Progress monitoring in reading: Comparison of weekly, bimonthly, and monthly assessments for students at risk for reading difficulties in grades 2-4

Stacy Ann A. January, Ethan R. Van Norman, Theodore J Christ, Scott P. Ardoin, Tanya L. Eckert, Mary Jane White

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The present study examined the utility of two progress monitoring assessment schedules (bimonthly and monthly) as alternatives to monitoring once weekly with curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R). General education students (N = 93) in Grades 2-4 who were at risk for reading difficulties but not yet receiving special education services had their progress monitored via three assessment schedules across 1 academic year. Four mixed-factorial analyses of variance tested the effect of progress monitoring schedule (weekly, bimonthly, monthly), grade (2, 3, and 4), and the interaction effect between schedule and grade on four progress monitoring outcomes: intercept, slope, standard error of the estimate, and standard error of the slope. Results indicated that (a) progress monitoring schedule significantly predicted each outcome, (b) grade predicted each progress monitoring outcome except the standard error of the slope, and (c) the effect of schedule on each outcome did not depend on students' grade levels. Overall, findings from this study reveal that collecting CBM-R data less frequently than weekly may be a viable option for educators monitoring the progress of students in Grades 2-4 who are at risk for reading difficulties.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)83-94
Number of pages12
JournalSchool Psychology Review
Volume47
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018

Fingerprint

Reading
Appointments and Schedules
school grade
monitoring
Students
student
Curriculum
Special Education
curriculum
general education
Analysis of Variance
special education
Education
educator
interaction

Cite this

Progress monitoring in reading : Comparison of weekly, bimonthly, and monthly assessments for students at risk for reading difficulties in grades 2-4. / January, Stacy Ann A.; Van Norman, Ethan R.; Christ, Theodore J; Ardoin, Scott P.; Eckert, Tanya L.; White, Mary Jane.

In: School Psychology Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, 01.03.2018, p. 83-94.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{279c155ed25f4ee9b1776a5e13090129,
title = "Progress monitoring in reading: Comparison of weekly, bimonthly, and monthly assessments for students at risk for reading difficulties in grades 2-4",
abstract = "The present study examined the utility of two progress monitoring assessment schedules (bimonthly and monthly) as alternatives to monitoring once weekly with curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R). General education students (N = 93) in Grades 2-4 who were at risk for reading difficulties but not yet receiving special education services had their progress monitored via three assessment schedules across 1 academic year. Four mixed-factorial analyses of variance tested the effect of progress monitoring schedule (weekly, bimonthly, monthly), grade (2, 3, and 4), and the interaction effect between schedule and grade on four progress monitoring outcomes: intercept, slope, standard error of the estimate, and standard error of the slope. Results indicated that (a) progress monitoring schedule significantly predicted each outcome, (b) grade predicted each progress monitoring outcome except the standard error of the slope, and (c) the effect of schedule on each outcome did not depend on students' grade levels. Overall, findings from this study reveal that collecting CBM-R data less frequently than weekly may be a viable option for educators monitoring the progress of students in Grades 2-4 who are at risk for reading difficulties.",
author = "January, {Stacy Ann A.} and {Van Norman}, {Ethan R.} and Christ, {Theodore J} and Ardoin, {Scott P.} and Eckert, {Tanya L.} and White, {Mary Jane}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.17105/SPR-2017-0009.V47-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "83--94",
journal = "School Psychology Review",
issn = "0279-6015",
publisher = "National Association of School Psychologists",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Progress monitoring in reading

T2 - Comparison of weekly, bimonthly, and monthly assessments for students at risk for reading difficulties in grades 2-4

AU - January, Stacy Ann A.

AU - Van Norman, Ethan R.

AU - Christ, Theodore J

AU - Ardoin, Scott P.

AU - Eckert, Tanya L.

AU - White, Mary Jane

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - The present study examined the utility of two progress monitoring assessment schedules (bimonthly and monthly) as alternatives to monitoring once weekly with curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R). General education students (N = 93) in Grades 2-4 who were at risk for reading difficulties but not yet receiving special education services had their progress monitored via three assessment schedules across 1 academic year. Four mixed-factorial analyses of variance tested the effect of progress monitoring schedule (weekly, bimonthly, monthly), grade (2, 3, and 4), and the interaction effect between schedule and grade on four progress monitoring outcomes: intercept, slope, standard error of the estimate, and standard error of the slope. Results indicated that (a) progress monitoring schedule significantly predicted each outcome, (b) grade predicted each progress monitoring outcome except the standard error of the slope, and (c) the effect of schedule on each outcome did not depend on students' grade levels. Overall, findings from this study reveal that collecting CBM-R data less frequently than weekly may be a viable option for educators monitoring the progress of students in Grades 2-4 who are at risk for reading difficulties.

AB - The present study examined the utility of two progress monitoring assessment schedules (bimonthly and monthly) as alternatives to monitoring once weekly with curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R). General education students (N = 93) in Grades 2-4 who were at risk for reading difficulties but not yet receiving special education services had their progress monitored via three assessment schedules across 1 academic year. Four mixed-factorial analyses of variance tested the effect of progress monitoring schedule (weekly, bimonthly, monthly), grade (2, 3, and 4), and the interaction effect between schedule and grade on four progress monitoring outcomes: intercept, slope, standard error of the estimate, and standard error of the slope. Results indicated that (a) progress monitoring schedule significantly predicted each outcome, (b) grade predicted each progress monitoring outcome except the standard error of the slope, and (c) the effect of schedule on each outcome did not depend on students' grade levels. Overall, findings from this study reveal that collecting CBM-R data less frequently than weekly may be a viable option for educators monitoring the progress of students in Grades 2-4 who are at risk for reading difficulties.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045874409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045874409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.17105/SPR-2017-0009.V47-1

DO - 10.17105/SPR-2017-0009.V47-1

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85045874409

VL - 47

SP - 83

EP - 94

JO - School Psychology Review

JF - School Psychology Review

SN - 0279-6015

IS - 1

ER -