Implementing Curriculum-Based Measurement in Special and Regular Education Settings

Curriculum-based measurement offers special and regular educators an alternative to traditional standardized achievement testing. As a viable alternative assessment system it has been developed as a technically adequate approach in which pupil progress may be monitored frequently in the curriculum. The studies presented in this article document the benefits of implementing CBM in both special and regular education settings. In Study I CBM is demonstrated to be a valid and reliable measurement system that aides teacher decisions regarding student placement, progress, and intervention effectiveness in an elementary school. A survey of teacher attitudes is also presented. Study II outlines the implementation of CBM in a large school-based resource program serving 1,100 mildly handicapped children. The data presented for this study indicate that CBM may be successfully utilized in making screening, identification, program planning, progress monitoring, and program evaluation decisions for children with learning difficulties.

[1]  Phyllis K. Mirkin,et al.  Valid Measurement Procedures for Continuous Evaluation of Written Expression , 1982 .

[2]  Richard W. Woodcock,et al.  Woodcock reading mastery tests , 1987 .

[3]  Ronald P. Carver,et al.  Two Dimensions of Tests: Psychometric and Edumetric. , 1974 .

[4]  Joseph R. Jenkins,et al.  Standardized Achievement Tests: How Useful for Special Education? , 1978 .

[5]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  The Effects of Frequent Curriculum-Based Measurement and Evaluation on Pedagogy, Student Achievement, and Student Awareness of Learning , 1984 .

[6]  G. Glass,et al.  Design and analysis of time-series experiments , 1975 .

[7]  Robert E. Floden.  Don't They All Measure the Same Thing? Consequences of Selecting Standardized Tests. Research Series No. 25. , 1978 .

[8]  Martha Thurlow,et al.  Instructional planning: information collected by school psychologists vs. information considered useful by teachers , 1982 .

[9]  G. Tindal,et al.  Eligibility for Learning Disability Services: A Direct and Repeated Measurement Approach , 1984, Exceptional children.

[10]  M. Thurlow,et al.  Instructional ecology and academic responding time for students at three levels of teacher-perceived behavioral competence. , 1983, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[11]  R. M. Thorndike.  Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education , 1969 .

[12]  Stanley L. Deno,et al.  Relationships Among Simple Measures of Spelling and Performance on Standardized Achievement Tests. , 1980 .

[13]  Phyllis K. Mirkin,et al.  Measuring Pupil Progress toward the Least Restrictive Alternative , 1979 .

[14]  V. Klinge,et al.  The Peabody Individual Achievement Test , 1974, Journal of abnormal child psychology.

[15]  Quinn McNemar,et al.  Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. , 1967 .

[16]  M. Shinn,et al.  Differentiating Mildly Handicapped, Low-Achieving, and Regular Education Students , 1985 .

[17]  Phyllis K. Mirkin,et al.  Identifying Valid Measures of Reading , 1982, Exceptional children.

[18]  Phyllis K. Mirkin,et al.  Data-Based Program Modification: A Manual. , 1977 .

[19]  Phyllis K. Mirkin,et al.  How to Write Effective Data-Based IEFs , 1984 .

[20]  Phyllis K. Mirkin,et al.  Curriculum-Based Measurement: An Alternative To Traditional Screening, Referral, and Identification , 1984 .