Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Progress Monitoring

  • Kelly BroxtermanEmail author
  • Alyssa Beukema
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_9144


Formative assessment


Progress monitoring is repeated measurement of student performance toward a long-range instructional goal (Deno 1985). It is a type of assessment used to gather formative data on student progress and measure effectiveness of instruction. Progress monitoring is commonly conducted with Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) tools, which are general outcome measures designed to sample the entire curriculum. Progress monitoring data can be collected in areas including early literacy, reading, math, writing, spelling, and behavior. It is the basis for data-based decision-making in a Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS) framework.


Progress monitoring measures are designed to be short in duration. They typically range in administration times from 1 minute to 10 minutes. They are administered weekly, bi-monthly, or monthly depending on severity of student need. Progress monitoring measures should be administered with fidelity, to ensure...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References and Readings

  1. Baker, S. K., & Good, R. H. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561–578.Google Scholar
  2. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for databased special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  5. Espin, C. A., & Deno, S. L. (1993). Content-specific and general reading disabilities of secondary-level students: Identification and educational relevance. Journal of Special Education, 27, 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Espin, C. A., Scierka, B. J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness­to­intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Interactive DBI Process. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.intensiveintervention.org/
  10. Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 19–78). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School PsychologyThe Chicago School of Professional PsychologyChicagoUSA