An Evaluation of the Linearity of Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM-R) Progress Monitoring Data: Idiographic Considerations

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 199-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethan R. Van Norman ◽  
David C. Parker
Keyword(s):  
Oral Reading ◽  
Progress Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Data ◽  
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.

Decision-Making Accuracy of CBM Progress-Monitoring Data

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Hintze ◽  
Craig S. Wells ◽  
Amanda M. Marcotte ◽  
Benjamin G. Solomon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Progress Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Data ◽  
Standard Errors ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement ◽  
Reading Growth ◽  
Intervention Model ◽  
Student Reading ◽  
Decision Making Rule

This study examined the diagnostic accuracy associated with decision making as is typically conducted with curriculum-based measurement (CBM) approaches to progress monitoring. Using previously published estimates of the standard errors of estimate associated with CBM, 20,000 progress-monitoring data sets were simulated to model student reading growth of two-word increase per week across 15 consecutive weeks. Results indicated that an unacceptably high proportion of cases were falsely identified as nonresponsive to intervention when a common 4-point decision rule was applied, under the context of typical levels of probe reliability. As reliability and stringency of the decision-making rule increased, such errors decreased. Findings are particularly relevant to those who use a multi-tiered response-to-intervention model for evaluating formative changes associated with instructional intervention and evaluating responsiveness to intervention across multiple tiers of intervention.

Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading: Quality of Progress Monitoring Outcomes

2012 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore J. Christ ◽  
Cengiz Zopluoglu ◽  
Jeffery D. Long ◽  
Barbara D. Monaghen
Keyword(s):  
Oral Reading ◽  
Progress Monitoring ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement

Estimating Trend in Progress Monitoring Data: A Comparison of Simple Line-Fitting Methods

1992 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 300-312
Author(s):  
Richard Parker ◽  
Gerald Tindal ◽  
Stephanie Stein
Keyword(s):  
Progress Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Data ◽  
Line Fitting

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document