Using a Concept-Grounded, Curriculum-Based Measure in Mathematics to Predict Statewide Test Scores for Middle School Students with LD

Abstract

From a larger sample of field-tested mathematics production response items, 11 were selected that individually (a) differentiated between high and low achievers on a general math achievement test, (b) measured a mathematical concept rather than a procedure, and (c) were conducive to the creation of alternate forms of the items. This math concept curriculum-based measure (CBM) was administered to 171 students in eighth grade. Scores were correlated with scores from a computer adaptive test (CAT) designed in conjunction with the state to approximate the official statewide mathematics achievement test. Correlations for general education students ( r = .80; n = 90) and students with learning disabilities ( r = .61; n = 81) were high. Regression analysis showed that relatively few of the 11 items were needed to predict CAT scores. Implications for students with learning disabilities, who traditionally receive little instruction in conceptual understanding, are discussed.

Curriculum-Based Measures and Performance on State Assessment and Standardized Tests

“…All students were presented with a CBM math probe containing 48 items including both problem-solving and computation tasks and were not given a time limit. The computer adaptive math assessment was used in place of the actual standardized test administered in the spring to all students because the results of the actual test were not available at the time of the study (Helwig et al, 2002). The computer adaptive test was provided to the researchers by the Department of Education (DOE) and included items similar to those of the statewide math exam and generated scores on the same scale.…”

An examination of alternate assessment durations when assessing multiple-skill computational fluency: The generalizability and dependability of curriculum-based outcomes within the context of educational decisions

“…The CBM literature in the area of mathematics (M-CBM) is replete with studies that demonstrate its utility for making educational decisions. Research supports the use of M-CBM for the purposes of progress monitoring (Allinder, 1996;Allinder & Beck, 1995;Stecker & Fuchs, 2000), modifying instruction for class groups (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Phillips, 1994;Whinnery & Fuchs, 1992), informing instructional groupings Fuchs, Fuchs, Bishop, & Hamlett, 1992;Spicuzza et al, 2001), modifying instruction for students with special needs (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1989;Fuchs et al, 1994;Whinnery & Fuchs, 1992), identifying academic strengths and weaknesses (Fuchs et al, 1989;Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1990), supporting peer-assisted learning (Calhoon & Fuchs, 2003), and predicting performance on statewide assessments (Helwig, Anderson, & Tindal, 2002).When CBM is used to assess computational fluency performance is quantified as the number of digits written correctly per unit of time. A review of the professional literature suggests that this metric for computational fluency is more sensitive to student growth than accuracy measures, which do not account for the rate of performance…”

The Mobile Mathematics Curriculum-based Measurement Application for Elementary Students

“…They also indicated that they like to use iCBM system to take math tests (question 4-7). They also indicated the positive attitude using mobile tablet devices for taking math tests (question [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. The interesting finding was that children showed the conservative attitude about the effectiveness of using mobile tablet device and their math performance according to the question 14.…”

“…Every CBM probe in MBSP was designed by one single question-type. The single problem-type CBM probes in MBSP may decrease correlations between CBM and the general measures of mathematics [14]. Moreover, another limitation of MBSP is that the math probes cannot be managed by teachers or administrators.…”