Search

Students with dyslexia demonstrate reading difficulty in early literacy skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, word recognition, decoding), and administering screeners is a necessary step to implement effective intervention. There are several commonly used reading screeners, but the decision accuracy and predictive value between them varies. In the current study, scores on two different reading screeners, the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen (SDS) and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next (DIBELS Next) were compared for 115 U.S. Grades K-3 students with specific reading deficits using the Phonological Awareness Composite of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing as the criterion. Tests of sensitivity, specificity, and post-test probabilities were used to evaluate the decision accuracy of the data. Results suggested that the decision accuracy for DIBELS Next (78%) was better than SDS (45%), and both sensitivity (DIBELS Next = 90%, SDS = 35%) and positive post-test probability (DIBELS Next = 71%, SDS = 42%) favored DIBELS Next. Thus, the DIBELS Next measures demonstrated acceptable decision accuracy in identifying students with low phonological awareness, but the SDS did not.

Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) has conventionally included accuracy criteria with recommended fluency thresholds for instructional decision-making. Some scholars have argued for the use of accuracy to directly determine instructional need (e.g., Szadokierski et al., 2017). However, accuracy and fluency have not been directly examined to determine their separate and joint value for decision-making in CBM prior to this study. Instead, there was an assumption that instruction that emphasized accurate responding should be monitored with accuracy data, which evolved into the use of complementing CBM fluency scores with accuracy or using timed assessment to compute percent of responses correct and using accuracy criteria to determine instructional need. The purpose of this article was to examine fluency and accuracy as related but distinct metrics with psychometric properties and associated benefits and limits. Findings suggest that the redundancy between accuracy and fluency causes them to perform comparably overall, but that: (1) fluency is superior to accuracy when accuracy is computed on a timed sample of performance; (2) timed accuracy adds no benefit relative to fluency alone; and (3) accuracy when collected under timed assessment conditions has substantial psychometric limitations that make it unsuitable for the formative instructional decisions which are commonly made using CBM data. The conventional inclusion of accuracy criteria in tandem with fluency criteria for instructional decision-making in CBM should be reconsidered as there may be no added predictive value, but rather additional opportunity for error due to the problems associated with unfixed trials in timed assessment.

Computer-based curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a relatively common practice, but surprisingly few studies have examined the reliability of computer-based CBM. This study sought to examine the reliability of CBM administered via paper/pencil versus the computer. Twenty-one of 25 students in two third-grade classes (N = 21) participated in two generalizability studies. The primary facet of interest, format of assessment, was examined for two measures, a fact operation (fact family measure) and a more complex operation (multidigit addition). Researchers administered four alternate forms of each measure under both computer and paper/pencil conditions. Results indicated ideal reliability of measurement within all conditions and results were consistent across assessment formats for the fact operation. However, assessment format explained a large proportion of variance for the more complex skill (multidigit addition). Results indicate a need to consider the reliability of transitioning assessment from paper/pencil to computer-based response on a measure-by-measure basis.

Math curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is an essential tool for multi-tiered systems of support decision making, but the reliability of math CBMs has received little research, particularly using more rigorous methods such as generalizability (G) theory. Math CBM is historically organized into two domains: mastery measures and general outcome measures. This paper details 17 concurrent G and dependability studies in a partially crossed design investigating the reliability of mastery measure CBMs for students (N = 263) in Grades K, 1, 3, 5, and 7. This study extends prior research by including novel grade levels and more rigorous math content; using generated rather than static measures; embedding a replication; examining bias by race and sex; and evaluating a simpler scoring method of answers correct as compared to digits correct. Most of the variance in scores was accounted for by student. Probe form effects accounted for less than 5% of the variance for 16 of 17 measures and results replicated across days. G coefficients exceeded 0.75 on the first trial for 14 of 17 measures. G studies were repeated by race, sex, and scoring metric. Overall, 1-4 min of assessment was sufficient to meet reliability thresholds, which exceeds prior findings for general outcome measures. This study supports the reliability of mastery measurement in math CBM and as a precise tool to be used in the screening process.

Successful math word-problem solving is difficult for some students. Getting the right answer involves students engaging correctly in an amalgamation of actions. Schema instruction is an instructional approach aimed at supporting students in identifying the underlying math problem structure to yield an appropriate solution plan. The focus of this article is on supporting educators in understanding the core ingredients of schema instruction and explaining how to implement it effectively with students with elementary grades emotional and behavioral disorders.

The terms equity, inclusion, diversity, and belonging, often present an assumption that the dialogue will center around school climate, culture, and psychological safety. While these are critical components of equitable practices, the educational process of providing sound academic instruction and assessment cannot be lost in the conversation. Fundamental academic subject matter related to literacy, science, social studies, and mathematics create pathways for college and career readiness. This article is the third of a series of articles appearing in "Communiqué" about how school psychologists can adopt and promote evidence-based practices in math assessment and instruction. The focus of this article is on the social responsibility of effective mathematics practices to ensure access, opportunity, and inclusion for all learners. [For the first article in the series "The Science of Math and Class-Wide Math Intervention," see EJ1317732. For the second article in the series "The Science of Math: The Importance of Mastery Measures and the Quest for a General Outcome Measure," see EJ1322824.]

In education, there is a history of pitting philosophy against science. In mathematics, a similar divide exists between evidence-based practice and philosophy-based practice. Philosophy-based practices are very prevalent in math and are not simply benignly ineffective tactics. The science of math is a movement that focuses on using objective evidence about how students learn math in order to make educational decisions and to inform policy and practice. The authors believe that school psychologists, as data-based decision-making consultants and MTSS experts in schools, are critical allies in promoting research-based practices in mathematics. This article is the first of a series of articles appearing in "Communiqué" about how school psychologists can adopt and promote evidence-based practices in math assessment and instruction. Future articles will address topics including equity in mathematics, curriculum-based measurement updates in mathematics, math anxiety and timed tasks, how to build intensified individualized math interventions, and how to use math MTSS data for program evaluation and eligibility determination.

This study examined the classification accuracy for subskill mastery measures administered in mathematics for students in kindergarten and Grades 1, 3, 5, and 7 at fall (n = 564) and winter (n = 602) screening. In addition, response to classwide math intervention was examined as another layer of screening for students in kindergarten and Grades 1, 3, and 5 (n = 387). Criterion measures were the year-end accountability measure for math in Grades 3, 5, and 7. For kindergarten and Grade 1 a researcher-constructed composite measure was used. For all measures (screening and criterion), 20th percentile performance was the risk criterion. Authors hypothesized that classwide intervention response would provide more accurate identification of risk than fall or winter screening. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-generated sensitivities and specificities supported this hypothesis. Data indicated that intervention dosage was adequate and did reduce the base rate of risk in each screening group. Posttest probabilities indicated that subskill mastery measures and response to classwide intervention could be used to accurately indicate math risk and the need for more intensive intervention for students in a multitier system of supports (MTSS) model.

This study details the construction of parameters for generating subskill mastery math measures to be used for screening, intervention planning, progress monitoring, and proximal program evaluation. Parameters for generating assessment measures were built and tested to verify initial equivalence of generated measures using potential digits correct as a proxy for task difficulty across generated measures. Generated measures met initial equivalence criteria and were subjected to further reliability analysis. Measures were generated and administered 1 week apart at fall and winter to students in Grades K, 1, 3, 5, and 7. Thirty-four screening measures were examined for delayed alternate form reliability, risk decision agreement, and interobserver agreement. Delayed alternate form reliability values generally exceeded r = 0.80, could be reliably scored, and yielded consistent risk decisions. Future research directions were discussed.

This article is the second of a series of articles appearing in "Communiqué" about how school psychologists can adopt and promote the evidence-based practices in math assessment and instruction. The focus of this article is on measuring math skills for screening, diagnostic decisions, and progress monitoring. [For the first article in the series "The Science of Math and Class-Wide Math Intervention," see EJ1317732.]

Many school psychologists work in schools that have low proficiency rates on the year-end test of mathematics, which is concerning because math proficiency is a powerful indicator of long-term academic success. Addressing math instructional problems is not easy work. One reason the authors examine is that the work is so challenging for school psychologists is that there is a great deal of philosophy that is at odds with contemporary evidence, yet is embraced by the teachers, school coaches, and leaders who observe the large and persistent achievement gaps, care deeply about their students, and want to avoid harm. The result is tension between evidence-based and philosophy-based practices in math education. In the rest of this paper, they will discuss some common misunderstandings of math practices and summarize available evidence that school psychologists may use to advise systems in the thoughtful implementation of evidence-based practices in ways that bring mathematical success to more children.

Assessment is fundamental to school psychology, but its purpose has shifted from making predictions about children to improving outcomes for children. This commentary on the special issue focuses on screening and progress-monitoring decisions that can be used to solve student problems. We outline several psychometric and practical issues that affect decision making (e.g., screening accuracy, the relationship between pretest and posttest probabilities, and reliable measurement of slope). We also recommend that school psychologists (a) let go of assessment practices that do not result in positive outcomes for students, (b) select assessments that directly inform intervention, (c) use a more nuanced approach to monitoring student progress that could include subskill mastery measurement, (d) stop using 3-point decision rules for high-stakes decisions, and (e) evaluate student growth in the presence of high-quality intervention delivery.

Screening is necessary to detect risk and prevent reading failure. Yet the amount of screening that commonly occurs in U.S. schools may undermine its value, creating more error in decision making and lost instructional opportunity. This 2-year longitudinal study examined the decision accuracy associated with collecting concurrent reading screening measures and in collecting fall and winter screening measures for all students in Grade 3 in 4 schools in a midwestern district (N = 428) in Year 1. This study also categorized children by proficiency on the Year 1 test and by the amount of screening they received in Year 1 in 7 schools in the district (N = 656) and then examined performance on the Year 2 test to examine screening benefit. Analyses included multiple regression, classification agreement, and multilevel modeling. Results found no added accuracy in using more than one screening in the fall and no added accuracy in using both fall and winter screening data. Students experienced on average a 1.57-point gain on the year-end test for each screening to which they were exposed. Follow-up analyses found benefit for the most at-risk students and little benefit of screening for proficient students.

This article considers the cost of poor decision making in school psychology, especially with regard to determining eligibility for special education under the category of specific learning disability. One common costly decision made by school psychologists is failing to use evidence-based assessment and intervention procedures that are likely to be of benefit to the student. VanDerHeyden comments on the direction of the field and discusses possible reasons that school psychologists continue to use practices that have not demonstrated a benefit for students. She then suggests specific ways in which school psychologists might overcome barriers to using effective assessment and intervention practices in schools.

Schools need evidence-based guidance on which measures in mathematics, administered under what particular set of conditions (e.g., time of year), provide the most useful prediction. The purpose of this study was to examine decision accuracy among commonly used screening measures with a priority toward identifying the least costly screening measures for predicting year-end mathematics failure. Predictors included existing demographic characteristics, the preceding year-end mathematics test score, and multiple measures administered during the study year including multiskill computation and concepts/applications measures, addition and subtraction for third grade, multiplication and division for fourth grade, and multidigit multiplication for fifth grade. Results supported the use of a single measure for screening. The preceding year's test score was superior or comparable in accuracy to current-year screening measures and was the lowest cost option (i.e., required no additional assessment time). Results cautioned against the use of multiskill computation and concepts/applications measures at all grade levels because of a high number of false-negative errors. The single-skill computation measures performed comparably to the preceding year-end test in overall accuracy. However, the single-skill probes outperformed all other measures in detecting students who would fail the year-end test, which is the most important function of a screening device. For most measures, the winter screening occasion offered the best predictive accuracy.

Treatment dose is an understudied aspect of treatment effectiveness. This study compared the frequency with which a small-group mathematics intervention was delivered weekly (i.e., four times, twice, once) with a control condition while controlling for total duration. 101 at-risk students in grades 2-4 were randomly assigned to a condition following universal screening and skill-based assessments. Multilevel modeling was used to evaluate final score and growth on three measures. Results suggested that for the most proximal computation measure, treatment sessions occurring four times weekly produced clear benefits. On the application measure, students in all treatment groups outperformed students in the control condition. For the most complex computation measure, frequency was not a useful predictor. Grade was a moderating variable.

The current article presents additional analyses of a classwide mathematics intervention, from a previously reported randomized controlled trial, to offer new information about the treatment and to demonstrate the utility of different types of effect sizes. Multilevel modeling was used to examine treatment effects by race, sex, socioeconomic status, special education status, and achievement risk status and did not indicate differences in intervention effects on year-end state test scores by subgroup. Multilevel modeling analyses found score differences on spring curriculum-based measurements by race, treatment assignment, and prior educational risk, but only treatment assignment predicted differences in gains over time, favoring the intervention group for two of the three measures. Race and treatment assignment predicted differences in gains for one measure. Nonproficient scorers were proportionate by all demographic categories in the intervention group, but in the control group, there were disproportionately higher numbers of African American students, students receiving special education services, and students with an initial achievement risk who scored in the nonproficient range on the year-end test. Risk reduction analyses, including absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) estimates, were computed overall and by subgroup. Overall, the data suggested stronger intervention effects for students who began the intervention at greater risk, including students of minority ethnicity (NNT = 4), students receiving special education (NNT = 3), and students with initial achievement risk (NNT = 3), in this sample.

Given that most schools already conduct reading screening multiple times per year, often using multiple measures, it makes sense to revisit why all this screening may not be giving schools the desired return on investment that they are after. The purpose of this article is to equip school psychologists with an understanding of four common dyslexia screening myths that cause more harm in screening than good, and to share specific tactics for smarter screening.

Perhaps the greatest value of response to intervention (RTI) as a decision framework is that it brings attention to variables (e.g., mastery of prerequisite skills, frequency of instructional corrective feedback, reinforcement schedules for correct responding) that if changed might make a meaningful difference for students (e.g., child rate of learning is accelerated and child learns to read). Yet, RTI is also a model that has diagnostic implications. Classification agreement analyses can quantify accuracy and efficiency of decisions within RTI systems and can indicate which procedures and decision rules lead to the best decisions. Because RTI systems are dynamic and procedures vary between schools and implementers, classification agreement analyses, when not misapplied or misinterpreted, are ideal for quantifying utility of various decision models. This article offers a critical analysis of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power, and negative predictive power estimates and discusses the development of sophisticated models of decision making. (Contains 4 tables and 3 figures.)

Early measures of mathematics skill and development have focused on early numeracy skills like counting, number identification, and sequencing of numbers. This study attempted to expand early mathematics assessment. Six new measures of early mathematics skill competence were developed and evaluated. Four existing measures also were examined. Measures were developed to directly assess kindergarten children's understanding of concepts including number sense (ordinality, subitivity, cardinality), shape recognition, and patterning. Technical adequacy estimates were examined including test-retest reliability, concurrent and longitudinal correlation with criterion measures, and sensitivity. The Pattern Completion, Set Comparison with Unequal-Sized Items, and Subitivity measures performed best. Existing early numeracy measures performed comparably to or better than the new measures. (Contains 3 tables.)

The National Mathematics Advisory Panel specifies that children should be able to fluently add and subtract whole numbers by the end of third grade. Mathematical understanding of addition and subtraction emerges well before formal mathematic instruction begins, and when it emerges it reflects competence in a number of prerequisite skills and concepts. By the time children begin to formally learn the procedures associated with addition and subtraction, they will already understand that numbers have a fixed sequence. It also seems clear that understanding of important mathematical concepts occurs as young children interact with adults, children, and materials in their environments. Unfortunately, and as noted by others, adults are fairly unresponsive to young children's mathematical development. Mathematic deficits are apparent by preschool and are often associated with other risk factors. In addition, the way they measure mathematical capacities in young children, however, presents challenges. Being able to quantify early mathematics skills will allow teachers and parents to support children's mathematical development intentionally and perhaps alter these children's learning outcomes over time. In this article, the author shares her ideas on future directions for developing risk models that are scale-able and have the greatest economy. (Contains 2 tables.)

