scholarly journals Curriculum-based measurement norming for reading fluency and written expression for French immersion students in School District #57

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie St-Pierre
Keyword(s):  
School District ◽  
Reading Fluency ◽  
French Immersion ◽  
Written Expression ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement

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

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.

scholarly journals Technical Characteristics of Curriculum-Based Measurement With Students Who Are Deaf

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Lam ◽  
Susan Rose ◽  
Kristen L McMaster
Keyword(s):  
Student Performance ◽  
Reading Fluency ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Fifth Grade ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement ◽  
Reading Levels ◽  
Alternate Form ◽  
Alternate Form Reliability ◽  
Reliability Coefficients

Abstract This study compared the reliability and validity of student scores from paper–pencil and e-based assessments using the “maze” and “silent reading fluency” (SRF) tasks. Forty students who were deaf and hard of hearing and reading between the second and fifth grade reading levels and their teachers (n = 21) participated. For maze, alternate form reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores and correct scores adjusted for guessing ranged from r = .61 to .84 (ps < .01); criterion-related validity coefficients ranged from r = .33 to .67 (most ps < .01). For SRF, reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores ranged from r = .50 to .75 (ps < .01); validity ranged from r = .25 to .72. Differences between student performance on paper–pencil and e-based conditions were generally non-significant for maze; significant differences between conditions for SRF favored the paper–pencil condition. Findings suggest that maze holds promise, with inconclusive results for SRF.

Systematic Review of Curriculum-Based Measurement with Students Who Are Deaf

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 398-410
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Lam ◽  
Kristen L McMaster ◽  
Susan Rose
Keyword(s):  
Reading Fluency ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Student Outcomes ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement ◽  
Validity Evidence ◽  
Reading Curriculum ◽  
Technical Adequacy ◽  
Technical Properties ◽  
Instructional Decision

Abstract This review systematically identified and compared the technical adequacy (reliability and validity evidence) of reading curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tasks administered to students who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). This review included all available literature written in English. The nine studies identified used four CBM tasks: signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency, cloze (write in missing words given blank lines within a passage), and maze (circle the target word given multiple choice options within a passage). Data obtained from these measures were generally found to be internally consistent and stable with validity evidence varying across measures. Emerging evidence supports the utility of CBM for students who are DHH. Further empirical evidence is needed to continue to explore technical properties, identify if student scores are sensitive to growth over short periods of time, and examine whether CBM data can be used to inform instructional decision-making to improve student outcomes.

Concurrent validity and classification accuracy of curriculum-based measurement for written expression.

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
William M. Furey ◽  
Amanda M. Marcotte ◽  
John M. Hintze ◽  
Caroline M. Shackett
Keyword(s):  
Classification Accuracy ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Written Expression ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document