Predicting Student Success on a State-mandated Performance-based Assessment Using Oral Reading Fluency

By S. Stage, M. D. Jacobsen. 2001

216 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/16d8655e44097a33cdb6316149e17a2e06d7b369

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. John M. Hintze
2. Theodore J. Christ
3. Hilda Ives Wiley
4. Margaret T. McGlinchey
5. Milena A. Keller‐Margulis
6. J. Jenkins
7. Jeffrey D. Long
8. David E. Wood

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Theodore J. Christ
2. John M. Hintze
3. C. Espin
4. B. Silberglitt
5. Hilda Ives Wiley
6. S. Deno
7. E. Shapiro
8. T. Wallace

In Statistics and Probability

1. Theodore J. Christ
2. C. Espin
3. Hilda Ives Wiley
4. T. Wallace
5. E. Shapiro
6. John M. Hintze
7. Miya Miura Wayman
8. R. Tichá

Citations in the corpus

• A Longitudinal Examination of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Predictive Validity of R-CBM and High-Stakes Testing (2005, methodology): “Stage and Jacobsen (2001), for example, examined the performance of 174 Grade 4 students who were administered R-CBM oral reading fluency passages three times during the academic year as part of benchmark assessment.”
• Reading Fluency as a Predictor of Reading Proficiency in Low-Performing, High-Poverty Schools (2008, background): “Stage and Jacobsen (2001) found the lowest correlations between ORF and a state test, the WASL, but they suspected that the low correlations were attributable to the use of written answers and extended response items on the WASL.”
• Literature Synthesis on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading (2007, methodology): “…and performance on state standards tests reported diagnostic efficiency statistics, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power, and negative predictive power (Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005; McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004; Silberglitt & Hintze, 2005; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001; see Note 2).”
• Screening for At-Risk Readers in a Response to Intervention Framework (2007, background): “When all students are included, classification accuracy is harder to achieve with an ORF screen (e.g., McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001).”
• Oral Reading and Maze Measures as Predictors of Success for English Learners on a State Standards Assessment (2005, background): “In Washington, Stage and Jacobsen (2001) examined the relationship between oral reading and the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) state test for fourth graders.”
• Estimates of the Standard Error of Measurement for Curriculum-Based Measures of Oral Reading Fluency (2007, background): “Although the mean levels of performances are not necessarily relevant to calculations of SEM, they demonstrate that the aggregated data set did approximate the expected trends of normative development across grades (cf. Good et al., 2001; McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001).”
• Creating a Progress–Monitoring System in Reading for Middle–School Students: Tracking Progress toward Meeting High–Stakes Standards (2010, background): “…to the present study, both reading-aloud (Crawford, Tindal, & Stieber, 2001; Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005; McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004; Silberglitt & Hintze, 2005; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001) and maze-selection measures (Wiley & Deno, 2005) have been shown to predict performance on state standards tests.”
• Modeling the Relationship Between Oral Reading Fluency and Performance on a Statewide Reading Test (2006, methodology): “In another fourth-grade study, Stage and Jacobsen (2001) observed a correlation of .44 between oral reading fluency in May and the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (Reading Test) in May.”
• Long-Term Diagnostic Accuracy of Curriculum-Based Measures in Reading and Mathematics (2008, background): “…reading and math were consistent with previous research showing such relations across multiple states (Barger, 2003; Buck & Torgeson, 2003; Good et al., 2001; McGlinchey & Hixon, 2004; Shapiro et al., 2006; Roehrig et al., 2008; Shaw & Shaw, 2002; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001; Vander Meer et al., 2005).”
• Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Predict Performance on State Assessments in Reading (2004, methodology): “One hundred WCPM was selected as the cut score due to previous research identifying this metric as a cut score (Fuchs & Deno, 1982; Hasbrouck & Tindal, 1992; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001).”