1 / 16

Carrie Urshel, Ph.D., School Psychologist

Reading Comprehension and Math Computation Screening and Progress Monitoring Assessments for Secondary Students. Carrie Urshel, Ph.D., School Psychologist. Curriculum-based Measurement. Dynamic indicators of basic skills Assess curriculum Brief to be administered often

paniz
Télécharger la présentation

Carrie Urshel, Ph.D., School Psychologist

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reading Comprehension and Math Computation Screening and Progress Monitoring Assessments for Secondary Students Carrie Urshel, Ph.D., School Psychologist

  2. Curriculum-based Measurement • Dynamic indicators of basic skills • Assess curriculum • Brief to be administered often • Capable of alternate forms • Efficient in terms of time and cost • Sensitive to student growth • Reliable and valid (Marston, 1989)

  3. Uses of CBM • Developing local norms for problem identification and goal development • Screening to identify at-risk students • Evaluating intervention support services • Monitoring student progress • Identifying students for special education services • Predicting performance on high-stakes tests (Deno 2003)

  4. Creating CBM Tools • Progress monitoring measure needs to reflect all curriculum objectives identified for that grade (Shapiro, 1996). • Shinn and Bamonto (1999) added that to be consistent formative evaluation measures, assessment tools must be standardized, logistically feasible, and sensitive to student growth. • Technical adequacy – reliability and validity (Tindal & Marston 1990).

  5. Reading CBM • Oral reading fluency (Deno, 1985) • Cloze (Tindal & Marston, 1990) • Maze (Espin & Foegen, 1996) • Vocabulary matching (Espin & Foegen, 1996) • Retell (Good et al., 2002) • Question answering (Fuchs et al., 1988)

  6. Math CBM • Multiple digit computation and word problems (Foegen & Deno, 2001) • Conceptual word problems (Helwig et al., 2002) • Single or multi-skill basic fact probes (Thurber et al., 2002)

  7. Purposes of Present Study • Replicate findings with oral reading fluency and basic fact computation • Evaluate 2 new standards-derived measures for technical adequacy: • Question Answering Comprehension • Advanced Math Computation

  8. Question Answering Comprehension • 10 comprehension questions based on Academic Content Standards • Comprehension questions created from DIBELS sixth grade reading passages • 5 items worth 1 point (prediction, literal, basic inferential). Basic Comprehension Index. • 5 items worth 2 points (summarizing, evaluating, synthesizing). Advanced Index. • Score range 0 to 15 points

  9. Advanced Math Computation • Items based on Academic Content Standards • Items scored for Number of Correct Digits and Number of Correct Problems

  10. Sample and Procedures • 281 6th graders • All students assessed in oral reading fluency in fall and spring • 20% sample assessed in other three measures in fall, winter, and spring • Progress monitoring: oral reading fluency assessed every 2 weeks, comprehension assessed every 2 months, math computation assessed every 3 weeks

  11. Results: Progress Monitoring Increase of 1 unit expected every: Index Based on Jan. slope Based on May Slope • Basic math correct problems 3 months 4 months • Basic math correct digits 2 weeks 2 weeks • Advanced math correct problems 1 month 3 months • Advanced math correct digits 2 weeks 1 month • Comprehension total points 2 months 17 months • Advanced comprehension points 1 month 8 months • Oral reading fluency 2 weeks 2 weeks

  12. Results: Predicting Performance on High Stakes Tests • The following measures had significant correlations with the reading and math proficiency tests: • Oral reading fluency (132 cwpm) • Total points comprehension index (12 points) • Basic points comprehension index • Basic computation correct problems and correct digits (28 correct digits) • Advanced computation correct problems and correct digits (16 correct digits) • Cut scores with an 88% to 100% passing rate are in parentheses.

  13. Results: Better Indicators of Performance Multiple regression analyses: • Oral reading fluency was a better indicator of reading achievement than the comprehension indices. • Advanced math correct digits was a better indicator of math achievement than basic math correct digits.

  14. Results: Reliability • % agreement between 2 scorers: Math computation basic correct digits = 92% basic correct problems = 100% advanced correct digits = 92% advanced correct problems = 90% Comprehension total points = 87% basic points = 96% advanced points = 87%

  15. OISM Problem-Solving ModelTier 1 • Universal Screening at Tier 1 - Oral reading fluency (individual delivery) - Question answering (classwide delivery) - Advanced math computation correct problems (classwide delivery) • Cut scores used to assign students to Tier 2 intervention groups

  16. OISM Problem-Solving ModelTiers 2 and 3 • Progress Monitoring - Oral reading fluency every 2 weeks - Advanced math computation correct problems and correct digits every 2 weeks • Data-based decision rules used to assign students to tier 3 or special education

More Related