.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
A Comparison of Outcomes from the Trend Line Decision Rule Applied to Curriculum-Based Measures and Computer Adaptive Tests
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
E
DOI：10.1080/2372966X.2026.2647716.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Tiered systems of support require educators to closely monitor student growth in academic skills and adapt interventions when sufficient progress is not made. Curriculum-based measures of oral reading (CBM-R) are the most common progress monitoring assessments to monitor response to reading intervention. Computer adaptive tests (CATs) are also emerging as another option, particularly amongst older students. CBM-R and CAT progress monitoring data were simulated based upon outcomes collected under naturalistic conditions from a sample of grade six students to explore the consistency and accuracy of recommendations from the trend line decision rule. Both measures were developed and distributed by Renaissance Learning. Results suggest that agreement to change or maintain an intervention were equal to chance levels for CATs and CBM-R even when data were collected an entire school year. More than five months of data were required to yield sufficiently accurate recommendations to maintain or change interventions for low-stakes decisions for both assessments. CAT performed marginally better than CBM-R.
Impact Statement
Educators often must choose between computer-adaptive tests (CATs) or curriculum-based measures (CBMs) to evaluate response to reading instruction for middle school students. Results suggest that recommendations from the trend line decision rule for concurrently collected CBM and CAT data agree at chance levels. Further, the accuracy of recommendations from both assessments were often poor, even when data were collected for nearly an entire school year. Researchers need to identify alternate methods to efficiently evaluate student response to intervention.
Keywords:
Benjamin G. Solomon
progress monitoring
curriculum-based measurement
computer-adaptive tests
reading
Journal
IF:
4.2
Papers:
515
Citations:
3.3K
Organization
Cited Papers