Estimates of the Standard Error of Measurement for Curriculum-Based Measures of Oral Reading Fluency
By Theodore J. Christ, B. Silberglitt. 2007
131 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Safety Research
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ae1069c50b681d30ba45be2ce45ed5a17cc958fd
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
In Developmental and Educational Psychology
In Safety Research
Citations in the corpus
- Illuminating the Effects of Dynamic Lighting on Student Learning (2012, background): “Christ and Silberglitt (2007) evaluated benchmark AIMSweb ORF scores for 8,200 students in Grades 1 through 5 from five rural and suburban school districts in the upper Midwest using AIMSweb scores for three of the probes.”
- CAN READABILITY FORMULAS BE USED TO SUCCESSFULLY GAUGE DIFFICULTY OF READING MATERIALS (2014, methodology): “Readability estimates from eight formulas (i.e., Dale-Chall, Flesch-Kincaid, FOG, Forcast, Fry, Powers-SumnerKearl [PSK], SMOG, Spache) were compared with fluency rates obtained from six CBM-R passages.”
- Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Passage equivalence and probe-set development (2009, background): “…in the literature, the information about the precision of CBM-R level estimates can be gleaned from either the distribution of scores acrossmultiple CBM-R administrations or the standard error ofmeasurement (SEM) (Christ& Coolong-Chaffin, 2007; Christ & Hintze, 2007; Christ & Silberglitt, 2007).”