Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading: Standard Errors Associated With Progress Monitoring Outcomes From DIBELS, AIMSweb, and an Experimental Passage Set

There are relatively few studies that evaluate the quality of progress monitoring estimates derived from curriculum-based measurement of reading. Those studies that are published provide initial evidence for relatively large magnitudes of standard error relative to the expected magnitude of weekly growth. A major contributor to the observed magnitudes of standard error is the inconsistency of passage difficulty within progress monitoring passage sets. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate and estimate the magnitudes of standard error across an experimental passage set referred to as the Formative Assessment Instrumentation and Procedures for Reading (FAIP-R) and two commercially available passage sets (AIMSweb and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills [DIBELS]). Each passage set was administered twice weekly to 68 students. Results indicated significant differences in intercept, weekly growth, and standard error. Estimates of standard error were smallest in magnitude for the FAIP-R passage set followed by the AIMSweb and then DIBELS passage sets. Implications for choosing a progress monitoring passage set and estimating individual student growth are discussed. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Stan Deno and colleagues developed the procedures for curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (CBM-R) to enable teachers to systematically monitor and evaluate the effects of instruction on student performance (Deno, 1985; Deno, Marston, & Tindal, 1985; Deno, Mirkin, & Chiang, 1982). Research suggests that students are likely to make greater academic gains if their teachers use CBM-R in conducting systematic formative evaluations to determine when and if instructional modifications are needed (Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Allinder, 1991). Systematic formative evaluation using CBM-R involves administering passages twice weekly, weekly, or monthly, and plotting a student’s observed This research was supported by a grant from the Society for the Study of School Psychology. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Scott P. Ardoin, University of Georgia, Department of EPIT, 325L Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602; E-mail: [email protected] Copyright 2009 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015 School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 2, pp. 266–283