Aspects of Technical Adequacy of an Early-Writing Measure for English Language Learners in Grades 1 to 3

Abstract

This study examined the technical adequacy of Picture Word, a type of Writing Curriculum-Based Measurement, with 73 English learners (ELs) with beginning to intermediate English language proficiency in Grades 1, 2, and 3. The ELs in this study attended schools in one Midwestern school district employing an English-only model of instruction and spoke a variety of native languages. ELs completed two forms of Picture Word in the fall, winter, and spring. The criterion measure, a common English language proficiency assessment, was administered in the winter. Results indicated that Picture Word was not appropriate for the first-grade EL participants but showed promise for second- and third-grade ELs.

A literature synthesis of curriculum‐based measurement in writing for English learners

“…Our search of the literature returned six studies evaluating CBM‐W that provided disaggregated analyses for ELs (Campbell et al, 2013; Campbell, 2010; Espin et al, 2008; Keller‐Margulis et al, 2016b; Smith & Lembke 2021, 2022), all of which were relegated to stage 1 research. The studies included a total of 284 ELs primarily conducted in the Midwest ( n = 5).…”

“…Story Prompt was examined across three different studies employing a variety of criterion variables, with two at the secondary level (Campbell et al, 2013; Espin et al, 2008) and one for 4th grade ELs (Keller‐Margulis et al, 2016b). Other CBM‐W examined included Picture Story Prompt (Campbell et al, 2013), Expository Prompt (Campbell et al, 2013), Picture Word (Smith & Lembke, 2021), Word Dictation (Smith & Lembke, 2022), and Passage Copying (Campbell, 2010). Table 2 provides an overview of these studies.…”

“…Smith and Lembke (2021) and Smith and Lembke (2022) examined the reliability and validity of Picture Word ( n = 65) and Word Dictation ( n = 69) CBM, respectively, with ELs in the 1st through 3rd Grades. Participants spoke primarily Spanish (38%) and Arabic (9%) with predominately Beginning (30%) to Intermediate (69%) ELP.…”

“…None of the studies with findings disaggregated for ELs examined stages two or three of CBM research. Three studies (Keller‐Margulis et al, 2016b; Smith & Lembke, 2021, 2022) collected CBM‐W data at three points across the academic year (fall, winter, spring) but did not indicate whether or not ELs demonstrated significant growth across the year. None of the included studies examined the utility of CBM‐W in instruction nor its impact upon student learning.…”

“…Of the studies reporting ELP, only Espin et al (2008) restricted analyses to ELs with a specific ELP (Advanced) while the remaining four included ELs across two or more levels of ELP, none of which examined whether or not there were differences in technical adequacy across said levels. Three studies (Keller-Margulis et al, 2016b;Smith & Lembke, 2021…”