Proposed Symposium Title: Innovations in CBM: Developments in writing, social studies, reading, secondary schools, and for students with significant cognitive disabilities
Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) has been demonstrated to be an effective assessment tool that classroom teachers can use to guide instruction and to document academic growth. However, much of the work has focused on elementary-level reading and math for children with or at-risk for developing high-incidence disabilities. The purpose of this symposium will be to highlight current research projects in which the use of CBM is being evaluated in additional content areas (i.e., writing, social studies), other grade levels (i.e., high school), with alternate directions (i.e., ‘best’ vs. ‘fastest’ reading) and with other populations of students (i.e., children with significant cognitive disabilities).
Title: Impact of modified directions on curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency
Author: Theodore J. Christ (nonmember)
Purpose: Researchers hypothesized that estimates of oral reading rate – and reading ability – vary as a function of task demands. This study evaluated the impact of alternate task demands using standard and modified directions for Curriculum Based Measurement of Oral Reading (CBM-R). There was a “best”, “fast” and “comprehension” reading condition. Validity, reliability and performance level were evaluated within and across conditions.
Method: Sixty student participants were sample from each of four primary grades (2nd to 5th; N=240). In a fully crossed design, each student read a set of three counterbalanced CBM-R passages within three conditions, which provided directions to “do your best reading”, “do your fastest reading” and “read so you can respond to questions about the story.” Students were also administered the Gates-MacGinity as a measure of broad reading achievement. Researchers analyzed oral reading rate within and across conditions.
Results: Results of repeated measures ANOVA and planed post hoc analysis indicate that reading rate was highest in the fastest conditions as compared to either the best or comprehension reading conditions. There were no differences in reading for the best and comprehension condition. Criterion validity and alternate form reliability were robust across conditions.
Conclusions: Validity and reliability are robust across standard and modified CBM-R procedures. Students tend to read at similar rates within both comprehension and “best” reading conditions, which is distinct from their fastest reading. Implications are discussed, especially as they related to controlling task demands during repeated assessment and progress monitoring.