The purpose of this study is to investigate the
technical adequacy of two reading Curriculum—Based Measures
(CBM5), to examine the relationships of the CBM5 to normreferenced
tests, and to compare the strength of
relationship of both kinds of measures to school—based
indices of reading performance. The two CBMs (a word list
sampled from several reading series and a passage reading
test composed of ten Ginn 720 passages) were taken from the
literature; comprehensive information about their technical
adequacy had not been previously available.
A review of the literature indicates that CBM,
particularly reading CBM, is gaining increased attention in
education because of claims regarding its utility in
monitoring pupil progress, its ease of administration, and
its relationship to local curricula as well as to learning
gains. This study examined how reading CBMs and two
subtests from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement
(Kaufman & Kaufman, 1985) relate to each other and to three
school—based indices of reading performance: a school
district reading test, program placement status (learning
disabled or regular education), and a teacher rating scale
of reading skill. Grade four students from one metropolitan Vancouver
school district served as subjects (n=105). Of these, 35
were classified as learning disabled and 70 were classified
as regular education. Learning disabled status was
determined by judgments of a school district screening
committee and by examining previous psychoeducational
assessments.
Reliability indices calculated on the CBMs supported
claims for technical adequacy. These estimates were as
follows: internal consistency of the word list was .97,
internal consistency of the reading passages was .98 and
.94 for reading speed and accuracy, test—retest
reliability of the reading passages was .89 and .79 for
reading speed and accuracy, and inter—rater reliability of
the reading passages was .99 and .96 for reading speed and
accuracy. Results indicated that the CBMs used in this
study have high reliabilities.
CBM5, especially the speed score from the- reading
passages, demonstrated strong relationships to the two
norm—referenced subtests. The pattern of correlations
between the measures differed between the learning disabled
and normal sample; analyses of variance demonstrated that
all measures used in the study discriminated between the
learning disabled and the regular education groups. Stepwise multiple regression and canonical analysis
indicated that the two norm—referenced subtests, the speed
score from the Curriculum—Based Reading Passages, and the
accuracy score from the Curriculum—Based Word List were
most efficient in “predicting” the three school-based
indices of reading performance. Evidence for concurrent
validity of curriculum—based and norm—referenced measures
was found in this study. When administration time,
instructional utility, and technical properties are
considered, results indicated that the Kaufman Test of
Educational Achievement Reading Decoding subtest and the
Curriculum—Based Reading Passages speed score are the most
efficient of the predictor measures investigated in
identifying and programming for Year Four children with
significant reading difficulty. Implications for further
research and the potential of CBM to accommodate
instructional and measurement needs is discussed. / Education, Faculty of / Graduate
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UBC/oai:circle.library.ubc.ca:2429/3271 |
| Date | 05 1900 |
| Creators | Dunn, Rita L. |
| Source Sets | University of British Columbia |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, Thesis/Dissertation |
| Format | 3599057 bytes, application/pdf |
| Rights | For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use. |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds