so across all three grades.…”

“…The WD forms used for this study were created by McMaster and colleagues (2014). These WD forms were selected because they had published grade-level norms (see McMaster & Lembke 2014) and have been previously examined in published peer-reviewed research with the general population (see Poch et al, 2019). According to McMaster and colleagues, the researchers generated 30 forms of WD, the words were selected based on the Common Core State Standards in the early elementary grades, and each form featured words progressing from less complex (e.g., CVC) to more complex (e.g., CCVVC).…”

“…WD has demonstrated adequate reliability ( r = .89–.95) and validity ( r = .29–.75), and it is adequate for weekly or biweekly progress monitoring for students in the first to third grades (Hampton & Lembke, 2016; Lembke et al, 2003; Poch et al, 2019). Ritchey and Coker (2014) also found WD was adequate in identifying risk in the first grade (area under the curve [AUC] = .78–.87).…”

“…Ritchey and Coker (2014) also found WD was adequate in identifying risk in the first grade (area under the curve [AUC] = .78–.87). In a study with first- through third-grade students, Poch and colleagues (2019) examined predictive (fall to spring) and concurrent (spring to spring) validity of WD. Validity coefficients for first grade ranged from r = .11 to .53, but accurate production metrics ranged from .37 to .53.…”

Monitoring Elementary Students’ Progress Using Word Dictation: Technical Features of Slope and Growth Analysis

“…Despite its promise as a progress monitoring tool for early writing proficiency, research on word dictation is limited. Thus far, researchers (Hampton & Lembke, 2016; Lembke et al, 2003; Poch et al, 2019) have investigated the technical adequacy of word dictation using scores collected at a single time point. Given that research suggests three stages of research necessary for validating CBM (Fuchs, 2004)–Stage 1, assessing the technical adequacy of static scores; Stage 2, investigating technical features of slopes; and Stage 3, determining instructional utility–word dictation still requires Stage 2 research.…”