Brief experimental analysis (BEA) can be used to specify intervention characteristics that produce positive learning gains for individual students. A key challenge to the use of BEA for intervention planning is the identification of performance indicators (including topography of the skill, measurement characteristics, and decision criteria) that meaningfully relate to longer term success in the learning environment. This study investigates the utility of various curriculum-based assessment and measurement estimates of mathematics performance for predicting functional outcomes (i.e., retention of learned skills over time and faster learning of related content in the future). All children in grades 2-5 at the participating school participated in protocol-based computational fluency-building intervention 4 days per week for an entire school year. Specific criteria were applied each week to systematically increase intervention difficulty classwide according to a pre-established sequence of computational skill objectives. Three measurements were routinely obtained. Each week children completed a timed probe of the skill for which intervention was currently occurring and a timed probe of previously mastered skills from the sequence of computational skill objectives. Each month, all children completed a timed probe of mathematics skills representing computational skills that students were expected to master by year's end at each grade level. At all grade levels, learning a skill that appeared early in the hierarchy or sequence of skills related positively to learning of future related and more complex computational skills. Fluency criteria were specified that predicted retention of the skill over several months.

Selecting appropriate measures to make decisions about child response to intervention is a key concern. The most commonly used assessment tool in response to intervention (RTI) models is curriculum-based measurement (CBM). However, an issue related to the use of CBM is the identification of measures that are of similar difficulty. To the degree that variation in performance across measurement occasions can be attributed to anything other than student learning, errors in judgment about student RTI may be made. The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy and efficiency of using a single CBM passage for progress monitoring at key intervals during individual reading intervention compared to using several passages that had been individually equated. Results indicated that decisions made based on a standard passage did not differ from decisions made based on scores obtained on the individually equated passages but were much more cost efficient. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.)

Response to intervention (RTI) is characterized as a logical science of decision making that has applicability for early childhood, particularly in the context of multitiered intervention models. This study examined the utility of using curriculum-based early literacy measures as screening tools and for evaluating whether growth in early literacy skills was altered following brief interventions. Thirty-five preschool-age children at risk for learning difficulties participated in a 5-week intervention focused on key phonemic awareness skills delivered in classwide and individual formats. Curriculum-based measurement probes were administered each week to all children. Results showed the curriculum-based measures led to enhanced decision accuracy about children at risk for learning difficulties, particularly when combined with brief classwide interventions designed to systematically address opportunities to learn. For children who were initially low performers, weekly progress monitoring combined with classwide early literacy interventions appeared to be related to accelerated growth toward early literacy targets. Implications for the expansion of RTI decision-making frameworks in early childhood are discussed. (Contains 5 tables and 2 figures.)

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 0.65 (second and third grades) and 0.73 (fourth and fifth grades). (Contains 3 tables and 1 note.)

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of implementation of a systematic response to intervention (RTI) model on the identification and evaluation of children for special education. Using a multiple baseline design, a systematic model of assessment and intervention was introduced in consecutive years for all elementary schools (N = 5) in the district. Effect of the RTI model on number of evaluations conducted, percentage of evaluated children who qualified for services, and proportion of identified children by sex and ethnicity before and after implementation of the model was examined. Additionally, outcomes for children who did not have an adequate response to intervention versus those who were at-risk but responded successfully to short-term intervention were examined. A cost analysis of use of the model was provided. The degree to which data obtained were used by the decision-making team was also examined. The assessment and intervention procedures, decision rules, and schoolwide training methods are described in detail and practical implications are discussed.

