Best Practices in Curriculum-Based Assessment.

By Todd A. Gravois, E. E. Gickling. 2002

92 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Impact of Cover, Copy, and Compare on fluency outcomes for students with disabilities and math deficits: A review of the literature (2017, background): “Conversely, a mismatch can lead to student boredom, frustration, and low performance outcomes (Burns et al., 2006; Daly et al., 1996; Gravois & Gickling, 2002).”
Comparison of Retention Rates Using Traditional, Drill Sandwich, and Incremental Rehearsal Flash Card Methods (2002, background): “Gickling (Gickling & Havertape, 1981; Gickling & Rosenfield, 1995) proposed an optimal ratio of 70% to 85% known items (and 15% to 30% unknown) when rehearsing drill tasks.”
Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation (2005, background): “Two competing hypotheses exist to explain the results. Gickling and Thompson (1985) proposed that providing an appropriate level of challenge leads to increased academic outcomes and hypothesized that 70% to 85% known items, with 15% to 30% unknown, represents appropriate challenge.”
The Technical Adequacy of Curriculum-Based and Rating-Based Measures of Written Expression for Elementary School Students (2006, unknown): “For example, curriculum-based assessment (CBA; Gravois & Gickling, 2002; Shapiro, 1996) and curriculum-based evaluation (CBE; Howell, Fox, & Morehead, 1993) are more comprehensive assessment systems that supplement CBM’s rate-based measures.”