Applications of curriculum-based measures in making decisions with multiple reference points
Abstract
We write this chapter using a historical discourse, both in the chronology of research and in the development that has occurred over the years with curriculum-based measurement (CBM). More practically, however, we depict the chronology in terms of the sequence of decisions that educators make as they provide special services to students with disabilities. In the first part of the chapter, we begin with a pair of seminal documents that were written in the late 1970s to begin the story of CBM. In the second part of the chapter, we begin with the first decision an educator needs to make in providing special services and then we continue through the chronology of decisions to affect change in learning for individual students. In the end, we conclude with the need to integrate these decisions with multiple references for interpreting data: normative to allocate resources, criterion to diagnose skill deficits, and individual to evaluate instruction.
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?
CBM was originally coined in the mid-1970s by Deno and Mirkin, who articulated mastery monitoring and general outcome measurement.
“Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) was originally coined in the mid-1970s by Deno and Mirkin [5] in which they articulated two systems for teachers to use in systematically monitoring students' progress over time: (a) mastery monitoring (mm) and (b) general outcome measurement (GOM).”
From Curriculum-Based Measurement: A Brief History of Nearly Everything from the 1970s to the Present (2013) · cites this paper as [5]
Cites
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003) · Learning Disabilities Research & Practice · doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00072 · Cited by 868 · see citing works
Developments in Curriculum-Based Measurement
Deno, S. L. (2003) · The Journal of Special Education · doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801 · Cited by 653 · see citing works
Varying the Difficulty of Testing Materials: Implications for Curriculum-Based Measurement
Shinn, M. R., Gleason, M. M., & Tindal, G. (1989) · The Journal of Special Education · doi:10.1177/002246698902300208 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Tindal, G., & Nese, J. F. T.
- Venue
- Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities
- Publisher
- Emerald Group Publishing Limited
- Published
- 2011-01
- Pages
- 31-58
- ISSN
- 0735-004X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2497953590
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.09
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (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 › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- curriculum-based measurement, special education decision-making, students with disabilities, multiple reference points, reference values, personalized learning
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