Premium
Another look at the “C” in CBM: Does it really matter if curriculum‐based measurement reading probes are curriculum‐based?
Author(s) -
PowellSmith Kelly A.,
BradleyKlug Kathy L.
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
psychology in the schools
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 1520-6807
pISSN - 0033-3085
DOI - 10.1002/pits.1020
Subject(s) - readability , curriculum based measurement , fluency , reading (process) , curriculum , psychology , set (abstract data type) , mathematics education , grade level , reading rate , developmental psychology , pedagogy , linguistics , reading comprehension , computer science , curriculum development , curriculum mapping , philosophy , programming language
This study investigated differences between two types of reading probe material to monitor students' oral reading fluency over time. Thirty‐six second‐grade students participated in this study. Twice each week for 5 weeks, participants read two passages from each of two sources. One source was the curriculum in which the child was being instructed at school, and the second source was the “Tests of Reading Fluency,” a set of generic (curriculum‐independent) passages. Standardized curriculum‐based measurement administration and scoring procedures were used. Level and rate of improvement (slope) of oral reading fluency were the dependent measures. Level and slope data were analyzed using two, two‐tailed t ‐tests. Also, readability of passages was calculated using two readability formulas. Correlational analyses were used to examine the relation between the readability and reading fluency. Correlations among readability and words read correct were not significant. Results of the analyses examining level and slope indicated that students read significantly more words correct in the generic reading passages than in the curriculum‐based passages. However, rate of progress was not significantly different. These results suggest that practitioners could use either set of passages to gauge students' reading progress over time. Implications for future research and practice are discussed. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.