Advertisement

Technology-Based Assessment and Problem Analysis

  • Gerald TindalEmail author
  • Julie Alonzo
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses features of technology-based assessments particularly relevant for applications in school settings implementing response to intervention (RTI). Using easyCBM®, a popular learning management system developed to support RTI, the chapter illustrates measurement development and delivery that can provide instructionally relevant reports. Three important constructs are addressed that need additional research and development: measurement sufficiency, instructional adequacy, and data-based decision making. Consideration of these areas has received little attention in the empirical literature but is likely to have profound implications for successful RTI implementation.

Keywords

Item Response Theory Oral Reading Fluency Student Performance Data Instructional Emphasis Specific Skill Area 
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. Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2007). The development of early literacy measures for use in a progress monitoring assessment system: Letter Names, Letter Sounds and Phoneme Segmenting (Technical Report No. 39). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  2. Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009a). Alternate form and test-retest reliability of easyCBM® reading measures (Technical Report No. 0906). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  3. Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009c). The development of K-8 progress monitoring measures in mathematics for use with the 2 % and general education populations: Grade 1 (Technical Report No. 0919). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  4. Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009b). The development of K-8 progress monitoring measures in mathematics for use with the 2 % and general education populations: Kindergarten (Technical Report No. 0921). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  5. Alonzo, J., Tindal, G., Ulmer, K., & Glasgow, A. (2006). easyCBM® ® online progress monitoring assessment system. Eugene: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching. (http://easyCBM®.com.).Google Scholar
  6. Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., & Tindal, G. (2009e). The development of K-8 progress monitoring measures in mathematics for use with the 2 % and general education populations: Grade 3 (Technical Report No. 0902). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  7. Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., & Tindal, G. (2009d). The development of K-8 progress monitoring measures in mathematics for use with the 2 % and the general education populations: Grade 2 (Technical Report No. 0920). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  8. Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., & Tindal, G. (2009f). Mathematics for Use with the 2 % and General Education Populations: Grade 4 (Technical Report No. 0903). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  9. Alonzo, J., Nese, J. F. T., Lai, C. F., Anderson, D., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2010). The alignment of easyCBM® math measures to curriculum standards (Technical Report No. 1002). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  10. Alonzo, J., Anderson, D., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012a). The development of CBM vocabulary measures: Grade 2 (Technical Report No. 1209). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  11. Alonzo, J., Anderson, D., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012b). The development of CBM vocabulary measures: Grade 3 (Technical Report No. 1210). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  12. Alonzo, J., Anderson, D., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012c). The development of CBM vocabulary measures: Grade 4 (Technical Report No. 1211). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  13. Alonzo, J., Anderson, D., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012d). The development of CBM vocabulary measures: Grade 5 (Technical Report No. 1212). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  14. Alonzo, J., Anderson, D., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012e). The development of CBM vocabulary measures: Grade 6 (Tehcnical Report No. 1213). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  15. Alonzo, J., Anderson, D., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012f). The development of CBM vocabulary measures: Grade 7 (Technical Report No. 1214). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  16. Alonzo, J., Anderson, D., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012g). The development of CBM vocabulary measures: Grade 8 (Technical Report No. 1215). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  17. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  18. Anderson, D., Tindal, G., & Alonzo, J. (2009). Internal consistency of general outcome measures in grades 1–8 (Technical Report No. 0915). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  19. Anderson, D., Lai, C. F., Nese, J. F. T., Park, B. J., Sáez, L., Jamgochian, E. M., & Tindal, G. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM® primary-level mathematics measures (Grades k-2), 2009–2010 version (Technical Report No. 1006). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  20. Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010a). easyCBM® mathematics criterion related validity evidence: Oregon state test (Technical Report No. 1011). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  21. Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010b). easyCBM® mathematics criterion related validity evidence: Washington state test (Technical Report No. 1010). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  22. Anderson, D., Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). Examining a grade-level math CBM designed for persistently low-performing students. Educational Assessment, 16, 15–34. doi:10.1080/10627197.2011.551084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011a). A cross-validation of easyCBM® mathematics cut scores in Oregon: 2009–2010 (Technical Report No. 1104). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  24. Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011b). A cross-validation of easyCBM® mathematics cut scores in Washington state: 2009–2010 Test (Technical Report No. 1105). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  25. Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011c). easyCBM® reading criterion related to validity evidence: Washington state test 2009–2010 (Technical Report No. 1101). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  26. Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011d). easyCBM® reading criterion related validity evidence: Oregon state test 2009–2010 (Technical Report No. 1103). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  27. Anderson, D., Lai, C., Park, B., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012a). An examination of test-retest, alternate form reliability, and generalizability theory study of the easyCBM® reading assessments: Grade 2 (Technical Report # 1217). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching.Google Scholar
