Assessment: Periodic Assessment to Monitor Progress

Silberglitt, Benjamin; Parker, David; Muyskens, Paul

doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_16

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, CBM‐R was originally developed to evaluate the effectiveness of special education programming for individual students, often from week to week (Deno, ). Since that time, CBM‐R is now used to monitor regular education student response to instruction within multitiered systems of support (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Phillips, & Bentz, ; Silberglitt, Parker, & Muyskens, ).…”

Section: Progress Monitoring and Cbm‐rmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of the Linearity of Curriculum‐Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM‐R) Progress Monitoring Data: Idiographic Considerations

Norman

Parker²

2016

Learn Disabil Res Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Educators use curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (CBM-R) to measure student response to instruction. Current decision-making frameworks assume students demonstrate linear growth across a school year. However, growth appears nonlinear for at least a subgroup of students. We assessed the degree to which grade two (n = 800) and grade three (n = 800) students receiving intensive interventions experienced discontinuous growth. We also explored when discontinuous growth tended to occur, and whether students improved or regressed afterward. Results indicate linear patterns were adequate for most students (80 percent). Students who showed discontinuous growth early tended to improve afterward. Conversely, students who showed discontinuous growth later tended to plateau. Findings suggest multilevel models may obscure variability in growth patterns. Practice and research implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Progress Monitoring and Cbm‐rmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of the Linearity of Curriculum‐Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM‐R) Progress Monitoring Data: Idiographic Considerations

Norman

Parker²

2016

Learn Disabil Res Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Educators monitor student progress by administering probes across time, often one to two times per week, plotting collected observations on time series graphs, and evaluating the resulting trajectory in comparison with a set goal, to determine whether an instructional change should be made (Deno, 1985, 1986); Initially, CBM-R progress monitoring data were used to help special educators make day-to-day instructional decisions (Deno, 2003; Tindal, 2013). More recently, CBM-R progress monitoring data are also used to monitor the effects of supplemental interventions delivered to regular education students, often within multitiered systems of support (MTSS; Silberglitt, Parker, & Muyskens, 2016). Decision rules provide guidelines to determine whether a student is making adequate progress.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Common and Novel Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading Decision Rules to Predict Spring Performance for Students Receiving Supplemental Interventions

Norman

Parker²

2017

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent simulations suggest that trend line decision rules applied to curriculum-based measurement of reading progress monitoring data may lead to inaccurate interpretations unless data are collected for upward of 3 months. The authors of those studies did not manipulate goal line slope or account for a student's level of initial performance when evaluating the accuracy of progress monitoring decisions. We explored how long progress needs to be monitored before ineffective interventions can be accurately identified using actual data. We calculated classification accuracy statistics to evaluate the extent to which recommendations from three common and two novel decision rules correctly predicted spring performance across six levels of duration (8, 10,. .. 18 weeks) and two goal types (normative and default spring benchmark). Comparing the median of the last three observations as well as current trend with expected performance at a given week consistently yielded higher positive agreement rates than data point or prediction-based decision rules. Decision rule performance improved as duration increased, but a point of diminishing returns was observed. Decisions based on normative goals yielded consistently higher chance-corrected agreement outcomes.

show abstract

“…CBM (Deno, 1985) is the most common class of assessments educators use to monitor student response to instruction (Tindal, 2013). Originally developed to help educators formatively assess their day-to-day instructional practices (Deno, 2003), CBM is also used to measure response to instruction among regular education students within multitiered systems of support (MTSS; Silberglitt, Parker, & Muyskens, 2016). Although multiple types of CBM exist (e.g., math computation, spelling, writing, etc.…”

Section: Curriculum-based Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of nonsense-word fluency and curriculum-based measurement of reading to measure response to phonics instruction.

Norman¹,

Nelson²,

Parker³

2018

School Psychology Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student response to instruction is a key piece of information that school psychologists use to make instructional decisions. Curriculum-based measures (CBMs) are the most commonly used and researched family of academic progress-monitoring assessments. There are a variety of reading CBMs that differ in the type and specificity of skills they assess. The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which the CBM of oral reading (CBM-R) progress-monitoring data differed from nonsense-word fluency (NWF) progress-monitoring data in the presence of a common intervention. We used multivariate multilevel modeling to compare growth trajectories from CBM-R and NWF progress-monitoring data from a geographically diverse sample of 3,000 1st-grade students receiving Tier-2 phonics interventions. We also evaluated differences in sensitivity to improvement and reliability of improvement from each measure. Improvement on CBM-R was statistically, but not practically, significantly greater than NWF. Although CBM-R was not as direct a measure of decoding, it still captured student response to phonics instruction similarly to NWF. NWF demonstrated slightly better sensitivity to growth, but CBM-R yielded more reliable growth estimates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

show abstract

Assessment: Periodic Assessment to Monitor Progress

Cited by 18 publications

References 64 publications

An Evaluation of the Linearity of Curriculum‐Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM‐R) Progress Monitoring Data: Idiographic Considerations

An Evaluation of the Linearity of Curriculum‐Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM‐R) Progress Monitoring Data: Idiographic Considerations

A Comparison of Common and Novel Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading Decision Rules to Predict Spring Performance for Students Receiving Supplemental Interventions

A comparison of nonsense-word fluency and curriculum-based measurement of reading to measure response to phonics instruction.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About