Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Predict Student Performance on an Eighth-Grade State Reading Assessment

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between scores on two common curriculum-based measures (CBMs), oral reading fluency (ORF) and maze, and scores on the previous statewide assessment of reading in Oregon (Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills-Reading/Literature [OAKS-R]). Data obtained from three cohorts of eighth-grade students were used to examine CBM validity, and the relationship between student characteristics and OAKS-R performance. Positive relationships between ORF and maze scores and performance on the OAKS-R were obtained. In addition, the strength of the predictive relationships varied across cohorts, but not as a function of student characteristics. These results suggest that eighth-grade CBM data can be used as an efficient means to identify and intervene with those at risk of performing poorly on the end-of-year, high stakes accountability assessment. Consideration of the tradeoffs associated with using one or more CBMs in middle school is provided.

Are Students With Disabilities Accessing the Curriculum? A Meta-Analysis of the Reading Achievement Gap Between Students With and Without Disabilities

“…All but five teams of the researchers reported information about students excluded from the sample. Buchsbaum (2013), LeRoux (2012), and Morgan et al (2011), for example, removed students with missing data. Other researchers excluded students who were not monolingual English speakers (Catts, Bridges, Little, & Tomblin, 2008) or SWDs with more significant impairments, many of whom were placed in more restrictive educational environments (Blackorby et al, 2010; Carlisle, 1999; Gwynne, Lesnick, Hart, & Allensworth, 2009; Hood, 2015; Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, & Elbaum, 1998).…”

“…Most studies that included results from high-stakes assessments did not address the use of retests. Hood (2015) and LeRoux (2012) reported that students could retest up to three times and that the students’ best scores were used in their analyses. We also examined the use of test accommodations.…”