Cited by 192Behavioral and Psychological StudiesReading and Literacy DevelopmentPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Technical Adequacy of the Maze Task for Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading Growth

Shin, Jongho, Deno, Stanley L., Espin, Christine·2000·The Journal of Special Education

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) for assessing student growth over time. Participants were 43 second graders whose reading performance was measured monthly over 1 school year with the maze task. Technical characteristics of the CBM maze task were examined in terms of reliability, sensitivity, and validity for assessing student growth. Results showed that the maze task had good alternate-form reliability, with a mean coefficient of .81 and 1- to 3-month intervals between testing. The maze task also sensitively reflected improvement of student performance over a school year and revealed interindividual differences in growth rates. Finally, growth rates estimated on repeated maze scores were positively related to later reading performance on a standardized reading test; in addition, although a significant difference was not found, general education students appeared to develop reading proficiency faster than remedial education students. Results support the use of the maze task as a reliable, sensitive, and valid data collection procedure for assessing reading growth.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/002246690003400305

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shin, J., Deno, S. L., & Espin, C.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Shin, Jongho
Venue
The Journal of Special Education
Published
2000-10
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
164-172
ISSN
  • 0022-4669 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4764
OpenAlex
W2141392841
Cited by
192
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Journal of Special Education (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 › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
maze task, curriculum-based measurement, reading growth, technical adequacy, reliability statistics, sensitivity, validity, second grade students, reading proficiency, growth rate, standardized reading tests

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