Formative Assessment Using Cbm-R Cut Scores To Track Progress Toward Success On State-Mandated Achievement Tests: a Comparison of Methods

By B. Silberglitt, John M. Hintze. 2005

164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d2771840081356593690b38d842428c74f606f22

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Universal Screening in Mathematics for the Primary Grades: Beginnings of a Research Base (2012, methodology): “However, the response to intervention (RTI) research community has become increasingly aware of the phenomenal waste of resources that comes with false positives, and there has been more focus on specificity (see, for example, Silberglitt & Hintze, 2005).”
Literature Synthesis on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading (2007, methodology): “Hintze and Silberglitt (2005) and Silberglitt and Hintze (2005) examined various methods for determining cut scores using the CBM measures.”
Validation and Decision Accuracy of Early Numeracy Skill Indicators (2008, methodology): “Consistent with previous research (Hintze, Ryan, & Stoner, 2003; Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005; Silberglitt & Hintze, 2005), ROC analyses were used in this study to examine (a) the accuracy of screening decisions made on the basis of cutoff scores (Streiner, 2003; Swets, 1992), (b) the efficiency in…”
Long-Term Diagnostic Accuracy of Curriculum-Based Measures in Reading and Mathematics (2008, background): “…offering a high degree of flexibility to the researcher, also provides complete control of the levels of diagnostic accuracy desired and introduces some level of subjectivity into the selection of these cut scores (Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005; Shapiro et al., 2006; Silberglitt & Hintze, 2005).”
Service Delivery for Response to Intervention: Core Components and Directions for Future Research (2007, background): “Silberglitt and Hintze (2005) demonstrated strong sensitivity and specificity for first- to third-grade CBM oral reading fluency in predicting scores on Minnesota’s state test at third grade.”
Creating a Progress–Monitoring System in Reading for Middle–School Students: Tracking Progress toward Meeting High–Stakes Standards (2010, result): “Speciﬁc to the present study, both reading-aloud (Crawford, Tindal, & Stieber, 2001; Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005; McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004; Silberglitt & Hintze, 2005; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001) and maze-selection measures (Wiley & Deno, 2005) have been shown to predict performance on state standards…”
Estimates of the Standard Error of Measurement for Curriculum-Based Measures of Oral Reading Fluency (2007, background): “…criterion standards of expected performance across the primary grades (e.g., Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001; Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005; McGlinchey & Hixson, 2004; Silberglitt & Hintze, 2005; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001), which can be used to supplement local norms and progress monitoring data.”