Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 353–363 | Cite as

Reading-growth estimates for elementary-school students using curriculum-based measurement

  • Jongho Shin
  • Hyunjoo Lee


In this study, we examine grade-level growth rates for general education students and students with learning disabilities in grades two to six. In conducting the study, we demonstrate how schools, districts, and state educational agencies can use a combination of Curriculum-Based Measurement and Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) methods to develop growth-rate norms in reading. The participants were made up of 273 general education students and 430 students with learning disabilities. The growth rates for these two groups of students in each grade were estimated using HLM. Within each grade, separate growth rates for subgroups of general education students (i.e., high, average, and low achievers) were estimated. The uses of estimated growth rates for setting year-end goals, monitoring student progress, and evaluating the effectiveness of instructional programs are also discussed.

Key words

reading growth rates Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allinder, R. M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Effects of differential Implementation of curriculum curriculumbased measurement.Exceptional Children, 62, 525–535.Google Scholar
  2. Allinder, R. M., & Oats, R. G. (1997). Effects of acceptability on teachers’ implementation of curriculum-based measurement and students achievement in mathematics computation.Remedial and Special Education, 18, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change.Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992).Hierarchical linear models. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Caspi, A., Wright, B. R. E., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1998). Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to adulthood.American Sociological Review, 63, 424–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassidy J., & Gray, M. A. (1992). United States. In J. Hladczuk & W. Etler (Eds.),International handbook of reading education (pp. 413–436). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  7. Castle, M. (1994). Promoting the disabled reader’s selfesteem.Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 159–170.Google Scholar
  8. Condren, R. J. (1972). Characteristics of the chronically unemployed in relation to reading retardation.Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 2788–2789.Google Scholar
  9. Deno, L. S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative.Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.Google Scholar
  10. Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning.American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.Google Scholar
  11. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effect of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis.Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.Google Scholar
  12. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress.School Psychology Review, 21, 45–48.Google Scholar
  13. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom based assessment.School Psychology Review, 28, 659- 671.Google Scholar
  14. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Waltz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.Google Scholar
  15. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity.American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.Google Scholar
  16. Good, R. H., & Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.),Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp.61–88). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  17. Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. R. (1985).How to increase reading ability: A guide to developmental and remedial methods. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  18. Kaluger, G., & Kolson, C. J. (1978).Reading and learning disabilities (2nd ed.) Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  19. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1995).The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Kavale, K. A., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: Implications for policymaking.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 70–77.Google Scholar
  21. Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why it is. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.),Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  22. Marston, D., Deno, S. L., & Tindal, G. (1983).A comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques in measuring pupil progress (Research Report No. 126). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
  23. Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement in special and regular education settings.Exceptional Children, 52, 266–276.Google Scholar
  24. National Institute for Literacy (1996). President’s radio address emphasizes literacy as a priority for the 21st century.Policy Update. Google Scholar
  25. Phillips, N. B., Hamlett, C. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1993). Combining classwide curriculum-based measurement and peer tutoring to help general educators provide adaptive education.Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 8, 148–156.Google Scholar
  26. Shin, J. (1999a).Reading-skill development and instructional practices facilitating reading growth for students with and without learning disabilities: A one-year longitudinal study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  27. Shin, J. (1999b). Differences in reading-skill development between low-achieving students and students with learning disabilities.Korean Journal of Special Education, 34, 277–295.Google Scholar
  28. Shin, J., Deno, S. L., & Espin, C. A. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth.The Journal of Special Education, 34, 140–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shin, J., Deno, S. L., Robinson, S. L., & Marston, D. (2000). Predicting classroom achievement from active responding on a computer-based classwide instructional system.Remedial and Special Education, 21, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simner, M. L., & Barnes, M. J. (1991). Relationship between first-grade marks and the high school dropout problem.Journal of School Psychology, 29, 331–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wharton-McDonald, R., Rankin, J., Mistretta, J., Yokoi, L., & Ettenberger, S. (1997). Effective primary-grades literacy instruction = Balanced literacy instruction.The Reading Teacher, 50, 518–521.Google Scholar
  32. Willet, J. B. (1989). Some results on reliability for the longitudinal measurement of change: Implications for the design of studies of individual growth.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of EducationSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.The Department of EducationSeoul National UniversityKorea

Personalised recommendations