39:. Over the course of 10 years, this work led to the establishment of measurement systems in reading, writing, and spelling that were: (a) easy to construct, (b) brief in administration and scoring, (c) had technical adequacy (reliability and various types of validity evidence for use in making educational decisions), and (d) provided alternate forms to allow time series data to be collected on student progress. This focus in the three language arts areas eventually was expanded to include mathematics, though the technical research in this area continues to lag that published in the language arts areas. An even later development was the application of CBM to middle-secondary areas: Espin and colleagues at the University of Minnesota developed a line of research addressing vocabulary and comprehension (with the maze) and by Tindal and colleagues at the
65:
evaluate the effects of a curriculum, a measurement system needs to provide an independent "audit" and not be biased to only that which is taught. The early struggles in this arena referred to this difference as mastery monitoring (curriculum-based which was embedded in the curriculum and therefore forced the metric to be the number (and rate) of units traversed in learning) versus experimental analysis which relied on metrics like oral reading fluency (words read correctly per minute) and correct word or letter sequences per minute (in writing or spelling), both of which can serve as GOMs. In mathematics, the metric is often digits correct per minute. N.B. The metric of CBM is typically rate-based to focus on "automaticity" in learning basic skills.
74:
advancement is the use of generalizability theory with CBM, best represented by the work of John Hintze, in which the focus is parceling the error term into components of time, grade, setting, task, etc. Finally, Yovanoff, Tindal, and colleagues at the
University of Oregon have applied Item Response Theory (IRT) to the development of statistically calibrated equivalent forms in their progress monitoring system.
64:
Probably the key feature of CBM is its accessibility for classroom application and implementation. It was designed to provide an experimental analysis of the effects from interventions, which includes both instruction and curriculum. This is one of the most important conundrums to surface on CBM: To
73:
The most recent advancements of CBM have occurred in three areas. First, they have been applied to students with low incidence disabilities. This work is best represented by
Zigmond in the Pennsylvania Alternate Assessment and Tindal in the Oregon and Alaska Alternate Assessments. The second
55:
in 2001, and its focus on large-scale testing and accountability, CBM has become increasingly important as a form of standardized measurement that is highly related to and relevant for understanding student's progress toward and achievement of state standards.
170:
Hale, A.D.; Skinner, C.H.; Williams, J.; Hawkins, R.; Neddenriep, C.E. & Dizer, J. (2007). Comparing
Comprehension Following Silent and Aloud Reading across Elementary and Secondary Students: Implication for Curriculum-Based Measurement.
51:
Early research on the CBM quickly moved from monitoring student progress to its use in screening, normative decision-making, and finally benchmarking. Indeed, with the implementation of the
141:
Skinner, Neddenriep, Bradley-Klug & Ziemann (2002) Advances in
Curriculum-Based Measurement: Alternative Rate Measures for Assessing Reading Skills in Pre- and Advanced Readers.
203:
Williams, R.L.; Skinner, C.H. & Jaspers, K. (2008). Extending
Research on the Validity of Brief Reading Comprehension Rate and Level Measures to College Course Success.
245:
Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment.
238:
Fletcher, J.M.; Francis, D.J.; Morris, R.D. & Lyon, G.R. (2005). Evidence-based assessment of learning disabilities in children and adolescents.
261:
Closing the achievement gap series: Part II: Response to intervention (RTI) – basic elements, practical applications, and policy recommendations
263:(Education Policy Brief: Vol. 4, No. 11). Bloomington: Indiana University, School of Education, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
187:
Rachel M. Stewart, Ronald C. Martella, Nancy E. Marchand-Martella and
Gregory J. Benner (2005): Three-Tier Models of Reading and Behavior.
273:
Shinn, M.R. (2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.),
110:
302:
266:
Jones, K.M. & Wickstrom, K.F. (2002). Done in sixty seconds: Further analysis of the brief assessment model for academic problems.
23:, is also referred to as a general outcomes measures (GOMs) of a student's performance in either basic skills or content knowledge.
157:
Espin, C. & Tindal, G. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students (pp. 214–53). In M.R. Shinn (Ed.),
282:
297:
95:
52:
219:
Ardoin, et al. Evaluating
Curriculum-Based Measurement from a Behavioral Assessment Perspective.
36:
307:
105:
40:
8:
278:
100:
82:
Curriculum-based measurement emerged from behavioral psychology and yet several
277:(pp. 671–93). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
291:
128:
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative.
83:
86:
have become disenchanted with the lack of the dynamics of the process.
43:
developed a line of research on concept-based teaching and learning.
32:
254:
The ABCs of CBM: A Practical guide to curriculum-based measurement.
259:
Martínez, R.S.; Nellis, L.M. & Prendergast, K.A. (2006).
224:
192:
176:
146:
208:
159:
Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement
240:
Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology
31:CBM began in the mid-1970s with research headed by
289:
252:Hosp, M.; Hosp, J. & Howell, K. (2007).
111:List of state achievement tests in the U.S.
46:
290:
275:Best Practices in School Psychology IV
68:
13:
232:
14:
319:
303:Student assessment and evaluation
26:
213:
197:
181:
164:
151:
135:
122:
59:
1:
116:
17:Curriculum-based measurement
7:
161:. New York: Guilford Press.
89:
77:
10:
324:
221:The Behavior Analyst Today
205:The Behavior Analyst Today
173:The Behavior Analyst Today
143:The Behavior Analyst Today
256:New York: Guilford Press.
268:School Psychology Review
247:School Psychology Review
96:Response to Intervention
53:No Child Left Behind Act
37:University of Minnesota
47:Increasing importance
130:Exceptional Children
106:Norm-referenced test
41:University of Oregon
69:Recent advancements
298:Special education
101:Special Education
315:
270:, 31(4), 554–68.
249:, 28(4), 659–71.
242:, 34(3), 506–22.
227:
217:
211:
207:, 8(2), 163–74.
201:
195:
191:, 2(3), 115–24.
185:
179:
168:
162:
155:
149:
139:
133:
126:
323:
322:
318:
317:
316:
314:
313:
312:
288:
287:
235:
233:Further reading
230:
218:
214:
202:
198:
186:
182:
169:
165:
156:
152:
145:, 3(3), 270–83
140:
136:
132:, 52(3), 219–32
127:
123:
119:
92:
80:
71:
62:
49:
29:
12:
11:
5:
321:
311:
310:
305:
300:
286:
285:
271:
264:
257:
250:
243:
234:
231:
229:
228:
223:, 9(1), 36–49
212:
196:
180:
175:, 8(1), 9–23.
163:
150:
134:
120:
118:
115:
114:
113:
108:
103:
98:
91:
88:
79:
76:
70:
67:
61:
58:
48:
45:
28:
25:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
320:
309:
306:
304:
301:
299:
296:
295:
293:
284:
283:0-932955-85-1
280:
276:
272:
269:
265:
262:
258:
255:
251:
248:
244:
241:
237:
236:
226:
222:
216:
210:
206:
200:
194:
190:
184:
178:
174:
167:
160:
154:
148:
144:
138:
131:
125:
121:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
93:
87:
85:
75:
66:
57:
54:
44:
42:
38:
34:
27:Early history
24:
22:
18:
274:
267:
260:
253:
246:
239:
220:
215:
204:
199:
188:
183:
172:
166:
158:
153:
142:
137:
129:
124:
84:behaviorists
81:
72:
63:
50:
30:
20:
16:
15:
308:Behaviorism
60:Key feature
292:Categories
117:References
33:Stan Deno
90:See also
78:Critique
35:at the
281:
189:JEIBI
19:, or
279:ISBN
225:BAO
209:BAO
193:BAO
177:BAO
147:BAO
21:CBM
294::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.