The purpose of this manuscript is to conceptualize a unified Response to Intervention (RTI) model that may be applied to Head Starts or preschools with typical children and those identified as "at risk," or "children with disabilities." RTI basically provides a specific and discrete cumulative intervention history of services which also may be used as evaluation data. Intervention sequences may include universal and classwide (Tier 1), embedded and small group (Tier 2), and individualized interventions (Tier 3) on a continuum defined by intervention intensity. Advantages, challenges, limitations, criticism, and opportunities for RTI consultation and support are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to examine the progress monitoring and screening accuracy for a set of curriculum-based measures (CBM) of early mathematics skills. Measures included counting objects, selecting numbers, naming numbers, counting, and visual discrimination. Measures were designed to be administered with preschoolers in a short period of time using a developmentally appropriate format, and to constitute minimal disruption to the classroom routine. Previous research indicated that each of these measures produced scores with acceptable consistency across alternate forms on consecutive days. Scores yielded on the experimental probes correlated moderately, in most cases, with two commonly used standardized measures (i.e., the Brigance Screens and TEMA-2). Performance on the probes also correlated with teacher rankings and ratings of child performance. In the present study, data were collected in two phases. In the first phase, a cohort of children were administered the early math measures in spring of preschool and were followed into winter of kindergarten where they were administered kindergarten CBM probes to examine the degree to which performance in preschool (as measured by the early math probes) could predict performance on similar tasks in kindergarten. Second, risk criteria were examined and compared to identification by the Brigance Screens. These analyses provided data about the potential accuracy of the probes for screening. In the second phase, sensitivity of the probes to performance differences was examined by comparing mean performance on the probes of preschoolers and kindergartners. The lowest-performing children were provided with seven intervention sessions to examine the degree to which probes could detect growth resulting from intervention. Directions for future research and implications for practice are discussed.

Several approaches to response to intervention (RTI) described in the literature could be blended into an RTI model that would be effective in the schools. An effective RTI model should employ three fundamental variables: (a) systematic data collection to identify students in need, (b) effective implementation of interventions for adequate durations, and (c) review of student progress data to determine when and/or if more intensive services are warranted. Research regarding RTI elements such as intervention time, intervention duration, treatment efficacy, intervention group size, measurement of student progress, and decision analyses is reviewed. Recommendations for future research include further defining the element of intervention time with regard to frequency and duration, determining the effect of the individual delivering the intervention, and specifying a reliable decision-making rule for determining student responsiveness/nonresponsiveness to interventions.

Knowing what behaviors adults can engage in to accelerate child growth toward desired outcomes is fundamental to achieving the promise of early education and intervention. Once adequate progress-monitoring measures are developed, patterns of child performance over time and in response to certain interventions can be quantified. The ability to quantify response to intervention with young children will produce at least three immediate benefits: (a) the ability to improve child outcomes in a more efficient fashion through iterative problem-solving attempts, (b) a resulting data set that could be used to determine what additional supports and services might be needed in the context of early learning environments, and (c) a cumulative data set that should reflect whether the additional supports and services are meaningfully accelerating child growth. This article discusses the rationale for response to intervention in early education, the logical basis for response to intervention decision making, and barriers to effective implementation with young children. This article also introduces the articles in this special series, each of which focuses on accelerating learning and growth for all young children and has implications for the use of response to intervention in early education. (Contains 3 tables.)

This study compared the mathematics performance of 434 second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students to previously reported fluency and accuracy criteria using three categories of performance (frustration, instructional, and mastery). Psychometric properties of the fluency and accuracy criteria were explored and new criteria for the instructional level were empirically derived. Two sets of mathematics probes were administered to the students and delayed alternate-form reliability coefficients were obtained from multi-skill probes. Results suggested that fluency data were significantly more reliable than accuracy data. Slopes from the single-skill probes were used to categorize students as high responders, and the mean fluency scores from that group's multi-skill probes were used to suggest an alternative instructional level of 14-31 digits correct per minute for second- and third-graders and 24-49 digits correct per minute for fourth- and fifth-graders. Implications for practice and suggestions for future research are discussed. (Contains 4 tables.)

Five hundred thirty-eight elementary school students participated in a study designed to examine the technical characteristics of curriculum-based measures (CBMs) for the assessment of writing. In addition, the study investigated rating-based measures of writing using the Six Trait model, an assessment instrument and writing program in use in many schools throughout the United States (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2000). Technical characteristics of both models were evaluated. Results indicated that, using the Stanford-9 standard scores for written language subtests as the criterion, most scoring conventions of CBMs for written expression were reliable and valid. Despite adequate interobserver agreement on the Six Trait measures according to scoring conventions, exact agreement was low. The Six Trait measures do not measure distinct components of writing, nor do they share a significant amount of variance with Stanford-9 measures of written expression. CBMs of written expression have shown sufficient technical adequacy across several studies to warrant their use in writing assessment. These results do not support the use of the Six Trait model as a measure of written expression. Implications for research are presented. (Contains 5 tables.)

