Effect of Instructions on Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of instructions of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) of reading on (a) the number of words read correctly and incorrectly per minute and (b) the relationship between CBM reading and reading achievement. Results indicated that the specific instructions used have a significant impact on CBM reading outcomes. Statistically significant mean differences were found among the fast, best, and baseline reading conditions in the number of words read correctly and in the number of errors. Correlations between words read correctly per minute and a test of reading achievement were statistically significant and substantial for all three conditions, but differences among their correlations were not. These results underscore the importance of using standardized instructions on CBM results both within and across settings. Implications of these results for the responsiveness-to-intervention method for identifying children with learning difficulties are discussed.

Keywords

curriculum-based measurement reading fluency instructions responsiveness-to-intervention

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Derr-Minneci, T. F. , & Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Validating curriculum-based measurement in reading from a behavioral perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 2-16.

Evans-Hampton, T. N. , Skinner, C. H. , Henington, C. , Sims, S. , & McDaniel, C. E. (2002). An investigation of situational bias: Conspicuous and covert timing during curriculum-based measurement of mathematics across African American and Caucasian students. School Psychology Review, 31, 529-539.

Frye, E. (1968). Graph for estimating reliability. Journal of Reading, 11, 513-516.

Fuchs, D. , Fuchs, L. S. , & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27, 216-227.

Fuchs, D. , Mock, D. , Morgan, P. L. , & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.

Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Best practices in defining student goals and outcomes. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 539-546). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Hintze, J. M. , Callahan, J. E. , Matthews, W. J. , Williams, S. A. , & Tobin, K. G. (2002). Oral reading fluency and prediction of reading comprehension in African American and Caucasian elementary school children. School Psychology Review, 31, 540-553.

Hintze, J. M. , Shapiro, E. S. , Conte, K. L. , & Basile, I. M. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Criterion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level assessment. School Psychology Review, 26, 535-553.

Jensen, A. R. (1986). Methodological and statistical techniques for the chronometric study of mental abilities. In C. Reynolds & V. L. Willson (Eds.), Methodological and statistical advances in the study of individual differences (pp. 507-587). New York: Plenum.

10.

Miller, M. D. , & Jordan, L. (1996, April). The generalizability of curriculum-based measures in reading. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.

11.

Roberts, M. , & Smith, D. D. (1980). The relationship among correct and error oral reading rates and comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 54-64.

12.

Shinn, M. R. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.

13.

Shinn, M. R. , & Bamonto, S. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: “Big ideas” and avoiding confusion. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 1-31). New York: Guilford.

14.

Shinn, M. R. , & Shinn, M. M. (2004). Administering and scoring of reading curriculum based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcomes measurement. Retrieved October 2004 from www.aimsweb.com

15.

Woodcock, R. W. , McGrew, K. S. , & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.