Advertisement

Screening Assessment Within a Multi-Tiered System of Support: Current Practices, Advances, and Next Steps

  • Nathan H. ClemensEmail author
  • Milena A. Keller-Margulis
  • Timothy Scholten
  • Myeongsun Yoon
Chapter

Abstract

Within multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), screening assessments play an important role in identifying students who are in need of supplemental support strategies. In this chapter, the authors review the tools and methods commonly used in MTSS for academic skills screening, identify limitations with these practices, and highlight potential areas of improvement regarding assessment methods and content of screening tools, decision-making processes used to identify students in need of support, and methods used for evaluating screening tools. A set of recommendations and directions for future work are offered for advancing screening assessment and improving decision-making processes in schools with MTSS.

References

  1. Alonzo, J., Tindal, G., Ulmer, K., & Glasgow, A. (2006). easyCBM online progress monitoring assessment system. Eugene: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, N. P., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Examining the dimensionality of effortful control in preschool children and its relation to academic and socioemotional indicators. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 905–915.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010). easyCBM Mathematics Criterion Related Validity Evidence: Washington State Test (Technical Report No. 1010). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, D., Jasmine Park, B., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). Diagnostic efficiency of EasyCBM Reading: Washington state (Technical Report #1107). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  5. Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Suldo, S. M., Connell, J. E., Koenig, J. L., Restetar, J. L., Slider, N. J., & Williams, K. L. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a maze and three versus one curriculum-based measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33, 218–233.Google Scholar
  6. Baglici, S. P., Codding, R. S., & Tryon, G. (2010). Extending the research on tests of early numeracy: Longitudinal analyses over two years. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., Reschly, D., Schrag, J., & Tilly, D. (2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.Google Scholar
  8. Begeny, J. C., Eckert, T. L., Montarello, S. A., & Storie, M. S. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ reading abilities: An examination of the relationship between teachers’ judgments and students’ performance across a continuum of rating methods. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Begeny, J. C., Krouse, H. E., Brown, K. G., & Mann, C. M. (2011). Teacher judgments of students’ reading abilities across a continuum of rating methods and achievement measures. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
  10. Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Zucker, T. A., & Kilday, C. R. (2009). Validity of teacher report for assessing the emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(2), 161–173.Google Scholar
  11. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32(1), 38–50.Google Scholar
  12. Catts, H. W., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., Bridges, M. S., & Mendoza, K. (2009). Floor effects associated with universal screening and their impact on the early identification of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 163–176.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Catts, H. W., Compton, D., Tomblin, J. B., & Sittner Bridges, M. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christ, T. J., Scullin, S., Tolbize, A., & Jiban, C. L. (2008). Implications of recent research: Curriculum based measurement of math computation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke, B., Nese, J. F., Alonzo, J., Smith, J. L. M., Tindal, G., Kame’enui, E. J., & Baker, S. K. (2011). Classification accuracy of easyCBM first-grade mathematics measures: Findings and implications for the field. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clemens, N. H., Shapiro, E. S., & Thoemmes, F. (2011). Improving the efficacy of first grade reading screening: An investigation of word identification fluency with other early literacy indicators. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clemens, N. H., Hagan-Burke, S., Luo, W., Cerda, C. A., Blakely, A., Frosch, J., Gamez, B., & Jones, M. (in press). Investigating the validity of a computer-adaptive assessment of early reading in kindergarten. School Psychology Review.Google Scholar
  18. Clemens, N. H., Oslund, E. L., Simmons, L. E., & Simmons, D. (2014). Assessing spelling in kindergarten: Further comparison of scoring metrics and their relation to reading skills. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 49–61.Google Scholar
  19. Cocker, 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(10), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J. K., Barquero, L. A., Cho, E., & Crouch, R. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–340.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Lambert, W., & Hamlett, C. (2012). The cognitive and academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(1), 79–95.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coventry, W. L., Byrne, B., Olson, R. K., Corley, R., & Samuelsson, S. (2011). Dynamic and static assessment of phonological awareness in preschool: A behavior-genetic study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 322–329. doi:10.1177/0022219411407862.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R. Jr., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y. C., & Kapp, S. (2010). Direct and extended vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Demaray, M. K., & Elliot, S. N. (1998). Teachers’ judgments of students’ academic functioning: Comparison of actual and predicted performances. School Psychology Quarterly, 13(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Deno, S. L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48(4), 368–371.Google Scholar
