Technical Adequacy and Acceptability of Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Measures of Academic Progress

Autor/inn/en	January, Stacy-Ann A.; Ardoin, Scott P.
Titel	Technical Adequacy and Acceptability of Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Measures of Academic Progress
Quelle	In: Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41 (2015) 1, S.3-15 (13 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1534-5084
DOI	10.1177/1534508415579095
Schlagwörter	Curriculum Based Assessment; Achievement Tests; Educational Assessment; Screening Tests; Replication (Evaluation); Test Validity; Testing; Elementary School Students; Elementary School Teachers; Teacher Surveys; Teacher Attitudes; Adaptive Testing; Computer Assisted Testing; Standardized Tests; Iowa Tests of Basic Skills + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Achievement test; Achievement; Testing; Test; Tests; Leistungsbeurteilung; Leistungsüberprüfung; Leistung; Testdurchführung; Testen; Education; assessment; Bewertungssystem; Screening-Verfahren; Testvalidität; Elementary school; Teacher; Teachers; Grundschule; Volksschule; Lehrer; Lehrerin; Lehrende; Lehrerverhalten; Standadised tests; Standardisierter Test
Abstract	Curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R) and the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) are assessment tools widely employed for universal screening in schools. Although a large body of research supports the validity of CBM-R, limited empirical evidence exists supporting the technical adequacy of MAP or the acceptability of either measure for universal screening. Purposes of the current study were to replicate and extend prior research by (a) examining the extent to which CBM-R performance measures more than word reading skills, (b) evaluating the concurrent validity of MAP with CBM-R, (c) determining the potential benefit of administering MAP with CBM-R for universal screening, and (d) examining teachers' acceptability of MAP and CBM-R. Participants included 802 students in Grades 1 to 5 who were administered three CBM-R probes and the MAP during universal screening and 86 elementary teachers who completed a universal screening assessments survey. Results provide evidence of the concurrent validity of MAP with CBM-R and suggest both measures are acceptable to teachers. Implications for research and practice are discussed. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01