Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: A preliminary investigation of confidence interval overlap to detect reliable growth.

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethan R. Van Norman
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Oral Reading ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement

Curriculum-Based Measurement Oral Reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence

2009 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 427-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy L. Reschly ◽  
Todd W. Busch ◽  
Joseph Betts ◽  
Stanley L. Deno ◽  
Jeffrey D. Long
Keyword(s):  
Reading Achievement ◽  
Oral Reading ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement

Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading: An Evaluation of Frequentist and Bayesian Methods to Model Progress Monitoring Data

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore J. Christ ◽  
Christopher David Desjardins
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Methods ◽  
Oral Reading ◽  
Progress Monitoring ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement ◽  
Least Squares Regression ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Educational Decisions ◽  
Bayesian Estimates ◽  
Published Research

Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM-R) is often used to monitor student progress and guide educational decisions. Ordinary least squares regression (OLSR) is the most widely used method to estimate the slope, or rate of improvement (ROI), even though published research demonstrates OLSR’s lack of validity and reliability, and imprecision of ROI estimates, especially after brief duration of monitoring (6-10 weeks). This study illustrates and examines the use of Bayesian methods to estimate ROI. Conditions included four progress monitoring durations (6, 8, 10, and 30 weeks), two schedules of data collection (weekly, biweekly), and two ROI growth distributions that broadly corresponded with ROIs for general and special education populations. A Bayesian approach with alternate prior distributions for the ROIs is presented and explored. Results demonstrate that Bayesian estimates of ROI were more precise than OLSR with comparable reliabilities, and Bayesian estimates were consistently within the plausible range of ROIs in contrast to OLSR, which often provided unrealistic estimates. Results also showcase the influence the priors had estimated ROIs and the potential dangers of prior distribution misspecification.

Increasing Reading Comprehension of Two Hyperactive Children: Preliminary Investigation

1975 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 691-694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis R. Dubey ◽  
Susan G. O'Leary
Keyword(s):  
Reading Comprehension ◽  
Oral Reading ◽  
Reading Time ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Silent Reading ◽  
Third Grade ◽  
Differential Effectiveness ◽  
Hyperactive Children

The differential effectiveness of oral and silent reading on comprehension was evaluated for two third-grade children who were hyperactive and who displayed comprehension deficits. Oral reading resulted in significantly fewer comprehension errors than did silent reading. Time to read a story and number of comprehension errors were negatively correlated. Several possible mechanisms involved in the effect of responding orally were discussed.

Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G theory to curriculum-based measurement.

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Hintze ◽  
Steven V. Owen ◽  
Edward S. Shapiro ◽  
Edward J. Daly
Keyword(s):  
Reading Fluency ◽  
Oral Reading ◽  
Oral Reading Fluency ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement

Examiner error in curriculum-based measurement of oral reading

2014 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelli D. Cummings ◽  
Gina Biancarosa ◽  
Andrew Schaper ◽  
Deborah K. Reed
Keyword(s):  
Oral Reading ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement

Addressing the Large Standard Error of Traditional CBM-R: Estimating the Conditional Standard Error of a Model-Based Estimate of CBM-R

2020 ◽  
pp. 153450842093780
Author(s):  
Joseph F. T. Nese ◽  
Akihito Kamata
Keyword(s):  
Reading Fluency ◽  
Oral Reading ◽  
Standard Error ◽  
Reading Proficiency ◽  
Student Growth ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement ◽  
Poor Reading ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Large Standard Error

Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) is widely used across the country as a quick measure of reading proficiency that also serves as a good predictor of comprehension and overall reading achievement, but has several practical and technical inadequacies, including a large standard error of measurement (SEM). Reducing the SEM of CBM-R scores has positive implications for educators using these measures to screen or monitor student growth. The purpose of this study was to compare the SEM of traditional CBM-R words correct per minute (WCPM) fluency scores and the conditional SEM (CSEM) of model-based WCPM estimates, particularly for students with or at risk of poor reading outcomes. We found (a) the average CSEM for the model-based WCPM estimates was substantially smaller than the reported SEMs of traditional CBM-R systems, especially for scores at/below the 25th percentile, and (b) a large proportion (84%) of sample scores, and an even larger proportion of scores at/below the 25th percentile (about 99%) had a smaller CSEM than the reported SEMs of traditional CBM-R systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document