ZDM

, Volume 48, Issue 7, pp 1031–1048 | Cite as

Using the clinical interview and curriculum based measurement to examine risk levels

  • Herbert P. Ginsburg
  • Young-Sun Lee
  • Sandra Pappas
Original Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the power of the computer guided clinical interview (CI) and new curriculum based measurement (CBM) measures to identify and help children at risk of low mathematics achievement. We use data from large numbers of children in Kindergarten through Grade 3 to investigate the construct validity of CBM risk categories. The basic issue is whether the CBM measures assign children correctly to the basic risk categories of At Risk, Emerging, and On Track. The data show that the CBM can be useful for identifying children at risk, but that the CI offers insight into the cognitive processes underlying student difficulties. The CI is particularly useful for identifying children whose underlying mathematical reasoning is more competent than their overt performance. Information of this type is more valuable for teachers than simply learning that a student is at risk.

Keywords

Clinical interview Curriculum based measurement Risk levels Early mathematics assessment 

Supplementary material

11858_2016_802_MOESM1_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 27 kb)

References

  1. Buysse, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2010). Recognition & response: Response to intervention (RTI) for PreK. Young Exceptional Children, 13, 2–13. Published on June 8, 2010 as doi: 10.1177/1096250610373586.
  2. Christ, T. J., Scullin, S., Tolbize, A., & Jiban, C. L. (2008). Curriculum-based measurement of math computation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(4), 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, B., & Shinn, M. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 234–248.Google Scholar
  4. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J. H., & Liu, X. H. (2008). Development of a measure of early mathematics achievement using the Rasch model: The Research-Based Early Maths Assessment. Educational Psychology, 28(4), 457–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188–192.Google Scholar
  7. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199–208.Google Scholar
  8. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1994). Strengthening the connection between assessment and instruction with expert systems. Exceptional Children, 61(2), 138–146.Google Scholar
  9. Ginsburg, H. P. (2014). My entirely plausible fantasy: Early mathematics education in the age of the touch screen computer. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 5(1), 9–17.Google Scholar
  10. Ginsburg, H. P., Pappas, S., Lee, Y.-S., & Chiong, C. (2011). How did you get that answer? Computer assessments of young children’s mathematical minds in mCLASS math. In P. E. Noyce & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), New frontiers in formative assessment (pp. 49–67). Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grossman, J. (2010). Evaluating the efficiency and accuracy of a computer adaptive curriculum-based measurement. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1985). Kaufman test of educational achievement. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, Y.-S., Pappas, S., Chiong, C., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2010). mCLASS ® :MATH—technical manual. Brooklyn: Wireless Generation Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Piaget, J. (1976). The child’s conception of the world (J. Tomlinson & A. Tomlinson, Trans.). Totowa: Littlefield, Adams & Co.Google Scholar
  15. Shinn, M. R., & Bamonto, S. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: “Big ideas” and avoiding confusion. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 1–31). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. The Psychological Corporation. (1992). Wechsler individual achievement test. San Antonio: Author.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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

  • Herbert P. Ginsburg
    • 1
  • Young-Sun Lee
    • 1
  • Sandra Pappas
    • 1
  1. 1.Teachers College, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations