Technical Adequacy and Acceptability of Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Measures of Academic Progress
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2022
Keywords
curriculum-based measurement, computer adaptive tests, reading, universal screening, teacher acceptability
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508415579095
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.
Was this content written or created while at USF?
No
Citation / Publisher Attribution
Assessment for Effective Intervention, v. 41, issue 1, p. 3-15
Scholar Commons Citation
January, Stacy-Ann A. and Ardoin, Scott P., "Technical Adequacy and Acceptability of Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Measures of Academic Progress" (2022). Educational and Psychological Studies Faculty Publications. 234.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/esf_facpub/234
