Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The technical adequacy of curriculum-based writing measures with English learners

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of Curriculum-Based Measures in writing for English learners. Participants were 36 high school English learners with moderate to high levels of English language proficiency. Predictor variables were type of writing prompt (picture, narrative, and expository), time (3, 5, and 7 min), and scoring procedure (words written, words spelled correctly, correct word sequences, correct minus incorrect word sequences). Criterion variables were teacher ratings of writing performance and student performance on the Test of Written Language-III, the writing subtest of the Test of Emerging Academic English, and the Minnesota state writing test. Results supported the validity and reliability of a 5 to 7-min writing sample written in response to a narrative or picture prompt and scored for percent of correct word sequences, correct minus incorrect word sequences, or words written plus correct minus incorrect word sequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004) Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English language learners. CRESST Policy Brief, 7. Retrieved September 29, 2009 from http://www.cresst.org.

  • Amato, J. M., & Watkins, M. W. (2011). The predictive validity of CBM writing indices for eighth-grade students. Journal of Special Education, 44, 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Fox, M., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Drake, L. (2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010-028). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028.pdf.

  • Campbell, H. (2010). The technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement passage copying with secondary-school english language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26, 289–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S., & Rose, S. (2009). Investigating the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement in written expression for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 503–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • College Board. (2004). SAT News. Retrieved November 20, 2004, from http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/newsat/writing.html.

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2011). [Map of states that have adopted the Common Core Standards last updated April 4, 2011]. In The states: States that have formally adopted the common core state standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states.

  • Deno, S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diercks-Gransee, B., Weissenburger, J. W., Johnson, C. L., & Christensen, P. (2009). Curriculum-based measures of writing for high school students. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 360–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, A. (2010, September 2). Beyond the bubble tests: The next generation of assessments. In Speech presented at achieve’s American diploma project leadership team meeting, Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.

  • Educational Testing Service. (2004). What’s New at the ACT? Retrieved November 20, 2004, from http://act.org/aap/writing/index.html.

  • Endicott, A. L. (1973). A proposed scale for syntactic complexity. Research in the Teaching of English, 7, 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espin, C. A., De La Paz, S., Scierka, B. J., & Roelofs, L. (2005). The relationship between curriculum-based measures in written expression and quality and completeness of expository writing for middle school students. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 208–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espin, C. A., Scierka, B. J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary school students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espin, C. A., Shin, J., Deno, S., Skare, S., Robinson, S., & Brenner, B. (2000). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency for middle school students. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 140–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espin, C. A., Wallace, T., Campbell, H., Lembke, E., Long, J., & Tichá, R. (2008). Curriculum-based measurement in writing: Predicting the success of high school students on state standards tests. Exceptional Children, 74, 174–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espin, C. A., Weissenburger, J. W., & Benson, B. J. (2004). Assessing the writing performance of students in special education. Exceptionality, 12, 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1989). Enhancing curriculum-based measurement through computer applications: Review of research and practice. School Psychology Review, 18, 317–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaies, S. J. (1980). T-unit analysis in second language research: Applications, problems, and limitations. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

  • Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. (2004). Teaching reading in the 21st century (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammill, D. D., & Hresko, W. P. (1994). Comprehensive scales of student abilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1996). Test of written language third edition: examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, K. W. (1977). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60, 237–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacson, S. (1984). Evaluating written expression: Issues of reliability, validity, and instructional utility. Diagnostique, 9, 96–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacson, S. (1988). Assessing the writing product: Qualitative and quantitative measures. Exceptional Children, 54, 528–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jewell, J., & Malecki, C. K. (2005). The utility of CBM written language indices: An investigation of production-dependent, production-independent, and accurate-production scores. School Psychology Review, 34, 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keigher, A. (2009). Characteristics of public, private, and bureau of indian education elementary and secondary schools in the United States: Results from the 2007–2008 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2009-321). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009321.pdf.

  • López, F. A., & Thompson, S. S. (2011). The relationship among measures of written expression using curriculum-based measurement and the Arizona instrument to measure skills (AIMS) at the middle school level. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 27, 129–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malecki, C. K., & Jewell, J. (2003). Developmental, gender, and practical considerations in scoring curriculum-based measurement writing probes. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMaster, K., & Campbell, H. (2008). New and existing curriculum-based writing measures: Technical features within and across grades. School Psychology Review, 37, 550–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. The American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MetriTech, I. (2002). The Minnesota Test of Emerging Academic English Technical Report: Fall 2002 Test Administration. Champaign, IL: MetriTech, Inc.

  • Miller, H. D., & Crocker, L. (1990). Validation methods for direct writing assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 285–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Department of Education. (2002). TEAE reading and writing levels. Retrieved November 27, 2004, from http://education.state.mn.us/content/028659.pdf.

  • Minnesota Department of Education. (2005). MN comprehensive assessment basic skills test: Written composition handbook. Retrieved December 1, 2005 from http://education.state.mn.us.

  • National Commission on Writing. (2006). Writing and school reform. New York, NY: College Board. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.writing commission.org.

  • Perkins, K. (1983). On the use of composition scoring techniques, objective measures, and objective tests to evaluate ESL writing ability. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 651–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2008–468). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

  • Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of second language writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: A review of the research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 § 301, 115 Stat 1689 (2002).

  • Videen, J., Deno, S., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (No. 84). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.

  • Watkinson, J., & Lee, S. (1992). Curriculum-based measures for learning disabilities and nondisabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 184–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayman, M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Tichá, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weissenburger, J. W., & Espin, C. A. (2005). Curriculum-based measures of writing across grade levels. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe-Quintero, Y., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Olaf College, 1520 St. Olaf Avenue, Northfield, MN, 55057, USA

    Heather Campbell

  2. Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333 AK, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Christine A. Espin

  3. University of Minnesota, 350A Education Sciences Bldg; 56 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Kristen McMaster

Authors
  1. Heather Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine A. Espin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristen McMaster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Campbell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Campbell, H., Espin, C.A. & McMaster, K. The technical adequacy of curriculum-based writing measures with English learners. Read Writ 26, 431–452 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9375-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9375-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation