| Summary: | Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a fast, reliable, and valid set of procedures for measuring student progress in basic skills. However, the predictive validity of math computations and applications probes administered three times across the year (fall, winter, and spring) has not been compared to the TerraNova standardized assessment, nor has CBM's acceptability from corrective education teachers serving students out of the classroom been explored. In this study, nine corrective education teachers working in a large mid-Atlantic urban school district and providing corrective education services to private and parochial schools participated by administering math computations and concepts and applications CBM probes to second and/or third grade students three times. There were 453 second grade students in 19 nonpublic schools and 371 third grade students in 16 nonpublic schools who completed three computations and applications CBM probes at three different points in the year. Of these students, 133 second grade students in 13 parochial schools as well as 108 third grade students in 12 parochial schools completed the TerraNova math assessment. Through the use of multiple regression analyses, it was determined that the concepts and applications probes had significant levels of predictive validity while the computations probes were not found to have any predictive validity when compared to the Normal Curve Equivalent of the Total Math subtests. The nine corrective education teachers also completed three versions of the Assessment Rating Profile-15 (ARP-15), one prior to the use of CBM and two following its use. No significant difference was identified when comparing the results of the first rating scale with either of the second or when comparing the two different rating scales administered at the end of the year. Overall, the concepts and applications probes were found to be significantly predictive of performance on the TerraNova, Second Edition, Total Math subtests, despite the fact that the teachers did not indicate a strong like or dislike towards the use of CBM tools. School Psychology
|
|---|