Reading and Writing

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 151–157

Commentary on new metrics, measures, and uses for fluency data

Article
  • 318 Downloads

Abstract

Fluency and rate-based assessments, such as curriculum-based measurement, are frequently used to screen and evaluate student progress. The application of such measures are especially prevalent within special education and response to intervention models of prevention and early intervention. Although there is an extensive research and professional literature on the development and evaluation of such measures, there is much left to learn with ongoing and future research. This special series presents a series of papers that explore newer topics and plant the seeds for future innovations.

Keywords

Fluency Reading Curriculum-based measurement Response to intervention 

References

  1. Ardoin, S. P., & Christ, T. J. (2008). Evaluating curriculum-based measurement slope estimates using data from tri-annual universal screenings. School Psychology Review, 37, 109–125.Google Scholar
  2. Ardoin, S. P., Christ, T. J., Morena, L. S., Cormier, D. C., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2013a). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ardoin, S. P., Eckert, T. L., Christ, T. J., White, M. J., Morena, L. S., January, S.-A. A., et al. (2013b). Examining variance in reading comprehension among developing readers: Words in context (curriculum-based measurement in reading) versus words out of context (word lists). School Psychology Review, 42(3), 243–261.Google Scholar
  4. Ardoin, S. P., Morena, L. S., Binder, K. S., & Foster, T. E. (2013c). Examining the impact of feedback and repeated readings on oral reading fluency: Let’s not forget prosody. School Psychology Quarterly. doi:10.1037/spq0000027.
  5. Baker, D. L. S., Biancarosa, G., Park, B., J., Bousselot, T., Smith. J.-L., Baker, S. K., et al. (2014). Validity of CBM measures of oral reading and reading comprehension on high-stakes reading assessments in grades 7 and 8. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. doi:10.1007/s11145-014-9505-4.
  6. Ball, C. R., & Christ, T. J. (2012). Supporting valid decision making: Uses and misuses of assessment data within the context of RTI. Psychology in The Schools, 49(3), 231–244. doi:10.1002/pits.21592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamin, R. G., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2010). Test complexity and oral reading prosody in young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 388–404. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.4.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christ, T. J., & Ardoin, S. P. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Passage equivalence and probe-set development. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 55–75. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christ, T. J., Silberglitt, B., Yeo, S., & Cormier, D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: An evaluation of growth rates and seasonal effects among students served in general and special education. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 447–462.Google Scholar
  10. Christ, T. J., Zopluoglu, C., Monaghen, B. D., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Multi-study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset quality on progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 19–57. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummings, K. D., Stoolmiller, M. L., Baker, S. K., Fien, H., & Eame’enui, E. J. (2014). Using school-level student achievement to engage in formative evaluation: Comparative school-level rates of oral reading fluency growth conditioned by initial skill for second grade students. Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-014-9512-5.
  12. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.Google Scholar
  13. Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Deno, S. I. (1982). Reliability and validity of curriculum-based informal reading inventories. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Good, R. H., I. I. I., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). DIBELS oral reading fluency passages for first through third grades. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  16. Hosp, M. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade? School Psychology Review, 34, 9–26.Google Scholar
  17. Kim, Y.-S., Petscher, Y., & Foorman, B. (2013). The unique relations of silent reading fluency to end-of-year reading comprehension: Understanding individual differences at the student, classroom, school, and district levels. Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9455-2
  18. Marston, D., Mirkin, P. K., & Deno, S. L. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to traditional screening, referral, and identification. Journal of Special Education, 18, 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meisinger, E. B., Bradley, B. A., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Kuhn, M. R., & Morris, R. D. (2009). Myth and reality of the word caller: The relation between teacher nominations and prevalence among elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(3), 147–159. doi:10.1037/a0017191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mellard, D. F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress monitoring practices in 41 local school. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2006). Prosody of syntactically complex sentences in the oral reading of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 839–853.Google Scholar
  22. Petscher, Y., & Mitchell, A. M. (2013). Improving the precision of student scores from assessments by using response times: An illustration of conditional item response theory. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.Google Scholar
  23. Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47(6), 427–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Westmoreland, M. R., & Benjamin, R. G. (2013). Reading fluency skill and the prosodic marking of linguistic focus. Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9456-1
  25. Shinn, M. R., & Marston, D. (1985). Differentiating mildly handicapped, low-achieving, and regular education students: A curriculum-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 6(2), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tindal, G. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement: A brief history of nearly everything from the 1970s to the present. ISRN Education, 2013, 1–29. doi:10.1155/2013/958530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Valle, A., Binder, K. S., Walsh, C. B., Nemier, C., & Bangs, K. E. (2013). Eye movements, prosody, and word frequency among average- and high-skilled second-grade readers. School Psychology Review, 42, 171–190.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations