CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105Psychometric Methodologies and TestingReading and Literacy DevelopmentBehavioral and Psychological Studies

An Investigation of the Reliability and Standard Error of Measurement of Words Read Correctly Per Minute Using Curriculum-Based Measurement

Poncy, Brian C., Skinner, Christopher H., Axtell, Philip K.·2005·Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
DOI 10.1177/073428290502300403
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Generalizability (G) theory was used with a sample of 37 third-grade students to assess the variability in words correct per minute (WCPM) scores caused by student skill and pas sage variability. Reliability-like coefficients and the SEM based on a specific number of assess ments using different combinations of passages demonstrated how manipulating probe vari ability could reduce measurement error. Results showed that 81 % of the variance was due to student skill, 10% was due to passage or probe variability, and 9% was due to unac counted sources of error. Reliability-like coeffi cients ranged from .81 to .99, and SEMs ranged from 18 to 4 WCPM depending on the number of probes given. When passage vari ability was controlled, SEMs were decreased and ranged from 12 to 4 WCPM. Results indi cated that WCPM scores yield high reliability- like coefficients but also have a large SEM that can be reduced by administering multiple alternate passages. Discussion focuses on con ducting research designed to identify more equivalent passages in order to reduce erro neous relative and absolute decisions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/073428290502300403

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • In Hintze et al.'s second study, participants and grade level explained most of the variance with very little influence from CBM progress monitoring procedures, and generalizability coefficients were .80.

    “In the second study, participants and grade level again explained most of the variance with very little influence from CBM progress monitoring procedures.Generalizability coefficients were .80.”

    From Curriculum-Based Measurement: A Brief History of Nearly Everything from the 1970s to the Present (2013) · cites this paper as [84]

  • Hintze et al. found that participants and developmental changes explained most of the variance with a generalizability coefficient of .90 with two sets of materials and .82 with one set for intraindividual decisions, and .98 using only three reading passages for interindividual decisions.

    “In the first study, participants and developmental changes explained most of the variance with a generalizability coefficient of .90 with two sets of materials and .82with one set of materials in making intraindividual decisions.For interindividual decisions, the generalizability coefficients were also high (.98) using only three reading passages.”

    From Curriculum-Based Measurement: A Brief History of Nearly Everything from the 1970s to the Present (2013) · cites this paper as [84]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Axtell, P. K.
Affiliations
University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2005-12
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
326-338
ISSN
  • 0734-2829 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-5144
DOI
10.1177/073428290502300403
OpenAlex
W2019696777
Cited by
105
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 16
FWCI
5.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
reading speed, curriculum-based measurement, generalizability theory, standard error of measurement, reliability statistics, third grade, reading assessment

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