The predictive utility of mathematics curriculum-based measurement (MCBM) to identify students who are at risk for failure on important educational measures is an emerging area of study in need of further investigation. The present study sought to identify which of four MCBM probes could be accurately used to determine students' risk status on selected subtests of three important educational measures commonly used to make educational placement decisions (WIAT-II, WJ-ACH-III, and KM 3) in grades 2 (n = 49), 4 (n = 48), and 6 (n = 47). The study also sought to determine which type of student performance measurement strategy (i.e., level, slope, or dual discrepancy) on each of the four types of MCBM probes proved to be the best method to determine student risk status. The results of the study indicated that the ability of the MCBM probes to identify students' risk status was generally poor. However, evidence indicated that MCBM probes could be used more reliably and accurately to determine students in the low risk category than those in the high risk category across all probe types and administration times. Finally, the level method generated the greatest support and the slope method generated the least support for identification of high and low risk student status on each probe or combination of probes.
Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UTAHS/oai:digitalcommons.usu.edu:etd-1439 |
Date | 01 May 2009 |
Creators | Hancock, Kyle Max |
Publisher | DigitalCommons@USU |
Source Sets | Utah State University |
Detected Language | English |
Type | text |
Format | application/pdf |
Source | All Graduate Theses and Dissertations |
Rights | Copyright for this work is held by the author. Transmission or reproduction of materials protected by copyright beyond that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the copyright owners. Works not in the public domain cannot be commercially exploited without permission of the copyright owner. Responsibility for any use rests exclusively with the user. For more information contact Andrew Wesolek (andrew.wesolek@usu.edu). |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds