Advertisement

Conclusion: Oral Reading Fluency or Reading Aloud from Text: An Analysis Through a Unified View of Construct Validity

  • Christine A. Espin
  • Stanley L. Deno
Chapter

Abstract

The chapters in this book focus on the role of fluency in the measurement of performance and progress within different academic areas. In this chapter, we reflect upon the extent to which the construct of fluency plays a role in the validity of the scores generated by measures in academic areas. We focus specifically on the use of fluency measures within a curriculum-based measurement (CBM) approach and describe the ways in which different validity arguments reflect different proposed interpretations and uses. Key to the discussion is whether fluency is the construct being measured or whether it is a construct being used to create measures that produce technically adequate scores. To illustrate, we begin the chapter with a multiple choice question.

Keywords

Data-based decision-making Validity Test utility Curriculum-based measurement Oral reading fluency 

References

  1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  2. Anastasi, A. (1986). Evolving concepts of test validation. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ardoin, S. P., & Christ, T. J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Standard errors associated with progress monitoring outcomes from DIBELS, AIMSweb, and an experimental passage set. School Psychology Review, 38, 266–283.Google Scholar
  4. Ardoin, S. P., Christ, T. J., Morena, L. S., Cormier, D. C., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Borsboom, D., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 1061–1071. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 546–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christ, T. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimates of standard error of slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133.Google Scholar
  8. Cizek, G. J. (2012). Defining and distinguishing validity: Interpretations of score meaning and justification of test use. Psychological Methods, 17, 31–43. doi:10.1037/a0026975.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 443–507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 292–232.Google Scholar
  13. Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem-solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1–16.Google Scholar
  14. Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: An indicator of growth in fluency. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 179–203). Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  15. Dion, É., Dubé, I., Roux, C., Landry D., & Bergeron, L. (2012). How curriculum-based measures help us to detect word recognition problems in first graders. In C. A. Espin, K. L. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Wayman (Eds.), A measures of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 101–112). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dunn, E. K., & Eckert, T. L. (2002). Curriculum-based measurement in reading: A comparison of similar versus challenging material. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Espin, C. A., & Campbell, H. (2012). They’re getting older … but are they getting better? The influence of curriculum-based measurement on programming for secondary-school students with learning disabilities. In C. A. Espin, K. L. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Wayman (Eds.), A measures of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 149–164). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Espin, C. A., & Tindal, G. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 214–253). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  19. Espin, C. A., Wallace, T., Lembke, E., Campbell, H., & Long, J. D. (2010). Creating a progress measurement system in reading for middle-school students: Monitoring progress towards meeting high stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25, 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Francis, D. J., Santi, K. L., Barr, C., Fletcher, J. M., Varisco, A., & Foorman, B. R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students’ oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 746, 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.Google Scholar
  23. Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.Google Scholar
  25. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Good, R. III, Kaminski, R. A., Fien, H., Powell-Smith, K., & Cummings, K. D. (2012). How progress monitoring research contributed to early intervention for and prevention of reading difficulty. In C. A. Espin, K. L. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Wayman (Eds.), A measures of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 113–124). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hintze, J. M., & Christ, T. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204–217.Google Scholar
  29. Hintze, J. M., Owen, S. V., Shapiro, E. S., & Daly, E. J. (2000). Generalizability of oral reading fluency measures: Application of G theory to curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hood, S. B. (2009). Validity in psychological testing and scientific realism. Theory Psychology, 29, 451–473. doi:10.1177/0959354309336320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Validity and the consequences of test interpretation and use. Social Indicators Research, 103, 219–230. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9843-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kane, M. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport: American Council on Education and Praeger.Google Scholar
  35. Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kendeou, P., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2012). The use of curriculum-based measurement maze in Greek: A closer look at what it measures. In C. A. Espin, K. L. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Wayman (Eds.), A measures of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 329–339). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., McCoy, J. D., Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2006). Using a concept maze to assess student understanding of secondary-level content. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kranzler, J. H., Brownell, M. T., & Miller, M. D. (1998). The construct validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading: An empirical test of a plausible reival hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Linan-Thompson, S. (2012). Expanding the use of curriculum-based measurement: A look at Nicaragua. In C. A. Espin, K. L. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Wayman (Eds.), A measures of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 321–328). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lissitz, R. W., & Samuelsen, K. (2007). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researchers, 36, 437–448. doi:10.3102/0013189 × 07311286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3(Monograph Suppl 9), 635–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  43. Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Messick, S. (1989a). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Messick, S. (1989b). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moss, P. A. (2007). Reconstructing validity. Educational Researcher, 36, 470–476. doi:10.3102/0013189 × 07311608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Connor, R., Gutierrez, G., Teague, K., Checca, C., Kim, J. S., & Ho, T. (2013). Variations in practice reading aloud: Ten versus twenty minutes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 134–162. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.624566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). The maze as a classroom-based reading measure: Construction methods, reliability, and validity. Journal of Special Education, 26, 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Reynolds, C. R., & Livingston, R. B. (2012). Mastering modern psychological testing: Theory and methods. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  52. Robinson, S. L., Robinson, M. J., & Blatchley, L. A. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement and English language learners: District-wide academic norms for special education eligibility. In C. A. Espin, K. L. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Wayman (Eds.), A measures of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 187–200). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  53. Shin, J. (2012). Footprints of curriculum-based measurement in South Korea: Past, present, and future. In C. A. Espin, K. L. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Wayman (Eds.), A measures of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 315–320). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  54. Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H. III, Knutson, N., Tilly, W. D. III, & Collins, V. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459–479.Google Scholar
  55. Speece, D. L., Case, L. P., Molloy, D. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819. doi:10.1002/pits.20113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tichá, R., Espin, C. A., & Wayman, M. M. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading aloud and maze selection measures. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Valencia, S. W., Smith, A. T., Reece, A. M., Li, M., Wixson, K. K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 270–291. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.3.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van den Broek, P., & White, M. J. (2012). Cognitive processes in reading and the measurement of comprehension. In C. A. Espin, K. L. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Wayman (Eds.), A measures of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 293–306). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  61. VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2011). Technical adequacy of Response to Intervention decisions. Exceptional Children, 77, 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential pitfalls. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Cirino, P. T., Barth, A. E., & Romain, M. A. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 338–345. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.001.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Wallace, T., & Tichá, R. (2012). Extending curriculum-based measurement to assess performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. In C. A. Espin, K. L. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Wayman (Eds.), A measures of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 211–224). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  65. Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Tichá, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yeo, S. (2010). Predicting performance on state achievement tests using curriculum-based measurement in reading: A multilevel meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 412–422. doi:10.1177/0741932508327463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yeo, S. (2011). Reliability generalization of curriculum-based measurement reading aloud: A meta-analytic review. Exceptionality, 19, 75–93. doi:10.1080/09362835.2011.562094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yeo, S., Fearrington, J., & Christ, T. J. (2011). An investigation of gender, income, and special education status bias on curriculum-based measurement slope in reading. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 119–130. doi:10.1037/a0023021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations