This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Clarke, B. Articles by Chard, D. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

An Analysis of Early Numeracy Curriculum-Based Measurement

Examining the Role of Growth in Student Outcomes

Pacific Institutes for Research, Eugene, Oregon, clarkeb{at}uoregon.edu

Scott Baker

Pacific Institutes for Research, Eugene, Oregon

Keith Smolkowski

Oregon Research Institute, and Abacus Research, LLC, Eugene, Oregon

David J. Chard

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas

Three important features to examine for measures used to systematically monitor progress over time are (a) technical features of static scores, (b) technical features of slope, and (c) instructional utility. The purpose of this study was to investigate the technical features of slope of four early numeracy curriculum-based measures administered to kindergarten students. Approximately 200 students were assessed at the beginning and end of the school year, and a subset of students (n = 55) was assessed three additional times during the year. Growth curve analysis was used to model growth over time. The contribution of slope to explaining variance on a criterion measure was examined for the curriculum-based measures that fit a linear growth pattern. Implications are discussed regarding monitoring progress in early mathematics.

Key Words: mathematics–assessment and instruction • screening • early numeracy • progress monitoring

References

• Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723.[CrossRef]
• Baker, S., Gersten, R., Katz, R., Chard, D., & Clarke, B. (2002). Preventing mathematics difficulties in young children: Focus on effective screening of early number sense delays ( Technical Report No. 0305). Eugene, OR: Pacific Institutes for Research.
• Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Fien, H., Seeley, J., Kame'enui, E., et al. (n.d.). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low performing high poverty schools: Going to scale with reading first. Unpublished manuscript.
• Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Berch, D.B. (1998, April 9–10). Mathematical cognition: From numerical thinking to mathematics education. Paper presented at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD.
• Berch, D.B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 333–339.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
• Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Burnham, K.P., & Anderson, D.R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Chard, D., Clarke, B., Baker, S., Otterstedt, J., Braun, D., & Katz, R. (2005). Using measures of number sense to screen for difficulties in mathematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(2), 3–14.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Clarke, B., Baker, S., Chard, D., Braun, D., & Otterstedt, J. (2006). Developing and validating measures of number sense to identify students at risk for mathematics disabilities. Unpublished manuscript.
• Clarke, B., & Shinn, M.R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248.[Web of Science]
• Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1–17). New York: Guilford.
• Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 307–314.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Floyd, R.G., Hojnoski, R., & Key, J. (2006). Preliminary evidence of the technical adequacy of the preschool numeracy indicators. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 627–644.[Web of Science]
• Fuchs, L.S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.[Web of Science]
• Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 40–65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 18–28.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Griffin, S. (1998, April). Fostering the development of whole number sense. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
• Griffin, S., Case, R., & Siegler, R.S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 24–49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (1996 a). Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9) (9th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.
• Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (1996 b). Stanford Early School Achievement Test (SESAT-2) (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.
• Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
• Laird, P.D. (1988). Learning from good and bad data. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
• Li, F., Duncan, T.E., McAuley, E., Harmer, P., & Smolkowski, K. (2000). A didactic example of latent curve analysis applicable to the study of aging. Journal of Aging and Health, 12(3), 388–425.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Little, R.J.A. (1995). Modeling the drop-out mechanism in repeated-measures studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(431), 1112–1122.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Little, R.J.A., & Rubin, D. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.
• Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Torgesen, J.K., Wood, F.B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–288). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.
• Marsh, H.W. (1995). The 2 and 2I2 fit indices for structural equation models: A brief note of clarification. Structural Equation Modeling, 2(3), 246–254.
• Murray, D.M. (1998). Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Murray, D.M. (2001). Statistical models appropriate for designs often used in group-randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine, 20(9/10), 1373–1386.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998–2004). Mplus: User's guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
• Myung, I. (2000). The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44(1), 190–205.
• National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 2005). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2005 (Report No. NCES-2006-453). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
• National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
• National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematics Learning Study Committee.
• Nich, C., & Carroll, K. (1997). Now you see it, now you don't: A comparison of traditional versus random-effects regression models in the analysis of longitudinal follow-up data from a clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(2), 253–262.
• Okamoto, Y., & Case, R. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children's central conceptual structures in the domain of number. In R. Case, Y. Okamoto, S. Griffin, R. S. Siegler, & D. P. Keating (Eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (pp. 27–58). Chicago: Society for Research in Child Development.
• SAS Institute. (2005). SAS OnlineDoc® 9.1.3: SAS/STAT 9 user's guide. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from http://9doc.sas.com/sasdoc/
• Scott, A.J., & Holt, D. (1982). The effect of two-stage sampling on ordinary least squares methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77(380), 848–854.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Shinn, M.R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
• Shinn, M.R. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.
• Singer, J.D., & Willett, J.B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Steiger, J.H. (2000). Point estimation, hypothesis testing, and interval estimation using the RMSEA: Some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(2), 149–162.[CrossRef]
• Tucker, L.R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10.[CrossRef]
• Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement (Rev. ed.). Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.

Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 29, No. 1, 46-57 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0741932507309694


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Clarke, B. Articles by Chard, D. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?