  28. Anderson, D., Park, B. J., Lai, C., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012b). An examination of test-retest, alternate form reliability, and generalizability theory study of the easyCBM® reading assessments: Grade 1 (Technical Report # 1216). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  29. Embretson, S., & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Hofstetter, C. (2003). Contextual and mathematics accommodation test effects for English-language learners. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 159–188. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1602_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Irvin, P. S., Park, B. J., Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2011). A cross-validation of easyCBM® reading cut Scores in Washington: 2009–2010 (Technical Report No. 1109). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  32. Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012a). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM® reading comprehension measures: Grade 7 (Technical Report No. 1206). Eugegne: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  33. Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Park, B. J., Lai, C. F., & Tindal, G. (2012b). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM® reading comprehension measures: Grade 6 (Technical Report No. 1205). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  34. Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009a). The development of K-8 progress monitoring measures in mathematics for use with the 2 % and general education populations: Grade 5 (Technical Report No. 0901). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  35. Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009d). The development of k-8 progress monitoring measures in mathematics for use with the 2 % and general education populations: Grade 8 (Technical Report No. 0904). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  36. Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009c). The development of k-8 progress monitoring measures in mathematics for use with the 2 % and general populations: Grade 7 (Technical Report No. 0908). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  37. Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2009b). The development of K-8 progress monitoring measures in mathematics for use with the 2 % and the general education populations: Grade 6 (Technical Report No. 0907). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  38. Lai, C. F., Nese, J. F. T., Jamgochian, E. M., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM® primary-level reading measures (grades K-1), 2009–2010 version (Technical Report No. 1003). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  39. Lai, C. F., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Park, B. J., & Tindal, G. (2012a). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM® reading comprehension measures: Grade 2 (Technical Report No. 1201). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  40. Lai, C. F., Irvin, P. S., Park, B. J., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012b). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM® reading comprehension measures: Grade 3 (Technical Report No. 1202). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  41. Liu, K., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Yovanoff, P., & Tindal, G. (2008). Examining item functioning of math screening measures for grades 1–8 students (Technical Report No. 0804). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  42. Nese, J. F. T., Lai, C. F., Anderson, D., Jamgochian, E. M., Kamata, A., Saez, L., & Tindal, G. (2010a). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM® mathematics measures: Grades 3–8: 2009–2010 version (Technical Report No. 1007). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  43. Nese, J. F. T., Lai, C. F., Anderson, D., Park, B. J., Tindal, G., & Alonzo, J. (2010b). The alignment of easyCBM® math measures to curriculum standards (Technical Report No. 1002). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  44. Park, B. J., Irvin, P. S., Lai, C. F., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012a). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM® reading comprehension measures: Grade 5 (Technical Report No. 1204). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  45. Park, B. J., Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Lai, C. F., & Tindal, G. (2012b). Analyzing the reliability of the easyCBM® reading comprehension measures: Grade 4 (Technical Report No. 1203). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  46. Stecker, P., Fuchs, L., & 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
  47. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Anderson, M. E., & Miller, N. A. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments (Technical Report 42). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical42.htm. Google Scholar
  48. Tindal, G. (2013).Curriculum-based measurement: A brief history of nearly everything from the 1970s to the present. ISRN Education, 2013, 1–29. doi:10.1155/2013/958530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tindal, G., Alonzo, J., & Anderson, D. (2009a). Local normative data on easyCBM® ® reading and mathematics: Fall 2009 (Technical Report No, 0918). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  50. VanDerHeyden, A. M., McLaughlin, T., Algina, J., & Snyder, P. (2012). Randomized evaluation of a supplemental grade-wide mathematics intervention. American Education Research Journal, 49, 1251–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations