This article investigates the utility of various estimates of mathematics proficiency. The participants were 432 students in Grades 2 through 5. The delayed alternate form reliability of multiskill probes, retention probes, slopes of student growth, and trials to criterion were computed. The fluency probes were found to be both sufficiently reliable and significantly predicted proficiency on a group-administered accountability test. However, the trials to criterion and slope data were neither reliable nor significantly predictive. Finally, a receiver operating characteristic analysis was conducted to determine cut scores on the fluency probes for proficiency. Results found that 17 digits correct per minute for second- and third-grade students and 29 digits correct per minute for fourth and fifth graders demonstrated proficiency. These data resulted in overall correct classification estimates of .65 (second and third grades) and .73 (fourth and fifth grades).
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm . Behavior Analyst, 19, 163-197.
4.
Burns, M.K., Tucker, J.A., Hauser, A., Thelen, R., Holmes, K., & White, K. (2002). Minimum reading fluency rate necessary for comprehension: A potential criterion for curriculum-based assessments. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 1-7.
5.
Burns, M.K., VanDerHeyden, A.M., & Jiban, C. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401-418.
6.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
7.
Daly, E.J., III, & Martens, B.K. (1994). A comparison of three interventions for increasing oral reading performance: Application of the instructional hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 459-469.
8.
Daly, E.J., III, Witt, J.C., Martens, B.K., & Dool, E.J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554-574.
9.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
10.
Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exception Children.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C.L., Owen, R., et al. (2003). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on third-grade students' mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 293-305.
14.
Gannon, P.M. (1986). Trials to criterion: A within-program prediction of post-program generalization. Exceptional Child, 33, 125-133.
15.
Gray, S. (2005). Word learning by preschoolers with specific language impairment: Effect of phonological or semantic cues. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1452-1467.
16.
Haladyna, T.M. (1998). Review of the Stanford Achievement Test (9th ed.). In J. C. Impara & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 928-930). Lincoln: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
17.
Harcourt Brace. (1997). Stanford Achievement Test (9th ed.) technical data report. San Antonio, TX: Author.
18.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (1997). Stanford Achievement Test (9th ed.) spring norms book. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Haring, N.G., Lovitt, T.C., Eaton, M.D., & Hansen, C.L. (1978). The fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
21.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G.A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: An assessment tool for reading teachers. Reading Teacher, 59, 636-644.
22.
Jenkins, J.R., Fuchs, L.S., van de Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S.L. (2003). Accuracy and fluency in list and context reading of skilled and RD groups: Absolute and relative performance levels. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 237-245.
23.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 113-142). New York: Guilford.
Manzo, K.K., & Galley, M. (2003). Math climbs, reading flat on '03 NAEP. Education Week, 23, 1, 18.
26.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford .
27.
Mayfield, K.H., & Chase, P.N. (2002). The effects of cumulative practice on mathematics problem solving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 105-123.
28.
McGlinchey, M.T., & Hixson, M.D. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance standards on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33, 193-203.
29.
Podell, D.M., Tournaki-Rein, N., & Lin, A. (1992). Automatization of mathematics skills via computer-assisted instruction among students with mild mental handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 200-206.
30.
Rivera, D.M., & Bryant, B.R. (1992). Mathematics instruction for students with special needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 71-86.
Shapiro, E.S. (2004). Academic skill problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York : Guilford.
34.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
35.
Shinn, M.R. (2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 671-698). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
36.
Silberglitt, B., Burns, M.K., Madyun, N.H., & Lail, K.E. (2006). Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 527-536.
37.
Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J.M. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304-325.
38.
Sprague, J.R., & Horner, R.H. (1984). The effects of single instance, multiple instance, and general case training on generalized vending machine use by moderately and severely handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 273-278.
39.
Stage, S.A., & Jacobsen, M.D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency . School Psychology Review, 30, 407-419.
40.
Telecsan, B.L., Slaton, D.B., & Stevens, K.B. (1999). Peer tutoring: Teaching students with learning disabilities to deliver time delay instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 133-154.
41.
Thurber, R.S., Shinn, M.R., & Smolkowski, K. (2002). What is measured in mathematics tests? Construct validity of curriculum-based measures. School Psychology Review, 31, 498-513.
42.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Gilbertson, D.A. (2007). Multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology , 45, 225-256.
43.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Naquin, G. (2003). Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204-227.
