7 740 2011forbya
User Manual: 7-740
Open the PDF directly: View PDF 
.
Page Count: 23
Author:
Forby, Amy L.
Title: A Literature Review
of
Curriculum Based Measures
and
Their
Use
as an Indicator
of
Proficient Reading
The accompanying research report
is
submitted to the University
of
Wisconsin-Stout,
Graduate
School
in
patiial
completion
of
the requirements for the
Graduate
Degree/Major: MS Education
Research Advisor: Renee Chandler, Ed.D
MonthlYear: Summer, 2011
Number
of
Pages: 22
RECEIVED
JUL
2 9
l011
GRADUATE
SCHOOL
Style
Manual
Used:
American
Psychological Association, 6th edition
e.g{
understand
that
this research
report
must
be officially
approved
by the
Graduate
School
and
that
an
electronic copy
of
the approved version will be
made
available
through
the University
Library
website
[}11
attest
that
the research
report
is
my
original
work
(that
any
copyrightable materials have been used
with the permission
of
the original authors),
and
as such, it
is
automatically protected by the laws, rules,
and
regulations
of
the U.S.
Copyright
Office.
STUDENT'S NAME: Amy L. Forby
STUDENT'S SIGNATURE:
-~~P--/--J'--f-+-!-~~--
DATE: ()1/ i 3)
20/
/
ADVISER'S NAME (Committee Chair
ifMS
PIa d Project/Problem):
Dr
. Renee Chandler
ADVISER'S SIGNATURE:
~<
r
4OC~
This section for MS Plan A Thesis
or
EdS
Thesis/Field
Project
papers only
Committee members
(other
than
your
adviser who
is
listed
in
the section above)
1. CMTE MEMBER'S NAME:
SIGNATURE: DATE:
2. CMTE MEMBER'S NAME:
SIGNATURE: DATE:
3.
CMTE MEMBER'S NAME:
SIGNATURE: DATE:
This section to be completed by the
Graduate
School
This fmal research repOli has been approved by the Graduate School.
(Director, Office
of
Graduate Studies) (Date)
DATE: 7 / :<.740/(
2
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menominee, WI
Author: Forby, Amy L.
Title: A Literature Review of Curriculum Based Measures and Their Use as an Indicator
of Proficient Reading
Graduate Degree/Major: MS Education
Research Advisor: Renee Chandler, Ed.D
Month/Year: July, 2011
Number of Pages: 22
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition
Abstract
A basic level of literacy is vital for individuals to be successful citizens. Oral reading fluency
and reading comprehension are critical to understanding what is read. In order to produce successful
students, educators must effectively teach the students how to read in a phrased and fluent manner
while the students comprehend the information they are reading. To assure this is happening, it is
necessary to assess all students to determine the current level on which they are able to read and
comprehend. This information is then used to determine which students need extra reading assistance.
The curriculum based measures that many schools are currently using to benchmark their
students merely test fluency or reading rate, with little regard to comprehension development. This
paper presents a summary of selected research on oral reading fluency and its use as an indicator of
proficient reading, including reading comprehension.
3
Table of Contents
….................................................................................................................................................Page
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter I: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 5
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... 5
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................ 6
Chapter II: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 8
Importance of Literacy ...................................................................................................... 8
The Reading Process .......................................................................................................... 8
The Need to Evaluate ......................................................................................................... 9
Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) ............................................................................. 10
Reliability and Validity of Results .................................................................................. 11
Using Test Results to Guide Instruction and Interventions......................................... 13
Other Curriculum Based Measure Data ....................................................................... 14
Chapter III: Discussion ............................................................................................................... 16
Review of Findings .......................................................................................................... 16
Possibilities for Future Research ................................................................................... 17
Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 17
References ........................................................................................................................ 18
4
Chapter One: Introduction
Becoming a successful reader demands the student incorporate several reading skills in precise
ways. The most important of these reading skills include phonemic awareness, sight word recognition,
fluency in reading instructional-level text and using strategies to aid comprehension (Chafouleas,
Martens, Dobson, Weinstein, & Gardner, 2004). When students are unable to appropriately perform
these tasks with automaticity, it can cause the student to struggle while trying to become a successful
reader. When this inability to combine these necessary skills presents itself, a strain when attempting
to obtain meaning from text occurs. Proficient reading is a complex performance that requires
simultaneous coordination across many tasks (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp,& Jenkins, 2001). Competent
readers are able to integrate the many reading skills and obtain meaning from the text.
Developing oral reading fluency in students helps to ensure the creation of independent, self-
monitoring readers (Stayter & Allington, 1991). Every year students take standardized tests and state
achievement reading tests. Along with the results from these tests, information is collected from a
variety of reading inventories, running records and other teacher-gathered information, which allows
us to gain a more comprehensive view of a student's reading ability(Valencia & Buly, 2004).
The correlation between comprehension and fluency is evident in student progress as measured
by some form of assessment. An oral reading fluency test, such as the one given in the Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), gives a way of reporting fluency performance.
This assessment provides a snapshot of student progress in the area of oral reading fluency and has
been correlated to the comprehension abilities of a student (Langdon, 2004). This relationship between
fluency and comprehension can be furthered the more the students read. As they read more, their
fluency improves, and they more easily can comprehend what they are reading. In the same manner,
as comprehension improves, a student’s oral reading fluency also improves (Fuchs et. al., 2001). The
5
correct assessments can reflect the relationships between these two reading components (Good et. al.,
2001).
Statement of the Problem
As stated previously, in order to produce successful students, educators must effectively teach
the students how to read in a phrased and fluent manner while the students comprehend the
information they are reading. It is necessary to assess all students to determine the current level on
which they are able to read and comprehend. This information is then used to determine which
students need extra reading assistance. Unfortunately, the curriculum based measures that many
schools are currently using to benchmark their students merely test fluency or reading rate, with little
regard to comprehension development. They simply count the words a student is able to read correctly
in a minute. This does not show or help the teacher understand if they are able to comprehend what
they read. In some instances, these curriculum based measures provide skewed data. Students are
being tested on how fast they can read. Students who are slower paced readers, or are reading
carefully to comprehend, score lower on the tests. Their scores then measure the same as struggling
readers. On the other hand, students who do not use meta cognitive skills while reading tend to skip the
punctuation, simply read as fast as they can, and score very high on the assessment. Some schools
base their remedial reading services solely on the results of the reading rate of students (Hasbrouck,
Woldbeck, Ihnot, & Parker, 1999).
Purpose of the Study
A relationship between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension is very important to
teachers. In a time of high-stakes assessments and a high importance level placed on teaching with
fidelity and accountability, it is highly significant for educators to thoroughly comprehend the
components of the reading process (Haetel & Lorie, 2004). This important relationship between oral
reading fluency and reading comprehension can give educators vital information that could most
6
efficiently ensure students success. This information could show to be invaluable to teachers in
providing best teaching practices to reach the literacy goals of their students, as well as utilizing the
curriculum based measure scores they receive about their students. The relationship between oral
reading fluency and reading comprehension guides instruction in a manner that is systematically and
sequentially presented (Hintze, Ryan & Stoner, 2003). In providing students with such instruction,
teachers are facilitating opportunities for students to succeed.
Research on this subject will help bridge the gap between quickly assessing a student’s reading
rate, and discovering the actual level at which they can read and comprehend. It will provide
data that will show the correlation between fluency rate and comprehension. An explanation of why
the oral reading rate is an indicator of proficient reading will give teachers a better understanding and
help them to better use this information to guide instruction.
Definition of Terms
Accuracy. Accuracy is the ability to accurately identify words within the context of a text
(Schatschneider & Torgesen, 2004).
Automaticity. Automaticity is the ability to do things without occupying the brain with the
low-level details required, allowing it to become an automatic response pattern (Brown, T. L. & Roos-
Gilbert, L.,1995).
Comprehension. Comprehension is the ability to grasp the meaning and understand
something (Rasinski, 2003, p. 26).
Fluent. The term fluent is defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary as one who is “capable
of using a language easily and accurately or effortlessly smooth and flowing (2010).”
Fluency. Fluency is the ability to read a text quickly, accurately, and with proper phrased
expression (Allinder, Dunse, Brunken, & Obermiller-Krolikowski, 2001).
7
Prosody. Prosody is “the rhythm of spoken language, including the stress and intonation, or
the study of these patterns (Encarta Dictionary, 2011).”
Literacy. Literacy is the ability to read and write (Cambourne, 2002).
Word Calling. When a student efficiently decodes the words in a text with little attention paid
to the overall comprehension of the passage being read (Hamilton & Shinn, 2003).
8
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Importance of Literacy
Learning to read is a natural process for most students. A basic level of literacy is necessary
for individuals to achieve success as employees, parents, consumers, and citizens. However, a large
amount of readers have significant difficulties gaining the skills necessary in becoming successful
readers. A lack in acquiring reading skills can happen for a variety of reasons. Some students that have
difficulties learning to read have not been encouraged to understand the ways reading can improve
their lives. Students can also experience reading difficulties due to their inability to model their
reading after teachers, parents, and more competent readers and thoroughly understanding the
importance of gaining reading skills (Cambourne, 2002). Frequently, struggling readers dread reading
due to their limited success with the reading process. While finally, some readers may harbor a
learning difficulty with the reading process that has not yet been remedied.
People who are non-readers or function at a low reading level, are at a disadvantage that can
alter the quality of their life. Individuals who struggle with reading generally experience economic,
physical, and emotional consequences. Research shows that there is a proven relationship between
literacy levels and employment stability and income. Seventy-five percent of unemployed adults read
at a low reading level or are illiterate (Roman, 2004). Having this information is very important as the
school systems must make sure to meet the needs of the students.
The Reading Process
Cognitive research has been performed on the reading process and reading patterns. This
research has lead to a definition of fluent reading as the ability to recognize words quickly, accurately,
and with phrased expression (Nathan & Stanovich, 1991). Reading in a phrased and fluent manner is
an important link between word analysis and comprehension. In the same light, “slow and
disconnected oral reading makes comprehension virtually impossible” (Chafouleas et.al., 2004, p.72).
9
Fluent reading allows one to spend less effort decoding and identifying words and more effort on
comprehending the text. Being a fluent reader has been proven to be one of the most powerful
indicators regarding successful reading and obtaining meaning from text (Fuchs et. al., 2001).
Once readers are able to develop their reading skills to the point of fluent reading, oral reading
can be accentuated by expression and voice inflection (Griffith & Rasinski, 2004). Fluent reading
allows the reader to fully comprehending the meaning the text holds. It removes the focus being
entirely on identifying and decoding the words. Once these skills have been mastered, they can use
these comprehension skills to drive their oral reading. Comprehension allows them to focus on the
meaning and use expression to promote that meaning.
Gaining the ability to oral read in a manner that exhibits prosody and expression allows the
reader to fully experience and enjoy reading. Prosody is a term that is used to describe the rhythmic
and tonal features of speech (Dowhower,1991). In fact, fluent readers are able to read with good
phrasing and expression, letting you know they understand the text during oral reading (Griffith &
Rasinski, 2004). Once the student has been able to use this skill, they are able to make their reading
more expressive. Students can begin to focus on reading abilities including pausal intrusions or
inappropriate hesitations within orally read text (Schwanentluge, Hamilton, Kuhn, & Stahl, 2004).
Accomplished readers can focus on the length of phrases and they include the correct pauses as these
aid with fluency (Dowhower, 1991). This ability allows an adult to listen to a child read and gain
insight into whether or not they comprehend the text.
The Need to Evaluate
After reviewing the importance of reading, it is of the same importance that we identify and
intervene early with students who need additional assistance. It is of great importance that the
classroom teacher evaluate his or her students. The teachers understand the curriculum, know what
needs to be assessed, and know what is expected of their students. Teachers and administrators need a
10
practical assessment to receive a snapshot of how their students are performing in the area of reading.
This reading process may vary from classroom to classroom, and student to student. Schools need
uniform data to measure the effectiveness of their reading curriculum, teacher effectiveness, and
information to identify students with potential reading difficulties.
Teachers need precise information about what their students know, and where there is lack of
skills. Administrators and specialists need to review this data and measure the students learning
progress over time. Based on results of these assessments, teachers can choose instructional materials
and implement teaching strategies that attack students' areas of need (Howell & Nolet, 2000). These
needs are what have lead to the change to Curriculum Based Measures (CBM).
Curriculum Based Measures (CBM)
As we know, it is the responsibility of our teachers to teach children the academic skills that
they will need to take their place society. But we not only have to teach, it is also crucial that schools
and teachers measure individual students acquisition and mastery of reading skills. The measurement
of a student's abilities is looked on with as much importance as the teaching of those skills.
Past practices have been to use commercially prepared tests, normally from the text book
companies. An alternative approach to academic assessment has recently come to the fore front.
Curriculum-based measures (CBM) are becoming a heavily researched technique for making school-
wide decisions regarding student eligibility for remedial services, monitoring student progress, finding
appropriate intervention programs and evaluating intervention effectiveness (Hasbrouck, Woldbeck,
Ihnot, & Parker, 1999). This measurement is being used within the schools because is less expensive,
is fairly easy to administer, utilizes relevant materials, and has been compared with other standardized
measures (Howell & Nolet, 2000).
In this approach, the individual students are given brief, timed exercises to complete, using
11
materials deemed grade level appropriate by the producing company. Main producers to this date are
DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) or Aims Web. The main feature that
defines a CBM is the collection of data on the same repeated tasks for all individual students. When
used to evaluate and change instructional intervention programs accordingly for individual students,
research findings consistently have found significantly improved outcomes. Programs for special
education students are improved by allowing for validation with modification or accommodation of
individual interventions, better plans can be written, and assessment can be linked to intervention
(Shinn, 1995).
Reliability and Validity of CBM Results
The question of the reliability and validity of these CBMs go hand in hand with the tests. Two
studies have been conducted to gauge if teachers prefer the CBM approach over the testing they had
been using in their classrooms (Eckert & Shapiro, 1999; Hasbrouck, Woldbeck, Ihnot, & Parker,
1999). It was found that teachers like the CBM approach better than nationally norm referenced
testing. Tanya Eckert and Edward Shapiro (1999) evaluated the link between teacher acceptance of
two different tools used for evaluating academic skills difficulties. 619 elementary teachers evaluated
on the ease of use and acceptably of two different testing methods. Two assessment methods were
used; a CBM and a norm-referenced test. The teachers rated the CBM higher than the norm-referenced
test. In the other study, they tracked the acceptance of six teachers who were against the use of CBMs,
who became advocates for the assessments and now use it in their programs to assess low ability
readers (Hasbrouck, Woldbeck, Ihnot, & Parker, 1999).
The results gained from the CBMs are used in a variety of important decisions that impact
students. Several studies have been completed to evaluate the actual validity and reliability of the
CBMs. Elliott and Fuchs (1997) evaluated the effectiveness of the CBM versus nationally referenced
intelligence and achievement tests. They found that the CBM was a better developed method. They
12
also believe that by using a CBM to evaluate students, the negative connotations that are commonly
linked with intelligence and achievement tests focusing on student's weaknesses can be avoided. CBMs
also offered other distinct advantages. Classroom teachers and administrators can quickly determine
the average academic performance of a class, grade, and school. By comparing a student's valid CBM
score in each area to other peer's scores, the classroom teacher can better determine where that child's
reading ability compares in relation to their classmates. They see CBM as a reliable approach to
measure progress toward reading success.
In another study, researchers examined test-retest reliability. They administered 11 curriculum
based measures with a small sample group of 30 first-grade children. The measures administered
focused on letter sounds, letter identification and oral reading fluency. Test validity was measured and
compared with the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Reading Mastery Test. Reliability and validity was
evaluated by assessment of oral reading fluency and word-lists four months later. Mixed validity and
reliability results suggested that further testing is needed with some students and that not all CBM
measures are reliable or provide sufficient validity (Daly, Wright, Kelly, & Martens, 1997).
Looking at individual sub-tests more closely, Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), one curriculum-
based measure that is commonly used to assess reading skills, has been demonstrated as a reliable
indicator of reading ability and comprehension, and a good tool to monitor reading skills progress.
Researchers administered a battery of ORF measures to 57 fourth grade students. It was determined
the tests of the oral reading fluency assessments were valid. However, the relationship of ORF to
reading comprehension was not explained by general cognitive ability, processing speed or efficiency
(Kranzler, Brownell, & Miller, 1998).
13
Using Test Results to Guide Instruction and Interventions
Once results are received and reviewed from a recent CBM, a teacher can then use the
information to decide what needs to be the classroom focus. The results can also determine what
interventions need to take place to help all students succeed. Teachers are faced with the challenge of
assuring what they are doing to help a student is working. By progress monitoring students on a
regular basis using a CBM, the teacher can quickly move away from or continue using a research-
based program to aid the student's learning or remediation.
While it is very important to provide appropriate and adequate support when focusing on
correcting the students’ reading issues, as well as their quest to overcome their reading difficulties,
some of this reading support may not be what the student needs. Many typical interventions used with
students experiencing difficulties with the reading process are effective holding the student at their
current level, but not actually providing remediation. Many students who attend remedial programs
experience difficulty developing their skills in a quick enough manner to raise their reading level to
one that is equivalent to their peers (Torgesen, Alexander, Wagner, Rashotte, Voeller, Conway &
Rose, 2001). This deficiency makes it difficult for students to be successful as their schooling
becomes more difficult.
When used to progress monitor an instructional intervention, a CBM can give the teacher quick
feedback about the effectiveness of that intervention. A CBM first allows the teacher to see if the
student has acquired the skill in question and then gives the instructor an indication of the proficiency
that the child has in the targeted skill. Using a CBM to monitor students' progress allows teachers to
adjust reading programs as needed.
The overall goal is that all students are able to read fluently. The measurement of fluency is the
main focus of a CBM. Fluency, the ability to read orally in a smooth and effortless manner, has been
referred to as a critical component of the reading process (Allinder, Dunse, Brunken, & Obermiller-
14
Krolikowski, 2001). Fluent reading is a crucial skill for all students to develop. Readers who focus
intensely on practicing their reading skills are generally able to become more fluent readers. As
students graduate into more fluent readers, they are able to give a more conscious effort to
comprehending the text.
The most common component of the CBM used for progress monitoring is Oral Reading
Fluency. ORF is distinctly separated into two components that are critical for a student to possess
prior to being able to read fluently. The two necessary components are speed and accuracy (Samuels,
1979; Schatschneider & Torgesen, 2004). Accuracy is the ability to accurately identify words within
the context of the text. In order to competently read with accuracy, readers need to have a working
vocabulary that enables them to recognize high-frequency words and other words that follow typical
phonetic rules (Worthy & Broaddus, 2002). CBMs measure the speed and accuracy of a reader, and
when monitored on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, can lead the teacher by showing improvement or the
lack of improvement in a student's reading scores. This information lets the teacher know if
interventions and accommodations they are doing for the student are working effectively.
Other Curriculum Based Measure Data
Typically, CBMs compare an individual student's performance to a standard of performance set
by the CBM's research and data. These assessments are becoming a more widely researched technique
for making school-based decisions regarding student eligibility for special education services,
monitoring student progress, creating new intervention programs and evaluating intervention
effectiveness (Hasbrouck, Woldbeck, Ihnot, & Parker, 1999). While it is increasingly being used in
schools, there is little indication that it is being used by school psychologists for the purpose of special
education (Hasbrouck, Woldbeck, Ihnot, & Parker, 1999). Shinn (1995) compared 37 learning
disabled and 37 low achieving fifth grade children using a CBM. He discovered major differences
between the two groups which had not been identified by standardized or norm-referenced tests. He
15
concluded that norm referenced tests may provide an incomplete picture of the student when used to
confirm teacher referral decisions. According to Shinn (1995), CBMs are a consistent and continuous
measurement.
Decisions tend to be tied to general education curricula and often to how typical students
perform in that curriculum. However, the most important feature of the CBM is the collection of data
on repeated standard tasks for individual students. When used to evaluate and modify instructional
intervention programs for individual students, research findings consistently have found significantly
improved outcomes. Programs for special education students are also improved by allowing for
modification of their individual interventions. Due to this, better Individual Education Programs (IEP)
can be written, and assessment can be linked to intervention (Shinn, 1995).
16
Chapter 3: Discussion
Review of Findings
Fluent reading is the accurate, automatic reading of encountered text. Developing fluency is a
task that requires one to synthesize a number of reading skills deemed to be essential in effectively
learning to read (Naslund & Smolkin, 1997). Once a student gains the ability to read fluently, they
also gain the ability to enjoy reading text (McCauley & McCauley, 1992). This is because
comprehension can then occur, allowing students to understand and appreciate what they are reading.
This enjoyment of reading causes a person to continue to engage in the reading process and therefore,
improve one’s reading skills.
This research shows the importance of regularly evaluating the students’ oral reading fluency
rate, as well as other components in the CBMs, to gauge a current reading level and to continually
progress monitor students to assure the program the teacher is using best serves the student. This
constant monitoring allows the teacher to adjust or continue with a research-based intervention
program to meet the individual student's needs. Curriculum based measures are becoming more
widely researched in the United States and internationally. Consistent findings have shown that the
school administered CBMs provide a clearer picture of the students' ability to succeed with the reading
curriculum than do nationally referenced standardized tests. Classroom teachers also found the CBMs
to be more user friendly and easier to administer than standardized tests. The CBMs provide quick,
and accurate feedback as to where the student is performing (Howell & Nolet, 2000). Furthermore, the
oral reading fluency component in the CBMs can be used within the entire class, as well as remedial
reading groups. Mixed validity and reliability results suggest that further CBM development and
research are needed. Oral reading fluency rate and Curriculum based measures are proving to be
useful in the evaluation of the reading progress of students, and useful to teachers to guide effective
instruction for their students.
17
Possibilities for Future Research
Future research is needed to compare results from the oral reading fluency assessments to the
ability of the students' comprehension ability. This information needs to be studied over a course of
time to check sustained validity of the tests, especially when they are being used for progress
monitoring. Maintaining student interest in practicing and assessing a student's oral reading fluency is
essential due to the motivation that a student experiences when they are interested in what they are
reading. As text becomes more difficult for students, their ability to comprehend may decrease also.
Additional research is also needed regarding the validity of the assessments in diverse
populations. The nature of a school's population and level of economic or racial diversity could impact
the reliability of using the curriculum based measures as a true measure of the students reading ability.
The prior knowledge of the student regarding passages used for checking the oral reading fluency rate
could skew assessment results. Further research should be conducted with a more economically
diverse population.
Recommendations
My research confirmed that curriculum based measures do serve as an indicator of proficient
reading. Teachers can use these as tools to gain a snapshot of where their students are currently
reading. They can also be used to monitor students' progress to track whether or not a remedial
program is successful. I would recommend that classroom teachers receive quality training on how to
administer and implement these assessments. Further training on how to utilize these assessments to
guide instruction and gain information on their students, would also be recommended. The CBMs are
very affordable and easy to administer. It would be very easy to implement this type of measure in the
regular classroom environment. I am convinced that Curriculum Based Measures are a good indicator
of proficient reading.
18
References
Allinder, R.M., Dunse, L., Brunken, C.D., and Obermiller-Krolikowski, H.J. (2001).
Improving fluency in at-risk readers and students with learning disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 22 (1), 48-54.
Brown, T. L. & Roos-Gilbert, L. (1995). Automaticity and word perception: Evidence
from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
Learning, Memory & Cognition, 21, 1395-1412.
Cambourne, B. (2002). Conditions for literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 55, (4), 358-
361.
Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M. & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor
comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech,
Language and Hearing Research, 49, 278-293.
Chafouleas, S. M., Martens, B. K., Dobson, R. L., Weinstein, K. S., & Gardner, K. B.
(2004). Fluent reading as the improvement of stimulus control: Additive effects of
performance-based interventions to repeated reading on students’ reading and
error rates. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, (2), 67-81.
Daly, E.J., Wright, J.A., Kelly S.Q., & Martens, B.K. (1997). Measures of early academic skills:
Reliability and validity with a first grade sample. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 268-280.
Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s unattended bedfellow. Theory
Into Practice, 30, 165-176.
Dowhower, S. L. (1999). Supporting a strategic stance in the classroom: A
comprehension framework for helping teachers help students to be strategic.
Reading Teacher, 52, (7), 672-689.
19
Eckert, T.L., & Shapiro, E.S. (1999) Methodological issues in analog acceptability research: Are
teachers= acceptability ratings of assessment methods influenced by experimental
design? School Psychology Review, 28, 5-16.
Elliott, S.N., & Fuchs, L. S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance
assessment as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology
Review, 26, 224-233.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998).
The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk
children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hosp. M., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator
of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
Gambrell, L. B. (2004). Exploring the connection between oral language and early
reading. Reading Teacher, 57, 490-492.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision making
utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading
skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-
289.
Griffith, L. W. & Rasinski, T. V. (2004). A focus on fluency: How one teacher
incorporated fluency with her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58, (2),
126-137.
Haetel, E. H. & Lorie, W. A. (2004). Validating standards-based test score
interpretations. Measurement, 2, (2), 61-64.
Hamilton, C. & Shinn, M. R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of
20
the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading
skills, School Psychology Review, 32, (2), 228-241.
Hasbrouck, J.E., Woldbeck, T., Ihnot, C., & Parker, R.I. (1999). One teacher=s use of curriculum-
based measurement: A changed opinion. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 118-
126.
Hintze, J., Conte, K., Shapiro, E., & Basile, I. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic
reading material: Criterion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level
assessment. School Psychology Review, 26, 535-553.
Hintze, J. M., Ryan, A. L., & Stoner, G. (2003). Concurrent validity and diagnostic
accuracy of the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills and the
comprehensive test of phonological processing. School Psychology Review, 32, (4),
541-557.
Howell, K. W. & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-Based Evaluation, Third Edition.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Langdon, T. (2004). DIBELS: A teacher-friendly basic literacy accountability tool for the
primary classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37, (2), 54-59.
Madelaine, A. & Wheldall, K. (1998). Towards a curriculum-based passage reading test
for monitoring the performance of low-progress readers using standardized
passages: A validity study. Educational Psychology, 18, 471-479.
McCauley, J. & McCauley, D. (1992). Using choral reading to promote language
learning for ESL students. The Reading Teacher, 39, 206-212.
Naslund, J. & Smolkin, L. B. (1997). Automaticity and phonemic representations:
Perceptual and cognitive building blocks for reading. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 13, 147-165.
21
Nathan, R. & Stanovich, K. (1991). The causes and consequences of differences in
reading fluency. Theory into practice, 30, 176-185.
Rasinski, T.V. (2000). Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher, 54, (2), 146-
152.
Rasinski, T., Rikli, A., & Johnston, S. (2009). Reading fluency more than automaticity? more than a
concern for the primary grades? Literacy Research and Instruction, 48, 350-361.
Roman, S. P. (2004). Illiteracy and older adults: Individual and societal implications.
Educational Gerontology, 30, (2), 79-93.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-
408.
Samuels, S. J. & Flor, R. F. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing
expertise in reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 107-122.
Schatschneider, C. & Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Using our current understanding of dyslexia
to support early identification and intervention. Journal of Child Neurology, 19,
(10), 759-765.
Shinn, M. (1995). A comparison of differences between students labeled learning disabled and low
achieving on measures of classroom performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 545-
552.
Stayter, F. & Allington, R. (1991). Fluency and the understanding of texts. Theory Into
Practice, 33, 143-148.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., Conway,
T., & Rose, E. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe
reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional
approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.
22
Valencia, S. & Buly, M. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need.
The Reading Teacher, 57, 520-531.
Worthy, J. & Broaddus, K. (2002). Fluency beyond the primary grades: From group
performance to silent, independent reading. Reading Teacher, 55, (4), 334-344.