No Child Left Behind mandates accountability data for school districts. This mandate has led to increased attention to instruction and academic remediation among educational researchers. The current study used schoolwide curriculum-based assessment (CBA) and curriculum-based measurement (CBM) data to plan and deliver mathematics instruction to examine if this would lead to improved student skill within one school year and improved group test scores between school years. The Screening to Enhance Equitable Educational Placement (STEEP) schoolwide problem-solving model was used in one elementary building, with CBM data used to track progress and CBA data used daily to track mastery at each skill level. Results suggested that children made significant progress within one school year, as measured by CBM, and the school significantly increased Stanford-9 mathematics scores after implementing the program. Potential implications for assessment and instructional practice are included. (Contains 4 tables and 2 figures.)

Response to intervention (RTI) has emerged as a promising, but possibly vulnerable, alternative to the current model of identification and eligibility assessment in special education. Nested within a simple and compelling structure for RTI are many questions and challenges that make its future as "policy" at-risk unless these issues can be satisfactorily resolved. As it stands, RTI is likely to improve many decisions about educational interventions, especially when combined with universal screening procedures. In a full RTI implementation, potential benefits may include (a) increased achievement schoolwide, because struggling children are identified proactively and immediate help is provided to determine whether or not more intensive help is needed, as well as (b) a coherent and flexible system of services. Whereas many of the components of RTI are well established, RTI needs further operationalization, development, standardization, and field-testing. All first-and second-grade children (N = 182 children; 364 potential reading or math cases) at an elementary school were screened using four measures (curriculum-based measurement, Brigance subtests, state reading test, and teacher identification). Decision rules were applied to the screening data to select those children who were at-risk academically. Each of these children (n= 101 reading and math cases) participated in an individual curriculum-based assessment (CBA) in reading or math. Of these cases, 32 met criteria to participate in individual intervention (16 math and 16 reading interventions). Standard protocol intervention was implemented for 5 to 9 intervention sessions or until children met intervention success criteria. All second-grade children were administered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Data were generated to examine various criteria for judging intervention responsiveness and to raise empirical questions about the reliability and accuracy with which decisions could be made under an RTI model. (Contains 5 tables.)

The purpose of this article was to examine the effect of base rate occurrence of race, sex, and student achievement on the accuracy of a problem-solving model of assessment and teacher referral. All students in first and second grade (n = 182) at a participating school were exposed to four screening measures. Students who performed poorly on at least one of the screening measures participated in a more thorough assessment process including individual curriculum-based assessment with individual intervention. The predictive accuracy (e.g., sensitivity, specificity) of the problem-solving model and teacher referral was examined using the more thorough assessment process as the standard for comparison. The degree to which the problem-solving model and teacher referral correctly identified male and female children, children of minority and nonminority ethnicity, and children in high-achieving and low-achieving classrooms was specified. Further, the efficiency of the problem-solving model and teacher referral was examined by comparing identification relative to base rate occurrence of problems in the screened population. (Contains 4 tables, 1 figure, and 2 footnotes.)

Response to Intervention (RTI) models have substantial promise for screening, intervention service delivery, and to serve as catalysts for system change to enhance the educational outcomes of children. RTI represents a more flexible service delivery model; however, it is essential to articulate how RTI can be effectively implemented and demonstrated to be functionally meaningful. This article provides a brief review of probable advantages and possible challenges of implementing RTI and also provides an overview of data emerging from the Screening to Enhance Equitable Placement (STEEP) problem-solving model. Further research is necessary to clearly delineate the purpose(s), operationalize procedures and judgments, and evaluate the decision-making utility of the RTI models in practice. (Contains 2 tables.)

