Best Practices in Using Curriculum-Based Measurement in a Problem-Solving Model.

By M. Shinn. 2002

193 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9d5e7a54ebda0a700b1f50f3a40cc70907a92671

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Estimates of the Standard Error of Measurement for Curriculum-Based Measures of Oral Reading Fluency (2007, methodology): “…published estimates of reliability in the research literature, estimates of test–retest reliability for individual probes range from .56 to .96 (Hintze & Shapiro, 1997; Hintze, Shapiro, & Lutz, 1994) and median estimates across three probes range from .89 to .97 (Howe & Shinn, 2002; Marston, 1989).”
Evaluating Curriculum-Based Measurement Slope Estimates Using Data From Triannual Universal Screenings (2008, methodology): “A student’s median score from each probe set is used to estimate the student’s level of performance at each screening and the three median scores are used to derive a growth estimate (Shinn, 2002).”
Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Passage equivalence and probe-set development (2009, background): “Nevertheless, developers of CBM-R passage sets (e.g., Good&Kaminski, 2002; Howe & Shinn, 2002) and researchers use readability formulas to constrain passage difficulty across passages.”
Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond (2005, background): “Curriculum-BasedAssessment and Curriculum-Based Measurement procedures have been designed to identify skill deficits (Gravois & Gickling, 2002; Shapiro, 1996; Shinn, 2002).”
Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention (2005, methodology): “Although instructional decision-making models frequently use weekly skill probes (Shinn, 2002), RTI research has used both weekly and pre- and post-intervention scores.”
Developments in Curriculum-Based Measurement (2003, methodology): “When local norms are created, peer references are more broadly representative of students in the same grade, in the same school, or across schools within a district (Marston & Magnusson, 1988; Shinn, 2002).”
Short-Term Estimates of Growth Using Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading Fluency: Estimating Standard Error of the Slope to Construct Confidence Intervals (2006, methodology): “CBM-Rs should be collected twice per week until a minimum of 10 CBM-R data points have been established (Shinn, 2002).”
Current Status and Future Directions of School-Based Behavioral Interventions (2004, background): “For example, normative data exist for a variety of behaviors such as social skills (Gresham & Elliott, 1990), internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Achenbach, 1998), and academic achievement (Good, Gruba, & Kaminski, 2002; Shinn, 2002).”
The Response to Intervention (RTI) Approach in Early Childhood (2011, methodology): “IGDIs were originally developed in an effort to create measures for screening and progress monitoring similar to K–12 measures such as Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM; Shinn, 2008) and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Kaminski, Cummings, PowellSmith, & Good, 2008).”
Examining the Incremental Benefits of Administering a Maze and Three Versus One Curriculum-Based Measurement Reading Probes When Conducting Universal Screening (2004, methodology): “CBM is an important tool in these efforts because it provides a method for assessing both current performance and rate of growth (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1997; Shinn, 2002).”
A Longitudinal Examination of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Predictive Validity of R-CBM and High-Stakes Testing (2005, methodology): “As can be seen, the benchmark reading assessment passages evidenced adequate alternate form reliability, were of relatively equal difficulty within grade, and increased in difficulty developmentally across grades (Howe & Shinn, 2002).”
Service Delivery for Response to Intervention: Core Components and Directions for Future Research (2007, background): “Although initial studies on the use of local (e.g., Marston & Magnusson, 1988; Shinn, 2002) and national (e.g., Foorman et al., 1998) normative student comparisons and the utility of dual-discrepancy decision making in the area of reading (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004; Speece et al., 2003)…”