Differential Effects of Two Approaches to Supporting Teachers' Use of Curriculum-Based Measurement
Abstract
The differential effects of two types of follow-up support (self-monitoring and consultation) on teachers' use of a data-based instruction system and student achievement in mathematics computation were investigated. Special education teachers monitored the progress of two students with mild disabilities in math computation with curriculum-based measurement (CBM). Of 18 teachers, 8 received university-based consultation bimonthly; 10 teachers self-monitored their use of CBM. Results indicated that students in both groups made comparable, significant achievement in math computation. Furthermore, the degree of implementation of CBM was similar for teachers in both groups. Implications for instructional consultation for teachers using data-based instruction such as CBM, and recommendations for additional research are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When teachers implemented CBM more accurately, their students made significantly greater math gains than students with teachers who implemented CBM less accurately or did not use CBM.
“In a related and later study, Allinder [197] also reported that when teachers implemented CBM more accurately, their students made significantly greater math gains than the students with teachers who either implemented CBM less accurately or who did not use CBM.”
From Curriculum-Based Measurement: A Brief History of Nearly Everything from the 1970s to the Present (2013) · cites this paper as [197]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 31 · Cited by 27
- Authors
- Allinder, R. M., & BeckBest, M. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
- Venue
- School Psychology Review
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-06-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 287-298
- ISSN
- 0279-6015 (ISSN-L)
- 2372-966X
- OpenAlex
- W271263560
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 4.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- School Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Social Sciences › Education › Collaborative Teaching and Inclusion
- Keywords
- curriculum-based measurement, data-based instruction, teacher consultation, self-monitoring, follow-up support, special education teachers, mild disabilities, mathematics computation, academic performance, implementation fidelity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
