The Basics of CurriculumBased Measurement CBM Tools for
The Basics of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM): Tools for Measuring Skills and RTI Presented by: Mark R. Shinn, Ph. D. Chief Scientist markshinn@me. com http: //markshinn. org Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
l Show why and how CBM was developed to meet the needs of special education students more than 30 years ago. l Present information on CBM and how it is used in (universal) screening and progress monitoring. l Address controversies in CBM and facilitating implementation Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 2
Disclosure l l l Mark R. Shinn, Ph. D. Serves as a Consultant for AIMSweb, which provides CBM assessment materials and organizes and report the information from 3 tiers, including RTI in the Role of Chief Scientist Mark R. Shinn, Ph. D. Serves as a Consultant for Glencoe Publishing for their Jamestown Reading Navigator (JRN) product Mark R. Shinn, Ph. D. Serves as a Consultant for Vmath, a remedial mathematics intervention from Voyager Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 3
For More Information, Explore http: //markshinn. org Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 4
Some Modest Credibility Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 5
Why and How CBM Researchers Around 1981 Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 6
Developed to Provide Tools to Write IEP Goals and Monitor Progress l l l Original Legislation (EACHA or PL 94 -142) Required “New Concept” of IEPs, Annual Goals, Progress Monitoring Best Available Technology (. . . with 80% Accuracy) Was Not Defensible Emerging Behavior Practices with the Importance of Single Subject Methods and Graphing Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 7
1978 Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities (IRLD), Funded by Congress, Formalizes Stanley Deno’s Research that Began in 1971 and Conceptualized in. . Deno, S. L. , & Mirkin, P. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 8
1979 Set of Criteria for Scientifically Based Progress Monitoring Tools Established as Described in. . . Jenkins, J. R. , Deno, S. L. , & Mirkin, P. K. (1979). Measuring pupil progress toward the least restrictive environment. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 81 -92. Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 9
1979 Criteria l l l Psychometrically Sound l Reliable l Valid Sensitive to Short Term Improvement Easy to Do l Easy to Learn l Easy to Score l Time Efficient l Inexpensive Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 10
1979 Criteria l l Note the Similarity of These Criteria to those Adopted in 2003 by the US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) National Center for Student Progress Monitoring These 2003 Criteria Were Derived from APA, AERA, and NCM Assessment Standards Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 11
Initial Outcomes: Progress Monitoring Tools in l l Reading Written Expression Spelling Very Preliminary Work in Mathematics Computation Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 12
Validated Progress Monitoring Measure: A Standardized Measure of Oral Reading (R-CBM) It was a pretty good composition. I felt proud knowing it was the best one at my school. After I’d read it five times, I was impatient to start reading it out loud. I followed the book’s directions again. First I read the composition out loud without trying to sound impressive, just to hear what the words sounded like. I did that a couple of times. Then I moved over to my full-length mirror and read the composition out loud in front of it a few times. At first I just read it. Then I practiced looking up and making eye contact. Of course I was making eye contact with myself, and that felt pretty silly, but that was what the book said to do. Then I went on to reading the composition to an audience. This consisted of my favorite teddy bear and Amanda, my best doll, the only one I couldn’t bear to give up when I outgrew dolls last Amy, A Typical 4 th Grade Student year. Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 13
1979 Field Testing Begins, Primarily in Pine County Special Education Cooperative, Minnesota Initiated by Gary Germann, Special Education Director, Who. . Became First Setting for Implementing What Became an RTI Model Retired 20 Years Later and Founded Edformation and AIMSweb Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 14
1980 Practical Use of CBM Begins, Primarily in Pine County Special Education Cooperative and St. Paul MN and Minneapolis MN Schools As Progress Monitoring Tool in Special Education Applications Screening and Entitlement Decisions General Education “Benchmarking” Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 15
1981 First Refereed Journal Article Describing Scientific Integrity Deno, S. L. , Mirkin, P. , & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49(1), 36 -45. Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 16
Fast Forward Through the Years Explosion of Research, Spearheaded by L. S. Fuchs and Doug Fuchs, Among Numerous Others Expansion of Research to Other Areas (e. g. , Early Literacy, Mathematics) and Other Measures (e. g. , Maze) Expansion of Practice to Use of CBM as Part of a Comprehensive Assessment Model Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 17
See. . . Fuchs, L. S. , & Fuchs, D. (2008). Best practices in progress monitoring reading and mathematics at the elementary level. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds. ), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 21472164). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Hosp, M. K. , Hosp, J. L. , & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to Curriculum-Based Measurement. New York, NY: Guilford. Miura Wayman, M. , Wallace, T. , Ives Wiley, H. , Ticha, R. , & Espin, C. (2007). LIterature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85 -120. Shinn, M. R. (2008). Best practices in Curriculum-Based Measurement and its use in a Problem-Solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds. ), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 243 -262). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 18
CBM in 2008 Practice The Big Ideas for Preventing Reading Failure in Grades K-3: 1. Increase the quality, consistency, and reach of instruction in every K-3 classroom 2. Universal Screening and Timely and Valid Assessments of Reading Growth for Progress Monitoring 3. Provide more intensive interventions to “catch up” the struggling readers Modified from J. Torgesen, www. fcrr. org Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 19
Challenges in Fulfilling This Vision l Educators Have LOTS Of Ways of Testing Students in Reading l Not All These Ways of Testing Students Are Scientifically Based, Particularly For Progress Monitoring l Until We Have a Scientifically Based, Efficient, and Uniform Method for Assessing Response for ALL Students, Selecting and Evaluating Interventions Will Be “Coke versus Pepsi” l It Would Be Desirable that the Tool(s) We Use to Monitor Progress Also Could Be Used for Universal Screening Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 20
R-CBM Can Be Used for Screening and Progress Monitoring It was a pretty good composition. I felt proud knowing it was the best one at my school. After I’d read it five times, I was impatient to start reading it out loud. I followed the book’s directions again. First I read the composition out loud without trying to sound impressive, just to hear what the words sounded like. I did that a couple of times. Then I moved over to my full-length mirror and read the composition out loud in front of it a few times. At first I just read it. Then I practiced looking up and making eye contact. Of course I was making eye contact with myself, and that felt pretty silly, but that was what the book said to do. Then I went on to reading the composition to an audience. This consisted of my favorite teddy bear and Amanda, my best doll, the only one I couldn’t bear to give up when I outgrew dolls last year. Amy, A Typical 4 th Grade Student Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 21
We Can Measure the “Discrepancy” or Quantify “Educational Need” No Significant Discrepancy Educational Need Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 22
Schools Use CBM in Universal Screening Instead of Referral Driven Practices < 25 th Tier 2 Candidates <10 th Individual Problem Solving and/or Tier 3 Candidates
Progress Monitoring Over a Short Term for All Students Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 24
Or Even More Frequently for Some Students Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 25
Provides Qualitative Information as Well As Quantitative Reads Efficiently √ Reads Accurately--Greater than 95% √ Reads with Expression and Prosody √ Has Effective Strategy for Word They Don’t Know √ Reading Errors Preserve Meaning Rather than √ DISTORT Meaning Engages in Comprehension Self-Monitoring (Self Corrects) √ Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 26
Universal Screening and More Severe Need More Severe Educational Need Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 27
US Department of Education Review Gives Us Confidence About Scientifically Based www. studentprogress. org Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 28
Most Tools that Meet Standards are Members of the Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) “Family”
Progress Monitoring Across 3 Tiers Tier 3 and Special Education: Assess Progress Most Frequently (1 x-2 x Per Week) Tier 2 Assess Progress MORE Frequently (12 x Per Month) Tier 1: Assess Frequently Enough for Universal Screening and Some Progress (3 x Per Year) Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 30
Begin By Building Quality Tier 3 Progress Monitoring Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 31
Tier 2: Strategic Monitoring of At Risk Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 32
Monitoring Progress at Tier 1: Benchmark Assessment to Measure Educational Need and Benefit for All Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 33
Schools Use the Highly Similar Process to Monitor a Specific Student’s “RTI” Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 34
Build a Data Base Across Years Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 35
Controversies and Clarifications Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 36
What Does Oral Reading (and Maze) Measure? Phonemic Awareness? ALL These Skills Alphabetic Understanding? Fluency? General Reading Skill Vocabulary? Comprehension? Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 37
The National Reading Panel Graphic Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 38
General Reading and Comprehension l l General Reading or “Word Reading” Skills are Necessary, But Not Sufficient for Understanding Comprehension is Dependent on What You’re Being Asked to Read Comprehension is Dependent on How It is Assessed Comprehension Presumes Motivation and Interest Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 39
• Life Experience • Content Knowledge • Activation of Prior Knowledge And Here • Knowledge about Texts Language • Oral Language Skills • Knowledge of Language The Bigger Deficits Here Structures • Vocabulary • Cultural Influences Fluency* Reading Oral Reading is the EASIEST to We Refer to It as Knowledge General Reading Skills Measure--Let’s Get This Down and Comprehension And the MOST Unmotivated Here For Some, the Hardest Thing They’ll Ever Do Add MORE Tools The Easiest Thing To Teach The Longer It Takes. . . • Motivation & Engagement • Active Reading Strategies • Monitoring Strategies • Fix-Up Strategies Metacognition • Prosody • Automaticity/Rate • Accuracy • Decoding • Phonemic Awareness *modified slightly from presentations by Joe Torgesen, Ph. D. Co-Director, Florida Center for Reading Research; www. fcrr. org
CBM and DIBELS Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 41
DIBELS is Derived from CBM l l l Most Research on DIBELS is based on the Body of Knowledge regarding R-CBM DIBELS was designed to be a downward extension of CBM before reading With the Exception of DORF (R-CBM put into the Fluency “box”), All DIBELS Measures are Short-Term or Mastery Measures Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 42
Because They Are Short Term or Mastery Measures. . . l l l Can Over-Test Children May Test on a “Pre-Skill” When You Can Test on a Higher-Level Skills Can Be Logistically Overwhelming Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 43
Mark’s CBM Suggestions l l Use LNF as a Fall K Screener Only Adopt LSF (Letter Sounds) as the Primary Tool for K beginning in November Target Reading Wholly or Highly Decodable Passages as the Kindergarten Outcome Use the DIBELS (or other measures) Diagnostically if a Student Is Not Progressing Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 44
Norm vs Standards Based Decision Making Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 45
Standards-Based Approaches Images and Analyses Courtesy of Ben Ditkowsky, Ph. D. ben@measuredeffects. com Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 46
Use Standards-Based Approaches l l For Program Evaluation As One Goal Setting Method to Help Set Goals to “Reduce the Gap” Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 47
Using Standards. Based for Program Evaluation Images and Analyses Courtesy of Ben Ditkowsky, Ph. D. ben@measuredeffects. com
Use Norm-Based Approaches l l To Assess the Performance Discrepancy (Educational Need) Align Individual Students to Tiered Instruction Based on the Performance Discrepancy Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 49
Consider Tier 2 Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 50
Progress Monitoring Material Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 51
Mark’s CBM Suggestions Read the Manual! Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 52
What Material is PM Material? Potential Goal (and PM) Material Current Level of Performance Expected Level of Performance Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 53
l Show why and how CBM was developed to meet the needs of special education students more than 30 years ago. l Present information on CBM and how it is used in (universal) screening and progress monitoring. l Address controversies in CBM and facilitating implementation Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 54
Let’s Go! Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 55
- Slides: 55