The purpose of this study was to examine the use of three early numeracy measures to monitor the mathematics progress of students across time. One hundred and seven kindergarten and Grade 1 students were administered quantity discrimination, number identification, and missing-number measures once each month for 7 months. Alternate form reliability was adequate for instructional decision making, whereas criterion validity coefficients comparing the early numeracy measures to teacher judgment of student proficiency in mathematics and students' performance on a district-administered standardized test were lower than those observed in previous research. We used hierarchical linear modeling at each grade level to examine the ability of the three measures to model growth across time. All measures produced growth rates that were significant across time, for each grade level, with linear growth observed for the Number Identification measure only.
Baker, S., Gersten, R., Flojo, J., Katz, R., Chard, D., & Clarke, B. (2002). Preventing mathematics difficulties in young children: Focus on effective screening of early number sense delays (Tech Rep. No. 0305) . Eugene, OR: Pacific Institute for Research.
2.
Chard, D., Clarke, B., Baker, S., Otterstedt, J., Braun, D., & Katz, R. (2005). Using measures of number sense to screen for difficulties in mathematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(2), 3-14.
3.
Clarke, B., & Shinn, M.R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234-248.
4.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
5.
Deno, S.L., Fuchs, L.S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507-524.
6.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
7.
Foegen, A., Jiban, C.L., & Deno, S.L. (2007). Progress monitoring in mathematics: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 41, 121-139.
8.
Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 85-95.
9.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Hamlett, C.L., & Seethaler, P.M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention . Exceptional Children, 73, 311-330.
10.
Good, R.H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. (2001). Best practices using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists .
11.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
12.
Kroesbergen, E.H., & Van Luit, J.E.H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special education needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97-114.
13.
Lembke, E.S., & Foegen, A. (2007). Identifying early numeracy indicators for kindergarten and Grade 1 students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14.
Miller, S.P., & Hudson, P.J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 47-57.
15.
Minskoff, E., & Allsopp, D. (2003). Strategies for academic success: Mathematics. In Academic success strategies for adolescents with learning disabilities and ADHD (pp. 221-222). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
16.
Montague, M. (1996). Assessing mathematical problem solving. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 238-248.
17.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
18.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
19.
Okamoto, Y., & Case, R. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children's central conceptual structures in the domain of number. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, 27-59.
20.
Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2005). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2005 (NCES 2006-453). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
21.
Psychological Corporation. (1996). Stanford Early School Achievement Test (9th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment .
22.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., & Congdon, R. (2007). HLM (Version 6.04) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International .
23.
Safer, N., & Fleischman, S. (2005). How student progress monitoring improves instruction. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 81-83.
24.
Stecker, P.M., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795-819.
25.
Swanson, H.L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 129-140.
