Moving Beyond Total Words Written: The Reliability, Criterion Validity, and Time Cost of Alternate Measures for Curriculum-Based Measurement in Writing

147 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.

The Technical Adequacy of Curriculum-Based and Rating-Based Measures of Written Expression for Elementary School Students (2006, methodology): “This replicates and extends previous research with alternate CBMs that has found them to be reliable and to have moderate validity coefficients with standardized tests (e.g., Espin, De La Paz, Scierka, & Roelofs, 2005; Espin, Scierka, Skare, & Halverson, 1999; Espin et al., 2000; Gansle et al., 2002”
Elementary school teachers' perceptions of curriculum-based measures of written expression (2006, methodology): “…of written expression that are better related to criterion measures like norm-referenced measures or teacher rank of student writing skills (e.g., Gansle et al., 2002; Gansle et al., 2004), measures that have been shown here to be well accepted by teachers as representative of student writing…”
Curriculum-Based Measurement of Writing in Kindergarten and First Grade: An Investigation of Production and Qualitative Scores (2010, background): “Although face validity was not investigated, other researchers have reported that teachers may be resistant to relying solely on production scores to assess writing performance (see Gansle et al., 2002).”
Technical Features of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Writing (2007, methodology): “Gansle et al. (2004) then used six “promising” variables— as determined by Gansle et al.”