Technical Adequacy and Acceptability of Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Measures of Academic Progress

Abstract

Curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R) and the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) are assessment tools widely employed for universal screening in schools. Although a large body of research supports the validity of CBM-R, limited empirical evidence exists supporting the technical adequacy of MAP or the acceptability of either measure for universal screening. Purposes of the current study were to replicate and extend prior research by (a) examining the extent to which CBM-R performance measures more than word reading skills, (b) evaluating the concurrent validity of MAP with CBM-R, (c) determining the potential benefit of administering MAP with CBM-R for universal screening, and (d) examining teachers’ acceptability of MAP and CBM-R. Participants included 802 students in Grades 1 to 5 who were administered three CBM-R probes and the MAP during universal screening and 86 elementary teachers who completed a universal screening assessments survey. Results provide evidence of the concurrent validity of MAP with CBM-R and suggest both measures are acceptable to teachers. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Universal Screening Methods and Models: Diagnostic Accuracy of Reading Assessments

“…Rather, fall and spring MAP scores and previous year’s scores on the MCA-III had the strongest relationship with performance on the statewide assessment. This finding is similar to that of a study regarding the relationship between CAT and statewide assessments conducted by January and Ardoin (2015) who found that CAT predicted performance better on statewide assessments as compared with traditional CBM. This is consistent with other research as well.…”

“…This is consistent with other research as well. For example, CAT may be able to predict performance better than other screening measures because a student’s achievement level can be identified quicker with a smaller standard error (January & Ardoin, 2015; McFadden et al, 2001; van der Linden & Glas, 2000).…”

Evaluating the Criterion Validity and Classification Accuracy of Universal Screening Measures in Reading

“…Strong associations between MAP and the state assessment corroborate previous research of strong associations between MAP and other standardized assessments of reading achievement (Ball & O'Connor, 2016;January & Ardoin, 2015;Klingbeil et al, 2015Klingbeil et al, , 2017. However, the concurrent relation between MAP and the standardized assessment was slightly lower than findings from the one previous study that evaluated concurrent validity with a norm-referenced assessment (January & Ardoin, 2015).…”

“…Next, hierarchical linear regression was used to determine the shared and unique variance of screening measures in relation to the Georgia Milestones. MAP was entered first because it shares the characteristic of being a computer-administered assessment, is convenient to employ, is supported by an emerging peer-reviewed literature base (e.g., Ball & O'Connor, 2016;January & Ardoin, 2015;Klingbeil et al, 2017), and has content overlap with the Georgia Milestones.…”

“…One widely used screening assessment, curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (CBM-R), is a brief measure of reading rate and accuracy with more than three decades of research supporting its psychometric properties (Deno, 1985;January & Ardoin, 2015;January, Ardoin, Christ, Eckert, & White, 2016). In support of its utility, the relation between CBM-R and standardized tests of reading performance is characterized by an extensive literature-base as moderately high (Reschly, Busch, Betts, Deno, & Long, 2009;Wayman, Wallace, Wiley, Tichá, & Espin, 2007).…”