Assessment in RTI: What Teachers and Specialists Need to Know

Wixson, Karen K.; Valencia, Sheila W.

doi:10.1598/rt.64.6.13

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In one survey of middle and high school literacy coaches, participants reported discomfort with the role (Blamey, Meyer, & Walpole, ). Yet, the IRA and NCTE standards (2006) emphasize the role of reading specialists in choosing and administering assessments as well as in analyzing and interpreting results (Wixson & Valencia, ). Furthermore, the standards recommend that these literacy professionals should play a role in using this data to productively plan professional development and to assist colleagues in planning instruction (Blamey, et al., ; Lesaux & Marietta, ).…”

Section: Theme 1: Multiple Roles Some More Comfortable Than Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the current education landscape, reading specialists must know how to tailor instruction to suit the needs of one student as well as how to differentiate instruction at the level of the classroom. Today's reading specialist candidates need rich experiences managing and making sense of assessment data for individual students and in the aggregate for entire grades and schools (Walker‐Dalhouse et al., ; Wixson & Valencia, ).…”

Section: Implications For Today's Reading Specialists School Leadersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Leader, Teacher, Diagnostician, Colleague, and Change Agent

Galloway¹,

Lesaux²

2014

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading specialists are conceptualized as instrumental to literacy reform efforts focused on data‐driven instruction and improvement of reading outcomes at all levels. But this has meant a real shift in their role. To keep pace with these changes in the literacy reform movement, in contrast to even 10 years ago, the role of the reading specialist is now outlined as both an educator of students and of teachers. Because the last comprehensive review occurred in 2001, we have attempted to synthesize, for the field, what is known about the daily work of today's reading specialist.

show abstract

Section: Theme 1: Multiple Roles Some More Comfortable Than Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Today's Reading Specialists School Leadersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leader, Teacher, Diagnostician, Colleague, and Change Agent

Galloway¹,

Lesaux²

2014

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This balance is especially relevant to consider because one of the major criticisms of multitiered systems of support, which CBM-R progress monitoring is frequently used in, is the amount of resources being allocated to assessment activities (Wixson & Valencia, 2011).…”

Section: Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of baseline estimation on the reliability, validity, and precision of CBM-R growth estimates.

Norman

Christ

Zopluoğlu

2013

School Psychology Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the effect of baseline estimation on the quality of trend estimates derived from Curriculum Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM-R) progress monitoring data. The authors used a linear mixed effects regression (LMER) model to simulate progress monitoring data for schedules ranging from 6-20 weeks for datasets with high and low levels of residual variance (poor and good quality datasets respectively). Three observations per day for the first three days of data collection were generated for baseline estimation. As few as one and as many as nine observations were used to calculate baseline. The number of weeks of progress monitoring and the quality of the dataset were highly influential on the reliability, validity, and precision of simulated growth estimates. Results supported the use of using the median of three observations collected on the first day to estimate baseline, particularly when the first observation of that day systematically underestimated student performance. Collecting a large number of observations to estimate baseline does not appear to improve the quality of CBM-R growth estimates.

show abstract

“…Two U.S. national surveys-one of reading specialists (Bean, Cassidy, Grumet, Shelton, & Wallis, 2002) and the other of primary teachers (Ford & Opitz, 2008)-showed how widely used running records have become for making instructional decisions. In fact, it is not uncommon now to read references to running records in scholarly articles without the author, Clay, being cited (e.g., Wixson & Valencia, 2011).…”

Section: Description Of the Six Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Inadequacies of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement

D’Agostino

Rodgers

Mauck

2017

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors used nationally based, random sample data from three different years (2009–2010, 2011–2012, and 2014–2015) for nearly 20,000 first‐grade students (n = 9,760, 3,657, and 3,121, respectively) to examine long‐reported inadequacies of a commonly used early literacy assessment tool, the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OSELA), chief among them the skewness and nonequal interval nature of the scores that are obtained on its six individual tasks. Such inadequacies prevented the individual task scores from being used for program evaluation, screening, and progress monitoring. To mitigate these OSELA limitations, the authors employed Rasch analysis to create a scale that can be used to track a student's literacy achievement based on the combination of OSELA task scores. Dimensionality analyses revealed that the OSELA measures one factor, which supported the decision to combine the individual tasks to compute one total score. The equal‐interval total score was normally distributed at the beginning, middle, and end of first grade. Further, the authors conducted a predictive validation study of the total score to identify a range of cut scores that can be used in the fall of first grade to predict reading failure by year end. The authors maintain that the total score provides a more precise and efficient means of screening young students for reading failure and evaluating their progress over time. Implications for using the total score to make screening decisions and measure early reading progress are discussed.

show abstract

Assessment in RTI: What Teachers and Specialists Need to Know

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Leader, Teacher, Diagnostician, Colleague, and Change Agent

Leader, Teacher, Diagnostician, Colleague, and Change Agent

The effects of baseline estimation on the reliability, validity, and precision of CBM-R growth estimates.

Addressing Inadequacies of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About