Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading: An Evaluation of Growth Rates and Seasonal Effects Among Students Served in General and Special Education

Christ, Theodore J.; Silberglitt, Benjamin; Yeo, Seungsoo; Cormier, Damien C.

doi:10.1080/02796015.2010.12087765

Cited by 59 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study’s findings were also consistent with previous research suggesting that students receiving special education services made less reading growth across the school year than did students in general education only (Christ et al, 2010; Deno et al, 2001; L. S. Fuchs et al, 1993).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…A propensity-score analysis of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten (ECLS-K) database found negligible or significantly negative effects of special education services on the reading skills of students with disabilities (Morgan et al, 2010). Furthermore, an examination of reading growth among students receiving special education services found that they exhibited less growth across the school year than students receiving general education instruction only (Christ et al, 2010; Deno et al, 2001; L. S. Fuchs et al, 1993).…”

Section: Special Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examining reading growth rates among students receiving reading intervention and students receiving special education services is necessary to provide insight into the effectiveness of tiered interventions and special education services. Moreover, previous research examining reading growth rates (e.g., Christ et al, 2010; Deno et al, 2001; L. S. Fuchs et al, 1993) did not examine the reading growth of students participating in a tiered reading intervention in comparison to students receiving special education services or students in general education literacy instruction only.…”

Section: Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Reading Growth Among Students With Severe Reading Deficits Who Received Intervention to Typically Achieving Students and Students Receiving Special Education

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the reading growth of students with and without learning disabilities, and students with and without reading deficits in response to tier 2 reading interventions within a response-to-intervention framework. Participants were 499 second- and third-grade students in six urban schools. Students who scored at or below the 10th percentile on the fall reading screening assessment were identified as having a severe reading deficit and received a tier 2 reading intervention that was targeted to their needs. Results showed a significant effect between groups on reading growth. Students with severe reading deficits receiving targeted tier 2 intervention grew at a rate that equaled the rate of growth of students without reading deficits and was significantly higher than students who were receiving special education services for reading. Implications for practice, suggestions for future research, and study limitations are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Special Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Reading Growth Among Students With Severe Reading Deficits Who Received Intervention to Typically Achieving Students and Students Receiving Special Education

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ORF measure is considered as the most critical measurement in R-CBM since 1982 (Deno, Mirkin, & Chiang) and therefore the existing literature on ORF, over the last 10 years, focuses particularly on issues such as its utility for reading difficulties identification in other languages (Protopappas & Skalumbakas, 2008), probe equivalence (Christ & Ardoin, 2009), the way of graphically representing progress (Christ, Silberglitt, Yeo, & Cormier, 2010), whether R-CBM measurements can be used as indicators on the impact of teaching methods used by teachers (Petscher, Cummings, Biancarosa, & Fien, 2013), how to use the data resulting from monitoring the progress for the educational decision-making process (Burns et al, 2017;Van Norman & Christ, 2016) and the degree of correlation with reading comprehension (Shin & McMaster, 2019).…”

Section: Curriculum Based Measurement In Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Students' recorded progress in reading using the maze appears to be consistent and reliable (approximately 0.4 words per week) (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992;Shin et al, 2000). However, it is not as useful as reading fluency which is much larger quantitatively (approximately 1 word per week) (Christ et al, 2010). This quantitative disadvantage is argued to have the potential to be offset by converting the maze grades to ORF grades (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992).…”

Section: Is the Maze Technically Adequate For Measuring Students' Gromentioning

confidence: 99%

Curriculum Based Measurement Maze: A Review

Tzivinikou¹,

Tsolis²,

Kagkara³

et al. 2020

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The maze is a type of assessment tool for reading in the context of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM). Over the last three decades, the maze, with the contribution of technology, is evolving into an assessment tool that can be automatically administered and scored. The objective of this study was to review the literature research on the maze. Sixty-three studies and other sources have been reviewed, and it was found that it is a technically adequate measurement for universal screening and monitoring progress and has a high correlation with reading achievement tests. Additionally, the maze seems to be a time-efficient and sensitive tool, included in most CBM tests. However, some significant issues emerging from the review need further investigation. These issues are related to the reading maze measures, its instructional utility as a progress-monitoring tool, and the determination of the maze's distractors.

show abstract

Consistency and Magnitude of Differences in Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement Slopes in Benchmark Versus Strategic Monitoring

Mercer

Keller‐Margulis

2015

Psychol. Schs.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in oral reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) slopes based on two commonly used progress monitoring practices in field-based data were compared in this study. Semester-specific R-CBM slopes were calculated for 150 Grade 1 and 2 students who completed benchmark (i.e., 3 R-CBM probes collected 3 times per year) and strategic (i.e., one R-CBM probe collected monthly) assessments. Slopes based on two adjacent benchmark assessments were positively correlated with slopes based on three monthly strategic assessments in the spring semester of Grade 1 but not in either Grade 2 semester, and significant differences were found between the slopes in all semesters. Consistent with another study showing that slopes are overestimated when single probes are administered per occasion, slopes were larger when based on strategic versus benchmark data in the current study, and the average discrepancies between slopes were greater-than-expected growth rates in all semesters. The current findings, based on field-based data, illustrate the impact of variations in commonly used progress monitoring procedures on the precision of calculated slope estimates. C 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading: An Evaluation of Growth Rates and Seasonal Effects Among Students Served in General and Special Education

Cited by 59 publications

References 26 publications

Comparison of Reading Growth Among Students With Severe Reading Deficits Who Received Intervention to Typically Achieving Students and Students Receiving Special Education

Comparison of Reading Growth Among Students With Severe Reading Deficits Who Received Intervention to Typically Achieving Students and Students Receiving Special Education

Curriculum Based Measurement Maze: A Review

Consistency and Magnitude of Differences in Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement Slopes in Benchmark Versus Strategic Monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About