Progress Monitoring in Reading: Comparison of Weekly, Bimonthly, and Monthly Assessments for Students at Risk for Reading Difficulties in Grades 2-4

Autor/inn/en	January, Stacy-Ann A.; Van Norman, Ethan R.; Christ, Theodore J.; Ardoin, Scott P.; Eckert, Tanya L.; White, Mary Jane
Titel	Progress Monitoring in Reading: Comparison of Weekly, Bimonthly, and Monthly Assessments for Students at Risk for Reading Difficulties in Grades 2-4
Quelle	In: School Psychology Review, 47 (2018) 1, S.83-94 (12 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	Weitere Informationen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0279-6015
Schlagwörter	Progress Monitoring; Reading Improvement; Reading Tests; Student Evaluation; At Risk Students; Reading Difficulties; Elementary School Students; Alternative Assessment; Comparative Analysis; Curriculum Based Assessment; Predictor Variables; Data Collection; Statistical Analysis + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Lesetest; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung; Reading difficulty; Leseschwierigkeit; Prädiktor; Data capture; Datensammlung; Statistische Analyse
Abstract	The present study examined the utility of two progress monitoring assessment schedules (bimonthly and monthly) as alternatives to monitoring once weekly with curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R). General education students (N = 93) in Grades 2-4 who were at risk for reading difficulties but not yet receiving special education services had their progress monitored via three assessment schedules across 1 academic year. Four mixed-factorial analyses of variance tested the effect of progress monitoring schedule (weekly, bimonthly, monthly), grade (2, 3, and 4), and the interaction effect between schedule and grade on four progress monitoring outcomes: intercept, slope, standard error of the estimate, and standard error of the slope. Results indicated that (a) progress monitoring schedule significantly predicted each outcome, (b) grade predicted each progress monitoring outcome except the standard error of the slope, and (c) the effect of schedule on each outcome did not depend on students' grade levels. Overall, findings from this study reveal that collecting CBM-R data less frequently than weekly may be a viable option for educators monitoring the progress of students in Grades 2-4 who are at risk for reading difficulties. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	National Association of School Psychologists. 4340 East West Highway Suite 402, Bethesda, MD 20814. Tel: 301-657-0270; Fax: 301-657-0275; e-mail: publications@naspweb.org; Web site: http://www.nasponline.org/publications/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01