CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Behavioral and Psychological StudiesReading and Literacy DevelopmentEducational Assessment and Improvement

Monitoring Reading Growth: Goal Setting, Measurement Frequency, and Methods of Evaluation

Jenkins, Joseph, Terjeson, Kari J.·2011·Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
DOI 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00322.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined effects of goal setting, frequency of progress monitoring, and method of evaluating progress on the number of instructional change prompts generated by reading–curriculum–based measurements (CBM). Participants were 31 high–incidence special education students in grades 2–6 selected from 8 schools. Following baseline measurements, researchers administered grade–level CBM passages every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. Comparisons included 3 goal levels (0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 word growth per week), 3 monitoring/evaluation schedules (every 2, 4, or 8 weeks), and 2 methods for evaluating progress (points below the aim line or slope). Overall, more ambitious goals, less frequent monitoring, and using slope to evaluate progress generated more instructional change prompts. Results favored less frequent monitoring and using slope to evaluate progress.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00322.x

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Steeper slopes may occur because of lower performance obtained when only one versus four baseline measures is used in calculating slope, and more accurate estimates occur when measurement is either pre-post or every three weeks.

    “Steeper slopes may occur because of the lower performance obtained when only one (versus four) baseline measure is used in calculating slope.Furthermore, more accurate estimates occur when measurement is either pre-post or every three weeks [75].”

    From Curriculum-Based Measurement: A Brief History of Nearly Everything from the 1970s to the Present (2013) · cites this paper as [75]

  • Two research exceptions reflecting different schedules report generally similar results to the earlier research on growth: Jenkins and Terjeson and Jenkins et al.

    “Two research exceptions reflecting different schedules report generally similar results to the earlier research on growth: Jenkins and Terjeson [76] and Jenkins et al. [75].”

    From Curriculum-Based Measurement: A Brief History of Nearly Everything from the 1970s to the Present (2013) · cites this paper as [75]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jenkins, J., & Terjeson, K. J.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-02
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
28-35
ISSN
  • 0938-8982 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5826
DOI
10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00322.x
OpenAlex
W2038354761
Cited by
43
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
8.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
Keywords
reading progress monitoring, goal setting, measurement frequency, curriculum-based measurement, reading growth

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