Cited by 33Behavioral and Psychological StudiesEducational Assessment and PedagogyEducational Assessment and Improvement

Varying the Difficulty of Testing Materials: Implications for Curriculum-Based Measurement

Shinn, Mark R., Gleason, Mary M., Tindal, Gerald·1989·The Journal of Special Education

Abstract

Systematic monitoring of student progress using curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is associated with improved student achievement. CBM uses a long-term goal measurement strategy that requires specifying the level of a curriculum the handicapped student is expected to master in 1 year. Student progress is assessed routinely using material sampled from this level of the curriculum. This study examined effects of curriculum level difficulty on estimates of student progress. The progress of 30 mildly handicapped students was monitored simultaneously in alternative levels of a reading curriculum, and students' slopes of improvement and variability of performance were compared. Regardless of the level of the curriculum in which progress was assessed, the slope of improvement was similar over time. Implications for selecting progress monitoring measurement materials are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/002246698902300208

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • Domain sampling (breadth and representation) in the curriculum is an important issue in developing progress monitoring probes, influencing sensitivity to change and rate of progress.

    “Domain sampling (breadth and representation) in the curriculum is an important issue to consider in developing progress monitoring probes, influencing sensitivity to change and rate of progress [45][46][47][48].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shinn, M. R., Gleason, M. M., & Tindal, G.
Affiliations
University of Oregon (US)
Venue
The Journal of Special Education
Published
1989-07
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
223-233
ISSN
  • 0022-4669 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4764
OpenAlex
W2157275069
Cited by
33
References
29
Citations by year
2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.57
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 › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
Keywords
curriculum-based measurement, progress monitoring, mildly handicapped students, test difficulty, reading curriculum, performance variability, academic performance

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