CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 231Writing and Handwriting EducationBehavioral and Psychological StudiesEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Technical Features of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Writing: A Literature Review

McMaster, Kristen, Espin, Christine·2007·The Journal of Special Education
DOI 10.1177/00224669070410020301
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article reviews research examining technical features of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in written expression. Twenty-eight technical reports and published articles are included in this review. Studies examining the development and technical adequacy of measures of written expression are summarized, beginning with research conducted at the Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities at the University of Minnesota and followed by extensions of this work. Differences in technical features of writing tasks, sample durations, and scoring procedures employed within and across elementary and secondary levels are highlighted. Gaps in research addressing the technical adequacy of CBM in written expression are identified, and implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00224669070410020301

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1985). California achievement test. Monterey, CA: Author.
  2. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1996). CTB/McGraw-Hill, TerraNova, Monterey, CA: Author.
  3. Deshler, D.D., Ellis, E., & Lenz, B.K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
  4. Espin, C., Wallace, T., Campbell, H., Lembke, E.S., Long, J.D., & Ticha, R. (2006). Predicting the success of secondary-school students on state standards tests: Validity and reliability of curriculum-based measures in written expression. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  5. Hammill, D.D., & Larsen, S.C. (1978). Test of written language. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
  6. Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning and NCS Pearson. (2002). Minnesota Basic Skills Test (BST) technical manual for the academic year 2001—2002.
  7. Mitzel, H.C., & Borden, C.F. (2000). LEAP for the 21st century: 1999 operational final technical report. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill .
  8. Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Deno, S.L. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Vol. IRLD-RR-109). University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
  9. Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson psychoeducational battery (Rev. ed.). Allen, TX: DLM.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
McMaster, K., & Espin, C.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
McMaster, Kristen
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Special Education
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2007-08
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
68-84
ISSN
  • 0022-4669 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4764
DOI
10.1177/00224669070410020301
OpenAlex
W2020209014
Cited by
231
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 16
FWCI
41.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
The Journal of Special Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
curriculum-based measurement, written expression, technical adequacy, writing assessment, writing assignments, sample duration, scoring methods, learning disabilities, primary and secondary school students

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