Another look at the “C” in CBM: Does it really matter if curriculum‐based measurement reading probes are curriculum‐based?

Abstract

Abstract This study investigated differences between two types of reading probe material to monitor students' oral reading fluency over time. Thirty‐six second‐grade students participated in this study. Twice each week for 5 weeks, participants read two passages from each of two sources. One source was the curriculum in which the child was being instructed at school, and the second source was the “Tests of Reading Fluency,” a set of generic (curriculum‐independent) passages. Standardized curriculum‐based measurement administration and scoring procedures were used. Level and rate of improvement (slope) of oral reading fluency were the dependent measures. Level and slope data were analyzed using two, two‐tailed t‐tests. Also, readability of passages was calculated using two readability formulas. Correlational analyses were used to examine the relation between the readability and reading fluency. Correlations among readability and words read correct were not significant. Results of the analyses examining level and slope indicated that students read significantly more words correct in the generic reading passages than in the curriculum‐based passages. However, rate of progress was not significantly different. These results suggest that practitioners could use either set of passages to gauge students' reading progress over time. Implications for future research and practice are discussed. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.