Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 48, Issue 7, pp 1049–1063 | Cite as

Longitudinal growth on curriculum-based measurements mathematics measures for early elementary students

  • Erica Lembke
  • Young Sun Lee
  • Yoon Soo Park
  • David Hampton
Original Article

Abstract

This article describes a study addressing how Curriculum-Based Measurement mathematics measures function as screening tools for students in grades Kindergarten through 2 over time, and for students in different demographic groups. Specifically, the research questions were: (1) What growth rates are produced for Curriculum-Based Measurement early numeracy measures and are these growth rates significant? (2) Do growth rates for Curriculum-Based Measurement early numeracy measures vary by demographic factors such as gender, race, and lunch status? To answer these questions, predictive validity across multiple years was examined for close to 1000 students in grades Kindergarten through 2 on mathematics measures that included Counting, Number Identification, Missing Number, Quantity Discrimination, Number Facts, Next Number, Computation, and Concepts problems. For all grades, results indicated that some measures increased significantly over time. Differences were observed for students at baseline by gender and lunch status and these covariates also produced differences in growth rates, depending on the measure. Implications for future research and practical implications for early identification and for use by teachers are addressed.

Keywords

Number Sense Free Lunch Number Fact Early Mathematics Miss Number 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clarke, B., Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., & Chard, D. J. (2008). An analysis of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement: Examining the role of growth in student outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 22(1), 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, B., Lembke, E., Hampton, D., & Hendricker, E. (2011). Understanding the R in RTI: What we know and what we need to know about measuring student response in mathematics. Brookes Publishing: Baltimore.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Conoyer, S. J., Foegen, A., & Lembke, E. S. (2016). Examining predictive validity across years and states using early numeracy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 37(3), 159–171.  Google Scholar
  6. Curran, P. J., Obeidat, K., & Losardo, D. (2010). Twelve frequently asked questions about growth curve modeling. Journal of Cognitive Development, 11(2), 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.Google Scholar
  8. Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1992). Summer setback: Race, poverty, school composition, and mathematics achievement in the first two years of school. American Sociological Review, 57(1), 72–84. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096145.
  9. Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 172–186.Google Scholar
  10. Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present and future of curriculum based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.Google Scholar
  11. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10(2), 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. Exceptional Children, 73, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C., & Stecker, P. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 617–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic for students with mathematics disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gustavson, K., von Soest, T., Karevold, E., & Roysamb, E. (2012). Attrition and generalizability in longitudinal studies: Findings from a 15-year population-based study and a Monte Carlo simulation study. BMC Public Health, 12, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hampton, D. D., Lemkbe, E. S., Lee, Y. S., Pappas, S., Chiong, C., & Ginsberg, H. (2012). Technical adequacy of early numeracy curriculum-based progress monitoring measures for kindergarten and first grade students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(2), 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harwell, M., & LeBeau, B. (2010). Student eligibility for a free lunch as an SES measure in education research. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 120–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harwell, M. R., Maeda, Y., & Lee, K. (2004). Replicating and extending White’s (1982) meta-analysis of the relationship between SES and student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1985). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  21. Lembke, E. S., & Foegen, A. (2009). Identifying early numeracy indicators for kindergarten and first grade students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice., 24, 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lembke, E. S., Foegen, A., Whittaker, T. A., & Hampton, D. D. (2008). Establishing technical adequate measures of progress in early numeracy. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lembke, E. S., Hampton, D. D., & Beyers, S. J. (2012). Response to intervention mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lubienski, S., & Lubienski, C. (2006). School sector and academic achievement at a multi-level analysis of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 651–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Methe, S. A., Hintze, J. M., & Floyd, R. G. (2008). Validation and decision accuracy of earlynumeracy skill indicators. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 359–373.Google Scholar
  26. Okamato, Y., & Case, R. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children’s central conceptual Structures in the domain of number. Monographs for the Society of Research in Child Development, 61, 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata.Google Scholar
  28. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Shinn, M. R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: Curriculum-based measurement screening and eligibility procedures, (184–203). In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  30. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skrongdal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. The Psychological Corporation (1992). Weschler Individual Achievement Test. San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  34. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson® III Test. Riverside Publishing Company. Itasca, IL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erica Lembke
    • 1
  • Young Sun Lee
    • 2
  • Yoon Soo Park
    • 2
  • David Hampton
    • 3
  1. 1.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Bowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations