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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 83-94 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | School Psychology Review |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Mar 1 2018 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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
VL - 47
SP - 83
EP - 94
JO - School Psychology Review
JF - School Psychology Review
SN - 0279-6015
IS - 1
ER -