Monitoring elementary students’ writing progress using curriculum-based measures: grade and gender differences

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine slopes from curriculum-based measures of writing (CBM-W) as indicators of growth in writing. Responses to story prompts administered for 5 min to 89 students in Grades 2–5 were collected across 12 weeks and scored for correct word sequences (CWS) and correct minus incorrect sequences (CIWS). Linear mixed modeling revealed that, for students in Grades 2–3, a linear model with random effects on both intercept and slope fit the data best. For students in Grades 4–5, growth trends varied depending on number of weeks and scoring procedure used. The time point at which slopes were significantly different from zero varied by scoring procedure and grade. Gender was related to intercept and slope for CWS and CIWS in Grades 2–3 and to intercept and linear slope for CWS and CIWS in Grades 4–5. Findings suggest that CBM-W may be appropriate for monitoring student progress, and that gender should be considered in data-based decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Andrade, H. L., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. L. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 287–302. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.4.287-302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beard, R., & Burrell, A. (2010). Writing attainment in 9- to 11-year-olds: Some differences between girls and boys in two genres. Language and Education, 24, 495–515. doi:10.1080/09500782.2010.502968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berninger, V. W., & Fuller, F. F. (1992). Gender differences in orthographic, verbal, and compositional fluency: Implications for assessing writing disabilities in primary grade children. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 363–382. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(92)90004-O.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berninger, V. W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process model of writing development across the life span. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 193–218. doi:10.1007/BF01464073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Gender differences in severity of writing and reading disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 151–172. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C. S., & Haynes, O. M. (2004). Specific and general language performance across early childhood: Stability and gender considerations. First Language, 24, 267–303. doi:10.1177/0142723704045681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Camarata, S., & Woodcock, R. (2006). Sex differences in processing speed: Developmental effects in males and females. Intelligence, 34, 231–252. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Christ, T. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimating standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133.

    Google 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, 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, 19–57. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Coker, D. L., & Ritchey, K. D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of writing in kindergarten and first grade: An investigation of production and qualitative scores. Exceptional Children, 76, 175–193. doi:10.1177/001440291007600203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De La Paz, S., Espin, C., & McMaster, K. L. (2010). RTI in writing instruction: Relating evidence-based interventions to curriculum-based measurement. In T. A. Glover & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Response to intervention: Empowering all students to learn. A critical account of the science and practice (pp. 204–238). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 53, 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Development Core Team, R. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eriksson, M., Marschik, P. B., Tulviste, T., Almgren, M., Pérez Pereira, M., Wehberg, S., et al. (2012). Differences between girls and boys in emerging language skills: Evidence from 10 language communities. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 326–343. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02042.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Espin, C. A., Busch, T., Lembke, E. S., Hampton, D., Seo, K., & Zukowski, B. A. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement in science learning: Vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance and progress. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 203–213. doi:10.1177/1534508413489724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Espin, C. A., Scierka, B. J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 5–27. doi:10.1080/105735699278279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Espin, C. A., Shin, J., & Busch, T. W. (2005). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Vocabulary-matching as an indicator of social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 353–363. doi:10.1177/00222194050380041301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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. doi:10.1177/001440290807400203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Espin, C. A., Wallace, T., Lembke, E., Campbell, H., & Long, J. D. (2010). Creating a progress measurement system in reading for middle-school students: Monitoring progress towards meeting high stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25, 60–75. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00304.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).

