Literature Synthesis on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading

By Miya Miura Wayman, T. Wallace, Hilda Ives Wiley, R. Tichá, C. Espin. 2007

444 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e976a033a33307d91ed2473ce83f515e52917120

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

1. C. Espin
2. E. Shapiro
3. T. Wallace
4. John M. Hintze
5. Sarah E. Carlson
6. Ben Seipel
7. Kristen L. McMaster
8. Milena A. Keller‐Margulis

In Education

1. C. Espin
2. E. Shapiro
3. T. Wallace
4. Milena A. Keller‐Margulis
5. Kristen L. McMaster
6. P. W. van den Broek
7. Sarah E. Carlson
8. John M. Hintze

In Statistics and Probability

1. C. Espin
2. T. Wallace
3. E. Shapiro
4. Milena A. Keller‐Margulis
5. Kristen L. McMaster
6. P. W. van den Broek
7. Erica S. Lembke
8. Jeffrey D. Long

Citations in the corpus

• Long-Term Diagnostic Accuracy of Curriculum-Based Measures in Reading and Mathematics (2008, background): “…for over 2 decades (cf. Fuchs, Tindal, Fuchs et al., 1983; Fuchs, Tindal, Shinn et al., 1983; Good & Jefferson, 1998; Marston, 1989; Shinn, 1989; Wayman et al., 2007), with reliability coefficients that ranged from .82 for test–retest reliability to as high as .99 for interrater reliability…”
• Creating a Progress–Monitoring System in Reading for Middle–School Students: Tracking Progress toward Meeting High–Stakes Standards (2010, background): “As discussed in Wayman et al. (2007), determination of passage difficulty is an important, but complicated, task for progress monitoring.”
• Development of a new reading comprehension assessment: Identifying comprehension differences among readers (2014, background): “80 for elementary school participants (Wayman et al., 2007).”
• Connecting Cognitive Theory and Assessment: Measuring Individual Differences in Reading Comprehension (2012, methodology): “Various methods have been proposed for improving form equivalence, and proposals have been made for methods that equate scores “after the fact” (e.g., Ardoin, Suldo, Witt, Aldrich, & McDonald, 2005; Poncy, Skinner, & Axtell, 2005; Tolar et al., 2012; Wayman et al., 2007).”
• Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders (2012, unknown): “Correlations between maze selection scores and other reading measures typically range from r =.60 to .80 for elementary-aged students (Wayman et al., 2007).”