This article reviews the decision rules for curriculum based reading scores. It concluded the rules were most often based on expert opinion.
Ardoin, S. P., Christ, T. J., Morena, L. S., Cormier, D. C., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding Curriculum-Based Measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 1-18.
Daly, I. I. I., Edward J, Martens, B. K., Barnett, D., Witt, J. C., & Olson, S. C. (2007). Varying Intervention Delivery in Response to Intervention: Confronting and Resolving Challenges With Measurement, Instruction, and Intensity. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 562-581.
Curriculum-based measurement is a type of formative assessment. It is used to screen for students who are not progressing and to identify how well students are responding to interventions.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in Curriculum-Based Measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184-192.
This article reviews the advantages of curriculum-based measurement as part of a data-based problem solving model.
Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing Curriculum-Based Measurement Systems For Data Based Special Education Problem Solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1-16.
This article describes using formative assessemnt as a foundational tool in a data-based problem solving approach to solving social behavior problems.
Ervin, R. A., Schaughency, E., Matthews, A., Goodman, S. D., & McGlinchey, M. T. (2007). Primary and secondary prevention of behavior difficulties: Developing a data-informed problem-solving model to guide decision making at a school-wide level. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 7-18.
This article compares and contrasts mastery level measures (grades) with curriculum-based measurement (global outcome measure).
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57(6), 488-500.
In this meta-analysis of studies that utilize formative assessment the authors report an effective size of .7.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of Systematic Formative Evaluation: A Meta-Analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208.
Curriculum-based measurement is recommended as an assessment method to identify students that require special education services.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1997). Use of curriculum-based measurement in identifying students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 1.
This study examines the effect of formative assessment on teachers’ instructional planning.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Stecker, P. M. (1989). Effects of Curriculum-Based Measurement on Teachers’ Instructional Planning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(1).
The authors contrast the functions of high stakes testing with prevention-based assessment. The authors also show the value of using formative assesment to estimate performance on high stakes tests.
Good, R.H., III., 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(3), 257-288.
Curriculum based measures were used to to evaluate student progress across multiple years following the introduction of selected evidence-based practices.
Greenwood, C. R., Tapia, Y., Abbott, M., & Walton, C. (2003). A Building-Based Case Study of Evidence-Based Literacy Practices: Implementation, Reading Behavior, and Growth in Reading Fluency, K--4. Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 95.
This article provides an overview of contextual factors across the levels of an educational system that influence implementation.
Response to Intervention depends on regular, routine monitoring of student progress. This paper describes a multi-component approach to monitoring progress.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). Progress Monitoring as Essential Practice Within Response to Intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 10-17.
This article reviews the efficacy of curriculum-based measurement as a methodology for enhancing student achievement in reading and math. Variables that contribute to the benefit of curriculum-based measurement are discussed.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Improve Student Achievement: Review of Research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795-819.
In order to determine effectiveness of instruction teachers require data about the effects of instruction. With these data teachers are able to make adjustments to instruction when progress is not being made.
Stecker, P. M., Lembke, E. S., & Foegen, A. (2008). Using Progress-Monitoring Data to Improve Instructional Decision Making. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 48-58.
The author makes the case that rapid assessment can identify struggling students who can then be provided intensive instruction so their performance on high stakes tests is improved.
Yeh, S. S. (2006). Can Rapid Assessment Moderate the Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Education & Urban Society, 39(1), 91-112.
The author reports data suggesting that the systematic use of formative assessment can reduce the pressure on teachers that they experience with high stakes testing.
Yeh, S. S. (2006). High-stakes testing: Can rapid assessment reduce the pressure?. Teachers College Record, 108(4).
The author presents data suggesting that rapid assessment of student performance improves education outcomes for students at a very low cost compared to other initiatives to improve outcomes.
Yeh, S. S. (2007). The Cost-Effectiveness of Five Policies for Improving Student Achievement. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 416-436.
The author compares the effectiness of comprehensive school reform relative to rapid progress monitoring. Progress monitoring results in much greater benefit than comprehensive school reform.
Yeh, S. S. (2008). The Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive School Reform and Rapid Assessment. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(13), 1-32.
The authors examine the effectiveness of replacing low performing teachers relative to using formative assessment as a means of increasing student outcomes.
Yeh, S. S., & Ritter, J. (2009). The Cost-Effectiveness of Replacing the Bottom Quartile of Novice Teachers Through Value-Added Teacher Assessment. Journal of Education Finance, 34(4), 426-451.
This article describes the use of technology to monitor student progress in math instruction. They highlight the importance of using the technology wiith fidelity.
Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2007). Effect of Technology-Enhanced Continuous Progress Monitoring on Math Achievement. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 453-467.