  28. DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1999). Development and validation of the academic competence evaluation scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17(3), 207–225.Google Scholar
  29. Denton, C. A., Barth, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., ... & Francis, D. J. (2011). The relations among oral and silent reading fluency and comprehension in middle school: Implications for identification and instruction of students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(2), 109–135.Google Scholar
  30. Eaves, R. C., Williams, P., Winchester, K., & Darch, C. (1994). Using teacher judgment and IQ to estimate reading and mathematics achievement in a remedial-reading program. Psychology in the Schools, 31(4), 261–272. doi:10.1002/1520-6807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eckert, T. L., Dunn, E. K., Codding, R. S., Begeny, J. C., & Kleinmann, A. E. (2006). Assessment of mathematics and reading performance: An examination of the correspondence between direct assessment of student performance and teacher report. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 247–265. doi:10.1002/pits.20147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eckert, T. L., Koenig, E. A., Hier, B. O., & Arbolino, L. A. (2013). The role of teacher perspectives in diagnostic and program evaluation of academic skills. In R. Brown-Chidsey & K. J. Andren (Eds.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (2nd ed., pp. 62–76). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Egan, J. P., Clarke, F. R., & Carterette, E. C. (1956). On the transmission and confirmation of messages in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 28, 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Elleman, A. M., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bouton, B. (2011). Exploring dynamic assessment as a means of identifying children at risk of developing comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 348–357.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Espin, C., Shin, J., Deno, S. L., Skare, S., Robinson, S., & Benner, B. (2000). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency for middle school students. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 140–153. doi:10.1177/002246690003400303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Feeney-Kettler, K. A., Kratochwill, T. R., & Kettler, R. J. (2011). Identification of preschool children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: Development and validation of a universal screening system. Journal of school psychology, 49(2), 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Feinberg, A. B., & Shapiro, E. S. (2009). Teacher accuracy: An examination of teacher-based judgments of students’ reading with differing achievement levels. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. (2006). Learning disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  39. Formative Assessment System for Teachers. (2013). Formative Assessment system for teachers. University of Minnesota, Author.Google Scholar
  40. Foulin, J. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read? Reading and Writing, 18(2), 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 45–58.Google Scholar
  42. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 195–203.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness to instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 216–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Capizzi, A. M., Schatschneider, C & Fletcher, J. M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Bryant, J. D., Hamlett, C. L., & Seethaler, P. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness-to-intervention. Exceptional Children, 72, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., & Caffrey, E. (2011a). The construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment of young children learning to read: Implications for RTI frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 339–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hollenbeck, K. N., Hamlett, C. L., & Seethaler, P. M. (2011b). Two-stage screening for math problem-solving difficulty using dynamic assessment of algebraic learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 372–380.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gansle, K. A., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Noell, G. H., Resetar, J. L., & Williams, K. L. (2006). The technical adequacy of curriculum-based writing and rating-based measures of written expression for elementary school students. School Psychology Review, 35, 435–450.Google Scholar
  53. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2009a). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades. A practice guide. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  55. Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009b). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (rti) for elementary and middle schools. NCEE, 4060. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Services, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  56. Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Early screening for risk of reading disabilities: Recommendations for a four-step screening system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(1), 6–14.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Glover, T., & Albers, C. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Goffreda, C. T., & DiPerna, C. (2010). An empirical review of psychometric evidence for the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 463–483.Google Scholar
  59. Goffreda, C. T., DiPerna, J. C., & Pedersen, J. A. (2009). Preventive screening for early readers: Predictive validity of the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS). Psychology in the Schools, 46(6), 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Gonzalez, J. E., Goetz, E. T., Hall, R. J., Payne, T., Taylor, A. B., Kim, M., & McCormick, A. S. (2011). An evaluation of Early Reading First (ERF) preschool enrichment on language and literacy skills. Reading and Writing, 24(3), 253–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement. http://dibels.uoregon.edu.
  62. Goodenough, D. J. (1975). The use of ROC curves in testing the proficiency of individuals in classifying pneumoconiosis. Radiology, 114(2), 472–473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). Meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in elementary school grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Graney, S. B. (2008). General education teacher judgments of their low-performing students’ short-term reading progress. Psychology in the Schools, 45(6), 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Graney, S. B., Martínez, R. S., Missall, K. N., & Aricak, O. T. (2010). Universal screening of reading in late elementary school: R-CBM versus CBM Maze. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hammill, D. D., Wiederholt, J. L., & Allen, E. A. (2006). Test of silent contextual reading fluency. Austin: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  68. Hagan-Burke, S., Kwok, O. M., Zou, Y., Johnson, C., Simmons, D., & Coyne, M. D. (2011). An examination of problem behaviors and reading outcomes in kindergarten students. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 131–148.Google Scholar
  69. Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M. R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32, 228–240.Google Scholar
  70. Harber, J. R. (1981). Learning disability research: How far have we progressed? Learning Disability Quarterly, 4(4), 372–381.Google Scholar
  71. Hasselbring, T. S. (1984). Computer-based assessment of special-needs students. Special Services in the Schools, 1(1), 7–19.Google Scholar
  72. Hecht, S. A., & Greenfield, D. B. (2001). Comparing the predictive validity of first grade teacher ratings and reading-related tests on third grade levels of reading skills in young children exposed to poverty. School Psychology Review, 30(1), 50–69.Google Scholar
  73. Hintze, J., & Silbertglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372–386.Google Scholar
  74. Hintze, J. M., Ryan, A. L., & Stoner, G. (2003). Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills and the comprehensive test of phonological processing. School Psychology Review, 32(4), 541–556.Google Scholar
  75. Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 127–155.Google Scholar
  76. Hoge, R. D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 297–313.Google Scholar
  77. Jeltova, I., Birney, D., Fredine, N., Jarvin, L., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2011). Making instruction and assessment responsive to diverse students’ progress: Group-administered dynamic assessment in teaching mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 381–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582–600.Google Scholar
  79. Jenkins, J. R., Schiller, E., Blackorby, J., Thayer, S. K., & Tilly, W. D. (2013). Responsiveness to intervention in reading: Architecture and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(1), 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Johnson, E. S., Jenkins, J. R., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Johnson, E. S., Jenkins, J. R., & Petscher, Y. (2010). Improving the accuracy of a direct route screening process. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., Ramineni, C., & Watkins, M. W. (2010). Validating a number sense screening tool for use in kindergarten and first grade: Prediction of mathematics proficiency in third grade. School Psychology Review, 39, 181–195.Google Scholar
  84. Kantor, P. T., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2011). Comparing two forms of dynamic assessment and traditional assessment of preschool phonological awareness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 313–321.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kegel, C. A., van der Kooy-Hofland, V. A., & Bus, A. G. (2009). Improving early phoneme skills with a computer program: Differential effects of regulatory skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 549–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Keller-Margulis, M. A., Shapiro, E. S., & Hintze, J. M. (2008). Long term diagnostic accuracy of curriculum-based measures in reading and mathematics. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 374–390.Google Scholar
  88. Kenny, D. T., & Chekaluk, E. (1993). Early reading performance: A comparison of teacher-based and test-based assessments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 227–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Kilday, C. R., Kinzie, M. B., Mashburn, A. J., & Whittaker, J. V. (2012). Accuracy of teacher judgments of preschoolers’ math skills. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(2), 148–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Landry, S., Assel, M. A., Gunnewig, S. B., & Swank, P. R. (2007). MClass: CIRCLE. New York: Wireless Generation.Google Scholar
  91. Lane, K. L., Little, M. A., Casey, A. M., Lambert, W., Wehby, J., Weisenbach, J. L., & Phillips, A. (2009). A comparison of systematic screening tools for emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17(2), 93–105. doi:10.1177/1063426608326203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lee, J. M., Clark, W. W., & Lee, D. M. (1934). Measuring reading readiness. The Elementary School Journal, 34(9), 656–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Lee, Y. S., Lembke, E., Moore, D., Ginsburg, H. P., & Pappas, S. (2012). Item-level and construct evaluation of early numeracy curriculum-based measures. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(2), 107–117. doi:10.1177/1534508411431255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Lembke, E., & Foegen, A. (2009). Identifying early numeracy indicators for kindergarten and first-grade students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24(1), 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Lembke, E. S., Deno, S. L., & Hall, K. (2003). Identifying an indicator of growth in early writing proficiency for elementary school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3&4), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Lembke, E. S., Hampton, D., & Beyers, S. H. (2012). Response to intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Locuniak, M. N., & Jordan, N. C. (2008). Using kindergarten number sense to predict calculation fluency in second grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(5), 451–459.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Marcotte, A. M., & Hintze, J. M. (2009). Incremental and predictive utility of formative assessment methods of reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 315–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Marston, D., Mirkin, P., & Deno, S. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to traditional screening, referral, and identification. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 109–117.Google Scholar
