The impact of data collection methods on Reading Fluency scores using second-grade Curriculum-Based Measurement-Reading (R-CBM) probes.
MetadataShow full item record
Due to changes in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), Curriculum-Based Measurement has expanded in its scope. This legislation established Response to Intervention (RtI) methods for use as prevention and early academic intervention to provide assistance to children who are having difficulty learning. According to this law, RtI data, such as Curriculum-Based Measurement for Reading (R-CBM) scores, can be used to determine which students are in need of more intensive interventions and may also be used in the diagnosis of specific learning disabilities, such as reading disabilities (IDEIA, 2004). Currently, there are few evidence-based guidelines that inform R-CBM administration. For example, whether there are differences in R-CBM scores depending on the day of the week they are administered, and whether any such differences may be mitigated by the administration of three R-CBM probes as opposed to a single probe is unknown. Additionally, it is not known if there are significant differences in R-CBM scores if the median or the mean score (of three R-CBM probes) are utilized, and whether any such differences may be affected by the day of the week the probes are administered. The current study investigated the latter two issues. The participants in the study were second-grade students who attended a local public school in south central United States. Data was collected for a period of six weeks during the spring semester. Essentially two questions were addressed. The first question addressed if a significant difference in reading fluency, as indicated by Words Read Correctly per Minute (WRCM) exists depending on the number of probes given and the manner in which they are administered. Four administration conditions were examined: The first condition (Condition A) consisted of the median score of nine probes. For Condition A, three probes were administered to students three times each week. The other three conditions were contrived using the data from Condition A. Condition B consisted of the median score of three probes; each probe was collected on a different day of the week, such as Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Condition C consisted of the median score of all three probes administered on the middle day of the week (Wednesday). Group D consisted of the first probe administered on Wednesdays, which simulated administering only one probe per week. To determine if there are differences in outcome depending upon the manner in which the probes are administered, a Two-way Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to analyze all of the weekly data. Results suggested that there are differences in WRCM outcome depending upon the day of the week and the number of probes administered. The results indicated that overall, there is no difference in outcome if three probes are administered on one day or three probes spread out over three days during the week over the course of six weeks. Additionally, results showed that there was significantly greater R-CBM variability when one probe is administered in lieu of three probes or nine probes over the course of six weeks. Additional analyses using Repeated Measures ANOVAs were conducted to determine if there were differences between the conditions for each of the six weeks. Differences in outcome changed depending upon which week was examined, with the most consistency evident between Conditions A and B, Conditions A and C, and Conditions B and C. The most variability was seen between Conditions A and D and between Conditions B and D. The second research question examined the difference in outcomes when the mean of scores is used as opposed to the median score. A Two-way Repeated Measures ANOVA was used, and results indicated that over time, there is no difference in outcome if the median or mean score is used across the four conditions.