Differences in Growth on Math Curriculum-Based Measures Using Triannual Benchmarks

Abstract

Recent research on annual growth measured using curriculum-based measurement (CBM) indicates that growth may not be linear across the year and instead varies across semesters. Numerous studies in reading have confirmed this phenomenon with only one study of math computation yielding a similar finding. This study further investigated the presence of differences in growth across triannual benchmarks using math computation and concepts and applications CBMs. Results indicated that there are differences in growth across semesters at certain grade levels with only first-grade computation and fourth-grade concepts and applications yielding linear growth. The practical implications for understanding student growth and for setting progress goals are addressed and future directions for research are suggested.

An analysis of motivation strategies used within the small‐group Accelerating Mathematics Performance through Practice Strategies (AMPPS‐SG) program

“…However, during Condition 3, when group-based reinforcement for effort and engagement was added to the intervention components from Condition 2, students considerably improved on the measure of DCPM, as indicated by both visual analyses as well as large and statistically significant tau effect sizes. Our pre-post assessments also showed that, during the project, seven out of eight students demonstrated improvements beyond what two past studies (Fuchs et al, 1993;Keller-Margulis et al, 2014) described as expected growth for second graders on M-CBM measures.…”

“…Vannest and Ninci (2015) As a supplemental analysis that helped to examine overall growth in students' math skills across the entire duration of the project, differences between pre and postassessment of three M-CBM benchmark probes were analyzed by comparing each student's expected growth to their actual growth. Expected weekly growth on M-CBM measures for second grade students has only been reported in two prior studies (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann, 1993;Keller-Margulis, Mercer, & Shapiro, 2014). Fuchs et al (1993) found that 0.30 DCPM represented the weekly rate of improvement and Keller-Margulis et al (2014) found a rate of 0.14 DCPM per week.…”

“…Expected weekly growth on M-CBM measures for second grade students has only been reported in two prior studies (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann, 1993;Keller-Margulis, Mercer, & Shapiro, 2014). Fuchs et al (1993) found that 0.30 DCPM represented the weekly rate of improvement and Keller-Margulis et al (2014) found a rate of 0.14 DCPM per week. In our study, we applied the findings from Fuchs et al (1993) to use a more challenging criterion to evaluate potential improvement on M-CBM.…”

Development of curriculum-based measurements in mathematical computations for Arab-speaking fourth grade students

“…With regard to the psychometric properties, our findings suggest that the measures are valid and reliable. Previous research on the development of CBM in general and MC-CBM in particular shaped the basis for developing the measures for these studies (Keller-Margulis et al., 2014; Thurber et al., 2002). We relied on content validity using the Rovinelli and Hamblton formula to examine item validity (Turner & Carlson, 2003); and ensured that the items of the measures reflect the content that is taught in the Omani curriculum on mathematical computations.…”

Critical Components of Phonemic Awareness Instruction and Intervention: Recommendations for Teacher Training and for Future Research

“…This issue is not unique to PSF measures, as nonlinearity has been observed across grade levels and academic skill areas including oral reading (e.g., Ardoin & Christ, 2008 ), math (Keller-Margulis, Mercer, & Shapiro, 2014 ), and written expression (Keller-Margulis, Mercer, Payan, & McGee, 2016 ), with rates of growth during the fall typically being greater than rates of growth during the spring. Several factors may be associated with seasonal effects, such as greater intensity of instruction during one portion of the school year versus another, or depressed skills following the summer break result in a "rebound" effect during the fall semester.…”