Comparing Two CBM Maze Selection Tools: Considering Scoring and Interpretive Metrics for Universal Screening

Ford, Jeremy W.; Missall, Kristen N.; Hosp, John L.; Kuhle, Jennifer L.

doi:10.1080/15377903.2016.1207738

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With regard to our second research question, observing no differences using general prediction metrics is consistent with our previous research (Ford et al., ; Ford et al., ), which found few such differences. In terms of our current study, sensitivity for AIMSweb was observed to be higher compared to DIBELS Next and FAST.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…With regard to our first research question, observing no difference for students’ NWF between AIMSweb and DIBELS Next may seem unsurprising, as one would presume they measure the same construct (i.e., phonological awareness). However, our previous research found differences in students’ performance between AIMSweb and DIBELS Next for maze selection (Ford et al., ), as well as across AIMSweb, DIBELS Next, and FAST for OPR (Ford et al., ). Moreover, it should be noted the differences between students’ performance on the NWF tools for AIMSweb and DIBELS Next approached statistical significance, which may be identified with a larger sample of students.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The practical time demands of measuring students' reading skills in classrooms, the prevalence of universal screening of reading in MTSS frameworks, the importance of early identification of students who struggle in reading, and the evidence that OPR is a robust indicator of general reading skill provided the impetus for the current study. The purpose of our study is twofold: (1) to extend our research examining differences in performance and classification accuracy for CBM reading tools for OPR (Ford, Missall, Hosp, & Kuhle, 2017) and Maze (Ford, Missall, Hosp, & Kuhle, 2016) to tools measuring early literacy skills; and (2) to explore whether OPR might be an option for reducing the amount of testing required to make accurate screening decisions for students in grade 1. Thus, our study was designed to answer the following research questions: (a) Are there performance differences on NWF tools across different CBM publishers?…”

Section: Purpose Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Improving Efficiency for Making Screening Decisions: A Statewide Comparison of Early Literacy Curriculum‐Based Measurement Tools

Ford

Kern

Hosp

et al. 2018

Learn Disabil Res Pract

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universal screening practices play a critical role in preventing reading difficulties. Screening decisions typically rely on results from several curriculum‐based measurement (CBM) tools. In this study, data from 236 first graders were pulled as a subsample from a statewide study. Participants completed multiple early literacy CBM tools and an outcome measure. Performance differences were compared across tools and publishers to examine classification accuracy. Results show no differences in performance between nonsense word fluency tools across publishers, yet differences were found examining classification accuracy. We also report results of an exploratory analysis examining whether improvements in testing efficiency in early literacy screening are possible via multiple‐gating procedures. Improving the accuracy and efficiency of screening procedures are discussed as implications for practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Purpose Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving Efficiency for Making Screening Decisions: A Statewide Comparison of Early Literacy Curriculum‐Based Measurement Tools

Ford

Kern

Hosp

et al. 2018

Learn Disabil Res Pract

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Existing recommendations for specificity suggest that values above .70 are desirable (Kilgus, Methe, Maggin, & Tomasula, 2014). Nevertheless, some researchers advocate for balancing sensitivity and specificity when deriving cut-scores as to not place a higher emphasis on FNs or FPs because the cost of either result may vary across different school contexts (Baker et al, 2015; Ford, Missall, Hosp, & Kuhle, 2016; Nelson, Van Norman, & Lackner, 2016).…”

Section: Evaluating Screening Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Screening Procedures Across Changes to the Statewide Achievement Test

Klingbeil

Norman

Nelson³

et al. 2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective universal screening within a multitiered system of support requires psychometrically adequate and efficient screening procedures that allow educators to predict which students are most likely to need additional support. Educators in upper elementary and middle school grades are often interested in predicting proficiency on statewide achievement tests to identify students needing remedial support (Espin, Wallace, Lembke, Campbell, & Long, 2010; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2010). Several states have changed their statewide achievement tests over the past 5 years, and these changes may pose some challenges for conducting effective universal screening in upper elementary and middle school grades. Little attention has been devoted to examining how changes to the state achievement test may affect the decision-making accuracy of screening procedures. The purpose of this study was to examine the relative stability of decision-making accuracy estimates across a change in the state achievement test. Evaluating Screening Measures Previous research on screening measures can be roughly divided into studies that evaluated predictive validity and studies that also evaluated decision-making (i.e., 747390A EIXXX10.

show abstract

“…Since publication of Shin’s meta-analysis, the predictive validity of maze CBM in the middle grades has remained an interest of several researchers (Chung, Espin, & Stevenson, 2018; Conoyer et al, 2017; Ford, Missall, Hosp, & Kuhle, 2016; Muijselaar et al, 2017; Stevenson, 2017; Stevenson et al, 2016). As with ORF, Stevenson et al (2016) reported that the magnitude of maze CBM predictive validity coefficients weakened from .54 to .15 over the middle grades, a more dramatic deterioration than was observed in their ORF CBM data.…”

Section: Maze Cbmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Predict Student Performance on an Eighth-Grade State Reading Assessment

LeRoux¹,

Zvoch

Biancarosa

2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between scores on two common curriculum-based measures (CBMs), oral reading fluency (ORF) and maze, and scores on the previous statewide assessment of reading in Oregon (Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills-Reading/Literature [OAKS-R]). Data obtained from three cohorts of eighth-grade students were used to examine CBM validity, and the relationship between student characteristics and OAKS-R performance. Positive relationships between ORF and maze scores and performance on the OAKS-R were obtained. In addition, the strength of the predictive relationships varied across cohorts, but not as a function of student characteristics. These results suggest that eighth-grade CBM data can be used as an efficient means to identify and intervene with those at risk of performing poorly on the end-of-year, high stakes accountability assessment. Consideration of the tradeoffs associated with using one or more CBMs in middle school is provided.

show abstract

Comparing Two CBM Maze Selection Tools: Considering Scoring and Interpretive Metrics for Universal Screening

Cited by 5 publications

References 34 publications

Improving Efficiency for Making Screening Decisions: A Statewide Comparison of Early Literacy Curriculum‐Based Measurement Tools

Improving Efficiency for Making Screening Decisions: A Statewide Comparison of Early Literacy Curriculum‐Based Measurement Tools

Evaluating Screening Procedures Across Changes to the Statewide Achievement Test

Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Predict Student Performance on an Eighth-Grade State Reading Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About