Advertisement

Progress Monitoring for Students Receiving Intensive Academic Intervention

  • David A. KlingbeilEmail author
  • Tera L. Bradley
  • Jennifer J. McComas
Chapter

Abstract

Progress monitoring is one of the four essential components for response to intervention (RTI) systems or multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). Monitoring student progress is essential because it allows instructors to determine the extent to which a student’s academic skills are improving, whether instruction or supplemental intervention support are effective for an individual, and whether instructional modifications are necessary, and consequently, lead to increased academic achievement for struggling learners. In this chapter, individual progress monitoring for students needing intensive interventions in academics is discussed. First, the general purposes of progress monitoring students receiving tier 3 interventions and highlight differences from progress monitoring within other tiers are described. Second, two types of data that are useful for academic progress monitoring in an RTI model are reviewed. Third, the practical and technical considerations necessary for progress monitoring within tier 3 are discussed. Fourth, case examples to illustrate the types of decisions made for students receiving tier 3 interventions are provided. Finally, the chapter concludes with a summary of recommendations for practice and a discussion on directions for future research.

Keywords

Progress Monitoring Student Progress General Outcome Measure Nonsense Word Fluency Special Education Eligibility 
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. Ardoin, S. P., & Christ, T. J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Standard errors associated with progress monitoring outcomes from Dibels, Aimsweb, and an Experimental passage set. School Psychology Review, 38, 266–283.Google Scholar
  2. Ardoin, S. P., Christ, T. J., Moreno, L., Cormier, D. C., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of recommendations and research surrounding curriculum based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.9. 004.Google Scholar
  3. Burns, M. K. (2001). Measuring sight-word acquisition and retention rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 148–157. doi:10.1177/073428290101900204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–175. doi:10.1177/07419325040250030401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, M. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response-to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297–313. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.22.3.297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Response to intervention implementation in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, M. K., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2010). Assessment of academic skills in math within a problem-solving model. In G. G. Peacock, R. A. Ervin, K. W. Merrell, & E. J. Daly (Eds.), Practical handbook of school psychology: Effective practices for the 21st century (pp. 86–98). New York: Guildford.Google Scholar
  8. Burns, M. K., & Mosack, J. L. (2005). Criterion-related validity of measuring sight-word acquisition with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 216–224. doi:10.1177/073428290502300302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns, M. K., & Parker, D. C. (2014). Curriculum-based assessment for instructional design: Using data to individual instruction. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. Burns, M. K., Tucker, J. A., Frame, J., Foley, S., & Hauser, A. (2000). Interscorer, alternate-form, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of Gickling’s model of curriculum-based assessment for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 353–360. doi:10.1177/073428290001800405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. L. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.Google Scholar
  12. Burns, M. K., Scholin, S. E., Kosciolek, S., & Livingston, J. (2010). Reliability of decision-making frameworks for response to intervention for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 102–114. doi:10.1177/0734282909342374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christ, T. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimates of standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Christ, T. J., Zopluoglu, C., Long, J. D., & Monaghen, B. D. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Quality of progress monitoring outcomes. Exceptional Children, 78, 356–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christ, T. J., Monaghen, B. D., Zopluoglu, C., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013a). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Evaluation of growth estimates derived with pre-post assessment methods. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 139–153. doi:10.1177/1534508412456417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christ, T. J., White, M. J., Ardoin, S., & Eckert, T. L. (2013b). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Consistency and validity across best, fastest, and question reading conditions. School Psychology Review, 42, 415–436.Google Scholar
  18. Christ, T. J., Zopluoglu, C., Monaghen, B. D., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013c). 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Colón, E. P., & Kranzler, J. H. (2006). Effect of instructions on curriculum-based measurement of reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 318–328. doi:10.1177/0734282906287830.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. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394.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. doi:10.1037/a0018448.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Deno, S. L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358–374.Google Scholar
  24. Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.Google Scholar
  26. Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics. A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Francis, D. J., Santi, K. L., Barr, C., Fletcher, J. M., Varisco, A., & Foorman, B. R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students’ oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315–342.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.Google Scholar
  29. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–499.Google Scholar
  30. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum? Exceptional Children, 61, 15–24.Google Scholar
  31. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2011). Using CBM for progress monitoring in reading. Washington, DC: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.Google Scholar
  33. Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460. doi: 0.3102/00028312021002449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. The Journal of Educational Research, 103–110. doi:10.2307/1163151.Google Scholar
  35. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Education Research Journal, 28, 617–641. doi:10.3102/00028312028003617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 559–566. doi:10.1177/002221947801100905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gickling, E. E., & Thompson, V. P. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205–218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Hintze, J. M., & Marcotte, A. M. (2010). Student assessment and data-based decision making. In T. A. Glover & S. Vaughn (Eds.), The promise of response to intervention (pp. 57–77). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  41. Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, 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