  101. Masterson, J. J., & Apel, K. (2010). Linking characteristics discovered in spelling assessment to intervention goals and methods. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 185–198.Google Scholar
  102. Martin, S. D., & Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Examining the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of DIBELS performance. Psychology in the Schools, 48(4), 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Martinez, R. S., Missal, K. N., Bamonto-Graney, S., Aricak, T. O., & Clarke, B. (2009). Technical adequacy of early numeracy curriculum-based measurement in kindergarten. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(2), 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Mather, N., Hammill, D. D., Allen, E. A., & Roberts, R. (2004). TOSWRF: Test of silent word reading fluency: Examiner’s manual. Austin: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  105. McBride, J. R., Ysseldyke, J., Milone, M., & Stickney, E. (2010). Technical adequacy and cost benefit of four measures of early literacy. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 471–490.Google Scholar
  107. McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 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, 27(4), 550–566.Google Scholar
  109. McMaster, K. L., Du, X., & Petursdottir, A. (2009). Technical features of curriculum-based measures for beginning writers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 41–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. McMaster, K. L., Parker, D., & Jung, P. G. (2012). Using Curriculum-Based measurement for beginning writers within a response to intervention framework. Reading Psychology, 33, 190–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Meisinger, E. B., Bradley, B. A., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Kuhn, M. R., & Morris, R. D. (2009). Myth and reality of the word caller: The relation between teacher nominations and prevalence among elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(3), 147–150.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Mellard, D. F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(4), 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Mercer, S., Martinez, R. S., Faust, D., & Mitchell, R. R. (2012a). Criterion-related validity of writing curriculum-based measurement (WCBM) in high school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(2), 85–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Mercer, S. H., Dufrene, B. A., Zoder-Martell, K., Harpole, L. L., Mitchell, R. R., & Blaze, J. T. (2012b). Generalizability theory analysis of cbm maze reliability in third-through fifth-grade students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(3), 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Metz, C. E., Goodenough, D. J., & Rossmann, K. (1973). Evaluation of receiver operating characteristic curve data in terms of information theory, with applications in radiography. Radiology, 109(2), 297–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Missal, K., Mercer, S., Martinez, R. S., & Casebeer, D. (2012). Concurrent and predictive patterns and trends in performance on early numeracy curriculum-based measures in kindergarten and first grade. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(2), 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. NCS Pearson. (2012). Test of early literacy administration and scoring guide. Bloomington: NCS Pearson.Google Scholar
  118. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.Google Scholar
  119. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  120. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
  121. Nelson, J. M. (2008). Beyond correlational analysis of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): A classification validity study. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 542–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Northwest Evaluation Association. (2013). Measures of Academic Progress. www.nwea.org.
  123. Norwalk, K. E., DiPerna, J. C., Lei, P., & Wu, Q. (2012). Examining early literacy skill differences among children in head start via latent profile analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(3), 170–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Parker, C., & Ditkowsky, B. (2006). Examining the predictive validity of the dynamic indicators of vocabulary skills. Technical Report, 4. Westport.Google Scholar
  126. Pauker, S. G., & Kassirer, J. P. (1980). The threshold approach to clinical decision making. The New England Journal of Medicine, 302(20), 1109–1117.Google Scholar
  127. Prewett, S., Mellard, D. F., Deshler, D. D., Allen, J., Alexander, R., & Stern, A. (2012). Response to intervention in middle schools: Practices and outcomes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Puranik, C. S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2012). Name-writing proficiency, not length of name, is associated with preschool children’s emergent literacy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 284–294.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Puranik, C. S., Petscher, Y., & Lonigan, C. J. (2012). Dimensionality and reliability of letter writing in 3- to 5-year-old preschool children. Learning and Individual Differences.Google Scholar
  130. RAND Mathematics Study Panel, Chair, D.L.B. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics education. Arlington: RAND.Google Scholar
  131. Renaissance Learning (2010). The foundation of the STAR Assessments. Wisconsin Rapids: Author.Google Scholar
  132. Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. (2009). Curriculum-Based Measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Riedel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary in urban first-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(4), 546–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesen, J. K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 343–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Seethaler, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2010). The predictive utility of kindergarten screening for math difficulty. Exceptional Children, 77, 37–59.Google Scholar
  136. Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Predicting first graders’ development of calculation versus word-problem performance: The role of dynamic assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 224–234.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Shapiro, E. S., & Gebhardt, S. N. (2012). Comparing computer-adaptive and curriculum-based measurement methods of assessment. School Psychology Review, 41, 295–305.Google Scholar