  22. Fearrington, J. Y., Parker, P. D., Kidder-Ashley, R., Gagnon, S. G., McCane-Bowling, S., & Sorrell, C. A. (2014). Gender differences in written expression curriculum-based measurement in third- through eighth-grade students. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 85–96. doi:10.1002/pits.21733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 22, 188–192.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  25. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 18.0 update. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2012). Are attitudes toward writing and reading separable constructs? A study with primary grade children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28, 51–69. doi:10.1080/10573569.2012.632732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 516–536. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing difficulties for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16, 74–84. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00009.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of written language. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hintze, J. M., & Christ, T. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

  32. Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., Wanzek, J., & Gatlin, B. (2015). Toward an understanding of dimensions, predictors, and the gender gap in written composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 79–95. doi:10.1037/a0037210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Krieg, J. M. (2005). Student gender and teacher gender: What is the impact on high stakes test scores? Current Issues in Education, 8(9), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Long, J. (2011). Longitudinal data analysis for the behavioral sciences using R. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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. doi:10.1002/pits.10096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children’s writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 115–130). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. McMaster, K. L., & Campbell, H. (2008). Technical features of new and existing measures of written expression: An examination within and across grade levels. School Psychology Review, 37, 550–566.

    Google Scholar 

  38. McMaster, K. L., Du, X., Yeo, S., Deno, S. L., Parker, D., & Ellis, T. (2011a). Curriculum-based measures of beginning writing: Technical features of the slope. Exceptional Children, 77, 185–206. doi:10.1177/001440291107700203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McMaster, K. L., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. Journal of Special Education, 41, 68–84. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McMaster, K. L., Ritchey, K. D., & Lembke, E. (2011b). Curriculum-based measurement for beginning writers: Recent developments and future directions. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Assessment and intervention: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 24, pp. 111–148). Emerald: Bingley. doi:10.1108/S0735-004X(2011)0000024008.

    Google Scholar 

  41. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Nation’s report card: Writing 2011. Retrieved on November 15, 2014, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012470.

  42. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington D.C: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M. (2007). Measuring written language ability in narrative samples. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 287–309. doi:10.1080/10573560701277807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Olinghouse, N. G. (2008). Student-and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students. Reading and Writing, 21, 3–26. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pajares, F., Johnson, M. J., & Usher, E. L. (2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 104–120.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Parker, D. C., McMaster, K. L., Medhanie, A., & Silberglitt, B. (2011). Modeling early writing growth with curriculum-based measures. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 290–304. doi:10.1037/a0026833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear model: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ritchey, K. D., & Coker, D. L. (2013). An investigation of the validity and utility of two curriculum-based measurement writing tasks. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29, 89–119. doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.741957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Shin, J., Deno, S. L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education, 34, 164–172. doi:10.1177/002246690003400305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Shin, J., Espin, C. A., Deno, S. L., & McConnell, S. (2004). Use of hierarchical linear modeling and curriculum-based measurement for assessing academic growth and instructional factors for students with learning difficulties. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5, 136–148. doi:10.1007/BF03024951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195152968.001.0001.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Tichá, R., Espin, C. A., & Wayman, M. M. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading-aloud and maze-selection measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 132–142. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00287.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Troia, G. A. (2006). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 324–336). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Troia, G. A., Harbaugh, A. G., Shankland, R. K., Wolbers, K. A., & Lawrence, A. M. (2013). Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: Effects of grade, sex, and ability. Reading and Writing, 26, 17–44. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9379-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Truckenmiller, A. J., Eckert, T. L., Codding, R. S., & Petscher, Y. (2014). Evaluating the impact of feedback on elementary aged students’ fluency growth in written expression: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 531–548. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Videen, J., Marston, D., & Deno, S. L. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Vol. IRLD-RR-84). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wallace, T., Espin, C. A., McMaster, K., Deno, S. L., & Foegen, A. (2007). CBM progress monitoring within a standards-based system. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 66–67. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by Grant # H324H030003 awarded to the Institute on Community Integration and Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education and Human Development, at the University of Minnesota, by the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education. The paper does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the funding agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristen L. McMaster.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McMaster, K.L., Shin, J., Espin, C.A. et al. Monitoring elementary students’ writing progress using curriculum-based measures: grade and gender differences. Read Writ 30, 2069–2091 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9766-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Curriculum-based measurement
  • Writing
  • Elementary grades
  • Gender differences