Precision of Single-Skill Mathematics CBM: Group Versus Individual Administration

Abstract

The current availability of research examining the precision of single-skill mathematics (SSM) curriculum-based measurements (CBMs) for progress monitoring is limited. Given the observed variance in administration conditions across current practice and research use, we examined potential differences between student responding and precision of slope when SSM-CBMs were administered individually and in group (classroom) conditions. No differences in student performance or measure precision were observed between conditions, indicating flexibility in the practical and research use of SSM-CBMs across administration conditions. In addition, findings contributed to the literature examining the stability of SSM-CBMs slopes of progress when used for instructional decision-making. Implications for the administration and interpretation of SSM-CBMs in practice are discussed.

Developing progress monitoring measures: Parallel test construction from the item-up

“…Research and development work on CBM as an approach to monitoring progress in mathematics began over 35 years ago, and has evolved considerably over the years (c.f., Fuchs, 2004;Dawes et al, 2022). Although a large concentration of work has been done in elementary grades, CBMs have extended into early grades mathematics (c.f., Fuchs et al, 2007;Clarke et al, 2008) and secondary mathematics (c.f., Foegen et al, 2008).…”

“…Mathematics CBMs most often measure grade-level computational fluency expectations, but some progress monitoring systems also include measures of students' conceptual understanding and application (Foegen et al, 2007). Recent research has explored the use of single-skill computational fluency measures (c.f., VanDerHeyden and Broussard, 2021;Dawes et al, 2022), yet more research is needed to determine whether this approach provides meaningful progress monitoring data over time (Fuchs, 2004). It follows that the assessed content of many mathematics CBMs may not represent the full depth and breadth of the grade-level content standards; however, the assessed content should be predictive of future outcomes and sensitive to small changes in students' understanding.…”