Comments on an article by Marisa G. Macy, Diane D. Bricker, and Jane K. Squires. This commentary presents a distinction between curriculum-based assessment (CBA) and curriculum-based measurement (CBM). CBA has been linked to a mastery measurement model whereas; CBM has been linked to a general outcome measurement model. The primary difference between CBA and CBM hinges on what skill is measured at a given point in time. CBA measures the behavior that is being targeted and CBM measures the behavior that is ultimately desired. CBM will indicate throughout an intervention program whether the correct intervention targets or sub-skills have been selected for individual children as reflected directly and parsimoniously by the outcome. CBA and CBM hold great promise for demonstrating child growth and development in response to various levels of intervention. CBA measures will assist teachers to test instructional hypotheses and assessment teams to demonstrate that what was targeted was effectively taught, eligibility decisions are likely to be tied more successfully to CBMs. Further, use of universal screening and technically adequate progress monitoring tools within a problem-solving framework will permit the field to focus on a broader range of disabling conditions, especially those that occur with poverty. (Contains 2 figures.)

The effects on child engagement of adult use of systematic, naturalistic instructional strategies within an embedded instruction context were examined. Following baseline observations of two children with disabilities and same-age classmates without disabilities, three different instructional strategies were implemented with each child with a disability and one child without disabilities using an alternating treatments design. Results indicated that levels of engagement for the three target children during baseline (embedded instruction only) were low. Engagement was higher (and approximated levels of same-class peers without disabilities) for two of three systematic instructional conditions designed to increase the probability of responding by ensuring complete learning trials. Described are implications related to the need to use systematic, naturalistic instructional strategies in embedded instruction contexts and the potential use of engagement as an indicator of response opportunities.

Curriculum-based measures have been validated for use in evaluating reading, mathematics, and writing skills (Marston, 1989). Despite its common use by school psychologists (Wilson & Reschly, 1996), the relationship between the Woodcock Johnson-Revised and curriculum-based measures of writing has not been evaluated. This study investigated the relationship between the Woodcock Johnson-Revised Writing Samples subtest and alternate curriculum-based measures of written expression. In addition, the sensitivity of the measures to the effects of a short group writing intervention was assessed. Forty-five third and fourth graders participated in an intervention that consisted of brainstorming ideas, presenting those ideas on a dry-erase board, and writing a complete sentence on paper with writing quality feedback before completing a CBM (curriculum-based measurement) writing passage. Numbers of words written as well as five alternate measures of writing samples were used to assess the effects of the intervention. The intervention had a positive effect on total words written. Total punctuation marks, simple sentences, and words in complete sentences emerged as the best predictors of the Woodcock Johnson-Revised Writing Samples subtest scores in regression analyses. The implications of the analyses, limitations of the study, and directions for future research are discussed. (Contains 5 tables.)

Six curriculum-based measures of math performance were developed for use with 4-year old preschool children. Measures included counting objects, selecting numbers, naming numbers, selecting shapes, counting, and visual discrimination. Technical properties of probe scores were assessed in two rural public preschool programs. Alternate forms, source, and item reliability of probe scores were assessed with approximately 50 children per probe. A randomly-selected sample of 53 children participated in the validation phase of the study. Concurrent validity of probe scores was assessed with the Brigance Screens and the Test of Early Mathematics Ability. Four of the probes yielded reliable and meaningful estimates of early math skills. Additional research is needed to evaluate the degree to which the probes are sensitive to growth and useful within comprehensive curriculum-based assessment models.

This article describes a systematic process for finding and resolving problems with classroom-based behavioral interventions in schools. Described is a step by step process for identifying and resolving issues that reduce intervention effectiveness. The article is organized around the Behavioral Intervention Troubleshooter, which is a checklist focusing on four major domains: (1) problem definition and monitoring, (2) fundamentals of classroom instruction and behavior management; (3) intervention integrity; and (4) intervention design. For each of these four sections, probable outcomes derived from use of the checklist are described. For eachoutcome, suggestions are provided for elimination or resolution of the problem to increase intervention effectiveness. Finally, each section begins with a brief literature review describing the evidence base for the recommended practices.