Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading: Is 6 Weeks of Daily Progress Monitoring Enough?

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon C. Thornblad ◽  
Theodore J. Christ
Keyword(s):  
Progress Monitoring ◽  
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 Reading Growth: Weekly Versus Intermittent Progress Monitoring

2017 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Jenkins ◽  
Margaret Schulze ◽  
Allison Marti ◽  
Allen G. Harbaugh
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Special Education ◽  
Reading Instruction ◽  
Progress Monitoring ◽  
Relative Accuracy ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement ◽  
Reading Growth ◽  
Decision Accuracy ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
High Incidence Disabilities

We examined the idea that leaner schedules of progress monitoring (PM) can lighten assessment demands without undermining decision-making accuracy. Using curriculum-based measurement of reading, we compared effects on decision accuracy of 5 intermittent PM schedules relative to that of every-week PM. For participating students with high-incidence disabilities—all receiving special education reading instruction ( N = 56)—intermittent schedules of PM performed as well as every-week PM. These findings signal a need for research on the relative accuracy and timeliness of curriculum-based measurement decision making for intermittent and weekly PM.

scholarly journals Improving Teachers’ Comprehension of Curriculum-Based Measurement Progress-Monitoring Graphs

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (5) ◽  
pp. 413-427
Author(s):  
Roxette M. van den Bosch ◽  
Christine A. Espin ◽  
Ron J. Pat-El ◽  
Nadira Saab
Keyword(s):  
Elementary School ◽  
Elementary School Teachers ◽  
Progress Monitoring ◽  
Curriculum Based Measurement ◽  
Instructional Approaches ◽  
School Teachers ◽  
Video Instruction ◽  
Instructional Videos ◽  
Graph Comprehension ◽  
Comprehension Task

The authors examined three instructional approaches for improving teachers’ curriculum-based measurement (CBM) graph comprehension, each differing in the extent to which reading the data, interpreting the data, and linking the data to instruction were emphasized. Participants were 164 elementary school teachers who were randomly assigned to one of three CBM instructional approaches or a control condition. Instruction was delivered via videos. Prior to and after receiving instruction, teachers completed a CBM graph-comprehension task. They also evaluated the instructional videos. Teachers in the three instructional groups improved more in CBM graph comprehension than control teachers. Improvements were seen primarily in interpreting and linking the data to instruction, two important but difficult aspects of CBM graph comprehension. Differences between the instructional groups were found for interpreting the data. Teachers evaluated the videos positively. Results indicate that teachers’ CBM graph comprehension can be improved via video instruction. Implications for teaching teachers to implement CBM are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document