  42. Hintze, J. M., Shapiro, E. S., & Lutz, J. G. (1994). The effects of curriculum on the sensitivity of curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 188–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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, 514–528.Google Scholar
  44. Hintze, J. M., Christ, T. J., & Methe, S. A. (2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 45–56. doi:10.1002/pits.20128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hosp, M. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade. School Psychology Review, 34, 9–26.Google Scholar
  46. Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2008). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hosp, J. L., Hosp, M. K., Howell, K. W., & Allison, R. (2014). ABCs of curriculum-based evaluation: A practical guide to effective decision making. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  48. Jenkins, J., & Terjeson, K. J. (2011). Monitoring reading growth: Goal setting, measurement frequency, and methods of evaluation. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 28–35. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00322.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jenkins, J. R., Graff, J. J., & Miglioretti, D. (2009). Estimating reading growth using intermittent CBM progress monitoring. Exceptional Children, 75, 151–163.Google Scholar
  50. Kane, M. (2013a). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73. doi:10.1111/jedm.12007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kane, M. (2013b). The argument-based approach to validation. School Psychology Review, 42, 448–457.Google Scholar
  52. 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, 374–390.Google Scholar
  53. Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why to do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–44). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  54. McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68–84. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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, 186–195. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00292.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18, 5–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X018002005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Data-based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Author.Google Scholar
  59. National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI—A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Author.Google Scholar
  60. 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. http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.cfm. Accessed 1 July 2014.
  61. Parker, D. C., McMaster, K. L., & Burns, M. K. (2011). Determining an instructional level for early writing skills. School Psychology Review, 40, 158–167.Google Scholar
  62. Pearson Inc. (2012). Aimsweb: Progress monitoring guide. Bloomington: Author.Google Scholar
  63. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Axtell, P. K. (2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute using curriculum- based measurement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 326–338. doi:10.1177/073428290502300403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. D. (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. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Riley-Tillman, T. C., Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2013). RTI applications, Volume 2: Assessment, analysis, and decision making. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  66. Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, S. (2013). Assessment in special and inclusive education (12th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage.Google Scholar
  67. Shapiro, E. S. (2008). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skills improvement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology (pp. 141–157). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  68. Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skills problems (4th ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  69. Shapiro, E. S. (2013). Commentary on progress monitoring with CBM-R and decision making: Problems found and looking for solutions. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Shapiro, E. S., Keller, M. A., Lutz, J. L., Santoro, L. E., & Hintze, J. M. (2006). Curriculum-based measures and performance on state assessment and standardized tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 19–35. doi: 10.1177/0734282905285237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  72. Stage, S. A., & Jacobsen, M. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407–419.Google Scholar
  73. Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 128–134. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1503_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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, 795–819. doi:10.1002/pits.20113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stecker, P. M., Lembke, E. S., & Foegen, A. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision-making. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52, 48–58. doi:10.3200/PSFL.52.2.48-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Taylor, C. D., Meisinger, E. B., & Floyd, R. G. (2013). Variations in directions and overt timing on oral reading accuracy, fluency, and prosody. School Psychology Review, 42, 437–447.Google Scholar
  77. Thornblad, S. C., & Christ, T. J. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Is 6 weeks of daily progress monitoring enough? School Psychology Review, 43, 19–29.Google Scholar
  78. Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students’ reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36, 159–166.Google Scholar
  79. Tucker, J. A. (1985). Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction. Exceptional Children, 52, 199–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. (2012). DIBELS Next recommended benchmark goals. Eugene: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  81. 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. doi:10.1177/073724770503000302.Google Scholar
  82. Van Norman, E. R., Christ, T. J., & Zopluoglu, C. (2013). The effects of baseline estimation on the precision of CBM-R growth estimates. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 239–255. doi:10.1037/spq0000023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203. doi:10.1177/0022219412442150.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measures in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yeo, S., Kim, D., Branum-Martin, L., Wayman, M. M., & Espin, C. A. (2012). Assessing the reliability of curriculum-based measurement: An application of latent growth modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 275–292. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M. K., Scholin, S. E., & Parker, D. C. (2010). Instructionally valid assessment within response to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 54–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Klingbeil
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tera L. Bradley
    • 2
  • Jennifer J. McComas
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Boling Center for Developmental DisabilitiesMemphisUSA
  3. 3.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations