Accuracy of Readability Estimates' Predictions of CBM Performance.

By S. Ardoin, Shannon M. Suldo, Josepha Witt, S. Aldrich, Erin McDonald. 2005

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b31206ba1e5b790c2dda7bd4adef4e047e5a55df

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Theodore J. Christ
2. C. Espin
3. John C. Begeny
4. Jeffrey D. Long
5. H. Campbell
6. Erica S. Lembke
7. T. Wallace

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. C. Espin
2. S. Ardoin
3. John C. Begeny
4. Diana J. Greene
5. Hilda Ives Wiley
6. Theodore J. Christ
7. T. Wallace
8. Miya Miura Wayman

In Information Systems

1. John C. Begeny

Citations in the corpus

• Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading: Standard Errors Associated With Progress Monitoring Outcomes From DIBELS, AIMSweb, and an Experimental Passage Set (2009, unknown): “Furthermore, research directly evaluating the utility of readability formulas for selecting equivalent passages revealed minimal to no relationship between students’ oral reading fluency and the readability formulas typically used within the CBM-R literature (Ardoin et al., 2005; Christ & Ardoin, 20”
• Increasing Elementary-aged Students’ Reading Fluency with Small-group Interventions: A Comparison of Repeated Reading, Listening Passage Preview, and Listening Only Strategies (2009, methodology): “…passages (henceforth described as passages A, B, and C) because (a) readability levels do not always depict passage difficulty level accurately (Ardoin et al. 2005) and (b) the median score from three reading fluency assessments provides a more accurate estimate of a student’s true reading…”
• Literature Synthesis on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading (2007, methodology): “Given the time-consuming nature of the type of approach suggested by Ardoin et al. (2005), and the positive treatment validity results reported in Stecker et al. (2005), use of passages selected from controlled sources, such as basalreading series, is probably sufficient for such classroom use.”
• Creating a Progress–Monitoring System in Reading for Middle–School Students: Tracking Progress toward Meeting High–Stakes Standards (2010, methodology): “The most common technique for determining passage equivalence, use of readability formulas, is not reliable (see Ardoin, Suldo, Witt, Aldrich, & McDonald, 2005; Compton, Appleton, & Hosp, 2004).”
• Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Passage equivalence and probe-set development (2009, background): “Researchers who studied the use of readability formulas all concluded that readability formulas were poor predictors of students' oral reading fluency on CBM-R passages (Ardoin et al., 2005; Compton, Appleton, & Hosp, 2004; Hintze & Christ, 2004).”
• Evaluating Curriculum-Based Measurement Slope Estimates Using Data From Triannual Universal Screenings (2008, background): “Prior research has found that readability formulas are insufficient for selecting equivalent level probes (Ardoin et al., 2005).”
• Does Text Complexity Matter in the Elementary Grades? A Research Synthesis of Text Difficulty and Elementary Students’ Reading Fluency and Comprehension (2017, methodology): “%) were not situated in any explicit theoretical framework or perspective (e.g., Ardoin et al. 2005; Morgan et al. 2000).”
• CAN READABILITY FORMULAS BE USED TO SUCCESSFULLY GAUGE DIFFICULTY OF READING MATERIALS (2014, methodology): “Most other researchers have looked for relative differences in readability estimates without regard for absolute grade levels (e.g., Ardoin et al., 2005; Compton et al., 2004; Powell-Smith & Bradley-Klug, 2001), yet as stated previously, teachers are more likely to consider the readability estimate…”