Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) has become an increasingly popular instrument/methodology for reading assessment. In part, its popularity derives from promises of formative assessment (i.e., progress monitoring). However, a review of the literature suggests CBM formative assessment applications may lack the requisite reliability evidence. Furthermore, available research provides support and direction to improve the accuracy and stability of formative assessment outcomes. The primary purpose of this research was to evaluate and compare the effects of a controlled set of reading passages on student performance. Researchers developed a controlled set of Curriculum Like Measurement (CLM) reading passages from a sample of unfamiliar grade-specific reading curriculums. Each grade-specific passage-set was controlled for passage-difficulty using the Spache and Dale-Chall readability formulas. Analysis compared CBM and CLM formative assessment outcomes. A second purpose of this study was to compare short-term (10-week) assessment outcomes with the negatively accelerating developmental trends that have been documented with long-term assessment (i.e., 36-week). Analysis tested for differences in stability of growth-estimates [SE(b)], accuracy of predictions (SEE), and observed growth-rates/slope (b). 99 students in grades second to fifth participated over 10 weeks. Results suggest CLM progress monitoring outcomes are more stable and accurate than CBM. Results did not demonstrate the negatively accelerating curvilinear relationship between grades. Results and implications are discussed.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UMASS/oai:scholarworks.umass.edu:dissertations-3699 |
| Date | 01 January 2002 |
| Creators | Christ, Theodore James |
| Publisher | ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst |
| Source Sets | University of Massachusetts, Amherst |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Source | Doctoral Dissertations Available from Proquest |
Page generated in 0.0123 seconds