, Volume 48, Issue 7, pp 1019–1030 | Cite as

Developing and evaluating a kindergarten to third grade CBM mathematics assessment

  • Young-Sun Lee
  • Erica Lembke
Original Article


The present study examined the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) measure of early numeracy for kindergarten through third grade students. Our CBM measures were developed to reflect broad and theoretically derived categories of mathematical thinking: quick retrieval, written computation, and number sense. The mastery of these three categories comprises the larger construct of numeracy proficiency for the early elementary grades. Approximately 300 students in each grade (Kindergarten to Grade 3) were administered a standardized measure, WJ-III, and the following timed measures: kindergarten—counting, missing number, number identification, quantity discrimination; Grade 1—counting, missing number, next number, number facts, number identification, quantity discrimination; Grades 2 and 3—computation, concepts, missing number, number facts, quantity discrimination. Alpha and test–retest reliabilities were assessed, and construct validity and criterion validity were examined for the CBM measures developed in the study. Overall, the results indicated that the measures were reliable and showed evidence to support both construct and concurrent validity. Methods to improve the measures are discussed.


Curriculum-based measurement Reliability Validity 

Supplementary material

11858_2016_788_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (223 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 222 kb)


  1. Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  2. Ansari, D., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2002). Atypical trajectories of number development: a neuroconstructivist perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baroody, A. J. (1992). The development of preschoolers’ counting skills and principles. In J. Bideaud, C. Meljac, & J. P. Fischer (Eds.), Pathways to number: Children’s developing numerical abilities (pp. 99–126). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Bergan, J. R., Sladeczek, I. E., Schwarz, R. D., & Smith, A. N. (1991). Effects of a measurement and planning system on kindergarteners’ cognitive development and educational programming. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 683–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.Google Scholar
  6. Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Development, 65(2), 684–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chard, D. J., Clarke, B., Baker, S., Otterstedt, J., Braun, D., & Katz, R. (2005). Using measures of number sense to screen for difficulties in mathematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(2), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christ, T. J., & Vining, O. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement procedures to develop multiple-skill mathematics computation probes: Evaluation of random and stratified stimulus-set arrangements. School Psychology Review, 35, 387–400.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical modern test theory. Belmont: Wadsworth Group.Google Scholar
  12. Cross, C. T., Woods, T. A., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  13. CTB, McGraw-Hill. (1976). Comprehensive tests of basic skills. Monterey: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.Google Scholar
  15. Deno, S. L., & Jiban, C. (2006). Elementary math measures. Baltimore: Presentation at the National Council for Exceptional Children conference.Google Scholar
  16. Duncan, G.J., Dowsett, C.J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A.C., Klebanov, P., Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188–192.Google Scholar
  18. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199–208.Google Scholar
  19. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Hamlett, C. L., & Seethaler, P. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Council for Exceptional Children, 73(3), 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989a). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. RASE: Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 43–52.Google Scholar
  21. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989b). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 55(5), 429–438.Google Scholar
  22. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1990a). The role of skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psychology Review, 19(1), 6–23.Google Scholar
  23. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Thompson, A., Roberts, P. H., Kubek, P., & Stecker, P. M. (1994). Technical features of a mathematics concepts and applications curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique, 19(4), 23–49.Google Scholar
  24. Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1990b). Monitoring basic skills progress: Basic math computation and concepts and applications programs. Austin: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  25. Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ginsburg, H. P., Greenes, C., & Balfanz, R. (2003). Big math for little kids. Parsippany: Dale Seymour Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Gulliksen, H. (1987). Theory of mental tests. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. (Reprinted from Theory of mental tests, by H. Gulliksen, 1950, New York: Wiley).Google Scholar
  28. 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, 540–553.Google Scholar
  29. Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).Google Scholar
  33. Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M. N., & Ramineni, C. (2007). Predicting first-grade math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Nabors Oláh, L., & Locuniak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in Kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child development, 77(1), 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental psychology, 45(3), 850–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, A. S. (1985). Kaufman test of educational achievement comprehensive form manual. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  37. Kim, S.-H. (1999). CIA: A Computer Program for Classical Item Analysis. [Computer Software]. Athens: University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  38. Lembke, E. S., & Foegen, A. (2009). Identifying early numeracy indicators for kindergarten and first-grade students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(1), 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lembke, E. S., Foegen, A., Whittaker, T. A., & Hampton, D. (2008). Establishing technically adequate measures of progress in early numeracy. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(4), 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Association for the Education of Young Children and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2002). Position statement. Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings, Retrieved October 26, 2013 from the World Wide Web:
  41. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation NCTM Standards for school mathematics. Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  43. Russell, R. L., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1984). Cognitive analysis of children’s mathematics difficulties. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., et al. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematic achievement. Psychological science, 23(7), 691–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Skiba, R., Magnusson, D., Marston, D., & Erickson, K. (1986). The assessment of mathematics performance in special education: Achievement tests, proficiency tests, or formative evaluation. Minneapolis: Special Services, Minneapolis Public Schools.Google Scholar
  46. Speece, D. L., Molloy, D. E., & Case, L. P. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. The Psychological Corporation. (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. San Antonio: Author.Google Scholar
  49. Tindal, G., Germann, G., & Deno, S. L. (1983). Descriptive research on the Pine County norms: A compilation of findings (Research Report No. 132). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
  50. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., Haquin, G., & Noell, G. (2001). The reliability and validity of curriculum-based measurement readiness probes for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 30, 363–382.Google Scholar
  52. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. F., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of achievement. Itasca: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teachers College, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations