There are relatively few studies that evaluate the quality of progress monitoring estimates derived from curriculum-based measurement of reading. Those studies that are published provide initial evidence for relatively large magnitudes of standard error relative to the expected magnitude of weekly growth. A major contributor to the observed magnitudes of standard error is the inconsistency of passage difficulty within progress monitoring passage sets. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate and estimate the magnitudes of standard error across an experimental passage set referred to as the Formative Assessment Instrumentation and Procedures for Reading (FAIP-R) and two commercially available passage sets (AIMSweb and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills [DIBELS]). Each passage set was administered twice weekly to 68 students. Results indicated significant differences in intercept, weekly growth and standard error. Estimates of standard error were smallest in magnitude for the FAIP-R passage set followed by the AIMSweb and then DIBELS passage sets. Implications for choosing a progress monitoring passage set and estimating individual student growth are discussed.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||18|
|Journal||School Psychology Review|
|State||Published - Sep 7 2009|