The California School Psychologist

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 23–34 | Cite as

Evaluation of the Relationship Between Literacy and Mathematics Skills As Assessed By Curriculum-Based Measures

  • Kristy J. Rutherford-Becker
  • Michael L. Vanderwood


The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent that reading performance (as measured by curriculum-based measures [CBM] of oral reading fluency [ORF] and Maze reading comprehension), is related to math performance (as measured by CBM math computation and applied math). Additionally, this study examined which of the two reading measures was a better predictor of applied math performance. Results of multiple hierarchical regression analyses indicated that math computation was the best predictor of applied math performance, followed by the Maze task. Also, results indicated that ORF did not significantly predict applied math test scores above and beyond math computation and Maze. Thus, from these results it appears that for fourth and fifth grade students, reading comprehension as measured by the Maze plays a more important role in predicting applied math performance than oral reading fluency.


Reading Comprehension Maze Task Oral Reading Math Performance Reading Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allinder, R M., & Oats, R.G. (1997). Effects of acceptability on teachers’ implementation of curriculum-based measurement and student achievement in mathematics computation. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardoin, S.P., Witt, J.C., Suldo, S.M., Connell, J.E., Koenig, J.L., Resetar, J.L., Slider, N.J., & Williams, K.L. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a maze and three versus one curriculum-based measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33, 218–233.Google Scholar
  3. Calhoon, M.B, & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and curriculum-based measurement on the mathematics performance of secondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke, B., & Shinn, M.R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Evans-Hampton, T.N., Skinner, C.H., Henington, C., Sims, S., & McDaniel, E. (2002). An investigation of situational bias: Conspicuous and covert timing during curriculum-based measurement of mathematics across African American and Caucasian students. School Psychology Review, 31, 529–539.Google Scholar
  7. Faykus, S.P., & McCurdy, B.L. (1998). Evaluating the sensitivity of the maze as an index of reading proficiency for students who are severely deficient in reading. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 1–21.Google Scholar
  8. Fewster, S., & MacMillan, P.D. (2002). School-based evidence for the validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading and writing. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foegen, A., & Deno, S.L. (2001). Identifying growth indicators for low-achieving students in middle school mathematics. Journal of Special Education, 35, 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1991). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58, 232–244.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.Google Scholar
  12. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Phillips, N.B., & Bentz, J. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60, 518–538.Google Scholar
  13. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction: Comparing students at risk of mathematics disability with and without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 293–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuchs, L.S., Hamlett, C.L., & Fuchs, D. (1990). Monitoring Basic Skills Progress. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32, 228–240.Google Scholar
  16. Hanich, L B., Jordan, N.C., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 615–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hintze, J.M., Callahan III, J.E., Matthews, W.J., Williams, S.A.S., & Tobin, K.G. (2002). Oral reading fluency and prediction of reading comprehension in African American and Caucasian elementary school children. School Psychology Review, 31, 540–553.Google Scholar
  18. Hintze, J.M., Christ, T.J., & Keller, L.A. (2002). The generalizability of CBM survey-level mathematics assessments: Just how many samples do we need? School Psychology Review, 31, 514–528.Google Scholar
  19. Hintze, J.M., Shapiro, E.S., & Conte, K.L. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Criterion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level assessment. School Psychology Review, 26, 535–553.Google Scholar
  20. Jenkins, J.R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421–432.Google Scholar
  21. Jordan, N.C., Hanich, L.B., & Kaplan, D. (2003). Arithmetic fact mastery in young children: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 103–119.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jordan, N.C., Hanich, L.B., & Kaplan, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74, 834–850.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordan, N.C., Kaplan, D., Hanich, L.B. (2002). Achievement growth in children with learning difficulties in mathematics: Findings of a two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 586–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kranzler, J.H., Brownell, M.T., & Miller, M.D. (1998). The construct validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading: An empirical test of a plausible rival hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markell, M.A., & Deno, S.L. (1997). Effects of increasing oral reading: Generalization across reading tasks. Journal of Special Education, 31, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Myers, J.L., & Well, A.D. (2003). Research Design and Statistical Analysis Second Edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standard for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  30. Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J.E., & Tindal, G. (1992). The maze as a classroom-based reading measure: Construction methods, reliability, and validity. Journal of Special Education, 26, 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shinn, M.R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Shinn, M.R., Good III, R.H., Knutson, N., Tilly III, W.D., & Collins, V.L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459–479.Google Scholar
  33. Thurber, R.S., Shinn, M.R., & Smolkowski, K. (2002). What is measured in mathematics tests? Construct validity of curriculum-based mathematics measures. School Psychology Review, 31, 498–513.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© California Association of School Psychologists 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristy J. Rutherford-Becker
    • 1
  • Michael L. Vanderwood
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California, RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations