Universal screening practices play a critical role in preventing reading difficulties. Screening decisions typically rely on results from several curriculum–based measurement (CBM) tools. In this study, data from 236 first graders were pulled as a subsample from a statewide study. Participants completed multiple early literacy CBM tools and an outcome measure. Performance differences were compared across tools and publishers to examine classification accuracy. Results show no differences in performance between nonsense word fluency tools across publishers, yet differences were found examining classification accuracy. We also report results of an exploratory analysis examining whether improvements in testing efficiency in early literacy screening are possible via multiple–gating procedures. Improving the accuracy and efficiency of screening procedures are discussed as implications for practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbernethyS., AllisonR., AndrenK., ArdoinS., AtkinsT., BaileyT., et al. (2010). A response to the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) white paper on specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification [White paper]. Retrieved May 12, 2017, from the Illinois State Board of Education: https://www.isbe.net/Documents/LDA_SLD_white_paper_response.pdf
2.
BurnsM. K., JimersonS. R., VanDerHeydenA. M., & DenoS. L. (2016). Toward a unified response–to–intervention model: Multi–tiered systems of support. In JimersonS. R., BurnsM. K., & VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi–tiered systems of support (pp. 719–732). Boston, MA: Springer.
3.
CattsH. W., NielsenD. C., BridgesM. S., LiuY. S., & BontempoD. E. (2015). Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(3), 281–297.
4.
ComptonD. L., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & BryantJ. D. (2006). Selecting at–risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two–year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409.
5.
ComptonD. L., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., BoutonB., GilbertJ. K., BarqueroL. A., et al. (2010). Selecting at–risk first–grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two–stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 327–340.
6.
ConnorC. M., AlbertoP. A., ComptonD. L., & O'ConnorR. E. (2014). Improving reading outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities: A synthesis of the contributions from the Institute for Education Sciences research centers (NCSER 2014–3000). Washington DC: NCSER, IES, U.S. Department of Education.
7.
DenoS. L. (2016). Data–based decision–making. In JimersonS. R., BurnsM. K., & VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
8.
FastBridge Learning (2015). FAST technical manual. Minneapolis: FastBridge Learning, LLC.
9.
FordJ., & HospJ. (2015). Classroom management for universal screening. In ScarlettW. G. (Ed.), Classroom management: An A–to–Z guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
10.
FordJ. W., MissallK. N., HospJ. L., & KuhleJ. L. (2016). Comparing two CBM maze selection tools: Considering scoring and interpretive metrics for universal screening. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 32(4), 329–353.
11.
FordJ. W., MissallK. N., HospJ. L., & KuhleJ. L. (2017). Examining oral passage reading rate across three curriculum–based measurement tools for predicting grade–level proficiency. School Psychology Review, 46(4), 363–378.
12.
FletcherJ. M., & MiciakJ. (2017). Comprehensive cognitive assessments are not necessary for the identification and treatment of learning disabilities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 2–7.
13.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., HospM. K., & JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256.
14.
FuchsL. S., & VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness–to–intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203.
15.
GoodR. H., KaminskiR. A., DeweyE. N., WallinJ., Powell–SmithK. A., & LatimerR. J. (2011). DIBELS next technical manual. Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
16.
HernandezD. J. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. New York: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
17.
HospJ., & ArdoinS. (2008). Assessment for instructional planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 69–77.
18.
HooverH., DunbarS., & FrisbieD. (2001). Iowa tests of basic skills (ITBS) forms A, B, and C. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
19.
HospM., HospJ., & HowellK. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum–based measurement (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
20.
HospJ. (2012). Using assessment data to make decisions about teaching and learning. In HarrisK., GrahamS., & UrdanT. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (pp. 87–110). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
21.
HaleJ., AlfonsoV., BerningerV., BrackenB., ChristoC., ClarkE., et al. (2010). The Learning Disabilities Association of America's white paper on evaluation, identification, and eligibility criteria for students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved May 12, 2017, from the Learning Disabilities Association of America: https://ldaamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/LDA-White-Paper-on-IDEA-Evaluation-Criteria-for-SLD.pdf.
JenkinsJ. R. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at–risk students. In NRCLD responsiveness–to–intervention symposium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved April(Vol. 3, p. 2006).
24.
Koehler–HakK. M. (2014). Measurement of educational progress in the context of local demographics: Using general outcome measurement as a basis for the development and use of local norms. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 58(1), 50–57.
25.
LeblancM., DuforeE., & McDougalJ. (2012). Using general outcome measures to predict student performance on state–mandated assessments: An applied approach for establishing predictive cutscores. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1), 1–13.
26.
PattonK. L. S., ReschlyA. L., & AppletonJ. (2014). Curriculum–based measurement as a predictor of performance on a state assessment: Diagnostic efficiency of local norms. Educational Assessment, 19(4), 284–301.
PetscherY., KimY. S., & FoormanB. R. (2011). The importance of predictive power in early screening assessments: Implications for placement in the response to intervention framework. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(3), 158–166.
29.
PierceR., McMasterK., & DenoS. (2010). The effects of using different procedures to score maze measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 151–160.
30.
SchatschneiderC., PetscherY., & WilliamsK. M. (2008). How to evaluate a screening process: The vocabulary of screening and what educators need to know. In JusticeL. & VukelichC. (Eds.), Achieving excellence in preschool literacy instruction (pp. 304–316). New York: Guilford.
31.
SchneiderW. J., & KaufmanA. S. (2017). Let's not do away with comprehensive cognitive assessments just yet. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 8–20.
32.
SprinthallR. C. (2003). The hypothesis of difference. Basic Statistical Analysis, 229–69.
33.
StewartL. H. (2014). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In HarrisonP. L. & ThomasA. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Foundations (pp. 301–314). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
34.
SwetsJ. A. (1992). The science of choosing the right decision threshold in high–stakes diagnostics. American Psychologist, 47, 522–532.
35.
TabachnickB. G., & FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
36.
VanDerHeydenA. M., & BurnsM. K. (2017). Four dyslexia screening myths that cause more harm than good in preventing reading failure and what you can do instead. Communiqué, 45(7), 26–28.
37.
VanDerHeydenA. M., & WittJ. C. (2005). Quantifying context in assessment: Capturing the effect of base rates on teacher referral and a problem–solving model of identification. School Psychology Review, 34(2), 161–183.
38.
WalkerH. M., SeversonH. H., NaquinG., D'AtrioC., FeilE. G., HawkenL., et al. (2012). Implementing universal screening systems within an RtI–PBS context. In DollB., PfohlW., & YoonJ. (Eds.), Handbook of youth prevention science (pp. 96–120). New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
WaymanM., WallaceT., WileyH. I., TicháR., & EspinC. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum–based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
