Standardized Tests and Timed Curriculum-Based Assessments: A Comparison of Two Methods for Screening High-Risk Students

Abstract

The present study compared two procedures used in identifying students as “at risk” for learning problems. One procedure was a standardized norm referenced assessment represented by the Metropolitan Readiness Test and the Metropolitan Achievement Test. The other test procedure was a variation of the Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA), which used frequency to measure samples of academic behavior. Tests were administered to 144 kindergarten and 142 first-grade children. Although the two procedures were comparable in identifying high-risk students, they differed substantially in time, effort, and cost. These differences might be important for school districts with limited personnel and funds.

Identifying Early Numeracy Indicators for Kindergarten and First‐Grade Students

“…In these studies, the early numeracy indicators were part of a larger battery that included measures of early reading and, in two cases, shapes and colors (Daly et al, 1997; Joyce & Wolking, 1987). Results revealed that CBM measures can predict risk status (retention in grade or special education identification) as well as more complex and time–consuming norm–referenced instruments (Joyce & Wolking, 1987). Both Daly et al (1997) and VanDerHeyden et al (2001) found considerable overlap across mathematics and reading, with the early numeracy indicators producing correlations with reading criterion measures that were comparable to, if not higher than, the correlations with mathematics criterion measures.…”

“…Three studies (Daly et al, 1997;Joyce & Wolking, 1987;VanDerHeyden et al, 2001) administered the measures at a single point in time, consistent with an emphasis on using them for screening. In these studies, the early numeracy indicators were part of a larger battery that included measures of early reading and, in two cases, shapes and colors (Daly et al, 1997;Joyce & Wolking, 1987).…”

“…Fuchs et al (2007) provided a detailed analysis of published and nonpublished research on mathematics screening measures for kindergarten or first grade. We limited our review to published studies involving students in these grades that incorporated screening measures associated with number sense and identified seven studies (Chard et al, 2005; Clarke, Baker, Smolkowski, & Chard, 2008; Clarke & Shinn, 2004; Daly, Wright, Kelly, & Martens, 1997; Fuchs et al, 2007; Joyce & Wolking, 1987; VanDerHeyden, Witt, Naquin, & Noell, 2001).…”

Construct and Predictive Validity Evidence for Curriculum-Based Measures of Early Literacy and Numeracy Skills in Kindergarten

“…Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy or Individual Growth and Development Indicators) has shown good evidence of score reliability and validity under differing circumstances and with respect to diverse outcomes (Daly, Wright, Kelly, & Martens, 1997;Good, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 2001;Kaminski & Good, 1996;Marston, Pickart, Reschly, Muyskens, Heistad, & Tindal, 2007;McConnell, Priest, Davis, & McEvoy, 2002;Munn, 1994). Preliminary evidence of good psychometric properties of measures of early numeracy or early mathematics skills are also emerging (Chard et al, 2005;Clarke & Shinn, 2004;Daly, Wright, Kelly, & Martens, 1997;Daley & Lefevre, 1997;Joyce & Wolking, 1987;Munn, 1994;VanDerHeyden et al, 2004;VanDerHeyden, Witt, Naquin, & Noell, 2001). However, much of the research base for literacy and numeracy has remained independent.…”

Addressing the social, cognitive and emotional needs of children: The case for dynamic assessment

“…A number of studies have found the use of CBA to be both a reliable and valid method of aiding teachers' decisions regarding student placement and identifying children considered academically at risk (Marston & Magnusson, 1985;Joyce & Wolking, 1987;Ysseldyke, 1987;Shinn, Rosenfield & Knutson, 1989). Data from the Marston and Magnusson study indicated that CBA may be useful for screening purposes, programme planning, progress monitoring, and programme evaluation decisions for children with learning difficulties.…”