  138. Shapiro, E. S., Keller, M. A., Lutz, J. G., Santoro, L. E., & Hintze, J. M. (2006). Curriculum-based measures and performance on state assessment and standardized tests reading and math performance in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Shapiro, E. S., Solari, E., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 316–328.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Sittner Bridges, M., & Catts, H. (2011). The dynamic screening of a phonological awareness to predict risk for reading disabilities in kindergarten children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 330–338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  142. Snowling, M. J., Duff, F., Petrou, A., Schiffeldrin, J., & Bailey, A. M. (2011). Identification of children at risk of dyslexia: The validity of teacher judgments using ‘phonic awareness.’ Journal of Research in Reading, 34(2), 157–170. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01492.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Speece, D. L., & Ritchey, K. D. (2005). A longitudinal study of the development of oral reading fluency in young children at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 387–399.Google Scholar
  144. Speece, D. L., Ritchey, K. D., Silverman, R., Schatschneider, C., Walker, C. Y., & Andrusik, K. N. (2010). Identifying children in middle childhood who are at risk for reading problems. School Psychology Review, 39, 258–276.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. Speece, D. L., Schatschneider, C., Silverman, R., Case, L. P., Cooper, D. H., & Jacobs, D. M. (2011). Identification of reading problems in first grade within a response-to-intervention framework. The Elementary School Journal, 111, 585–607.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Swanson, H. L., & Howard, C. B. (2005). Children with reading disabilities: Does dynamic assessment help in classification? Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Swets, J. A., Tanner, W. P. Jr., & Birdsall, T. G. (1961). Decision processes in perception. Psychological Review, 68(5), 301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Tackett, K. K., Roberts, G., Baker, S., & Scammaca, N. (2009). Implementing Response to Intervention: Practices and perspectives from five schools. Frequently asked questions. Portsmouth: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.Google Scholar
  149. Teisl, J. T., Mazzocco, M. M., & Myers, G. F. (2001). The utility of kindergarten teacher ratings for predicting low academic achievement in first grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3), 286–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Thurber, R. S., Shinn, M. R., & Smolkowski, K. (2002). What is measurement in mathematics? Construct validity of curriculum-based mathematics measures. School Psychology Review, 31(4), 498–513.Google Scholar
  151. Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1989). Assessment of written expression for students in compensatory and special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 23(2), 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Tolar, T. D., Lederberg, A. R., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). A structural model of algebra achievement: Computational fluency and spatial visualisation as mediators of the effect of working memory on algebra achievement. Educational Psychology, 29(2), 239–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, 22, 32–41.Google Scholar
  154. Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Tower, D. M. (1973). A kindergarten screening index to predict reading failure. Annals of Dyslexia, 23(1), 90–105.Google Scholar
  156. TPRI. (2013). TPRI Early Reading Assessment. Author: Texas Education Agency & University of Texas System.Google Scholar
  157. VanDerHeyden, A. M. (in press). Universal screening may not be for everyone: The threshold model as a smarter way to determine risk. Manuscript accepted for publication in School Psychology Review, 43.Google Scholar
  158. VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2011). Technical adequacy of response to intervention decisions. Exceptional Children, 77, 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 15–31.Google Scholar
  160. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Broussard, C., & Cooley, A. (2006). Further development of measures of early math performance for preschoolers. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 533–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Broussard, C., Snyder, P., George, J., Lafleur, S. M., & Williams, C. (2011). Measurement of kindergartners’ understanding of early mathematical concepts. School Psychology Review, 40(2), 296–306.Google Scholar
  162. Van Waelvelde, H., Hellinckx, T., Peersman, W., & Smits-Engelsman, B. C. (2012). SOS: A screening instrument to identify children with handwriting impairments. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 32(3), 306–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 244–256.Google Scholar
  164. Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T., & Olson, J. (2008). Comparability of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing in K–12 reading assessments: A meta-analysis of testing mode effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
  165. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2009). TOSREC: Test of Sentence Reading Efficiency and Comprehension. Austin: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  166. Wagner, R. K., & Compton, D. L. (2011). Dynamic Assessment and Its Implications for RTI Models. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 311.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Yovanoff, P., Duesbery, L., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2005). Grade-level invariance of a theoretical causal structure predicting reading comprehension with vocabulary and oral reading fluency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 4–12.Google Scholar
  169. Zirkel, P. A., & Thomas, L. B. (2010). State laws for rti: An updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(3), 56–63.Google Scholar
  170. Zumeta, R. O., Compton, D. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Using word identification fluency to monitor first-grade reading developlemt. Exceptional Children, 78(2), 201–220.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan H. Clemens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Milena A. Keller-Margulis
    • 2
  • Timothy Scholten
    • 3
  • Myeongsun Yoon
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.University of HoustonHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Ossining Union Free School DistrictNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations