Decision-Making Accuracy of CBM Progress-Monitoring Data. (February 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hintze, John M.; Wells, Craig S.; Marcotte, Amanda M.; Solomon, Benjamin G.
• Other Names: Benson Nicholas F. guest-editor.
• Is Part Of: Journal of psychoeducational assessment. Volume 36:Number 1(2018)
• Page Start: 74
• Page End: 81
• Publication Date: 2018-02
• Subjects: assessment of interventions/outcomes -- diagnostic classification models -- measurement -- response to intervention (RTI)/multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) -- statistical analyses -- measurement; Ability -- Testing -- Periodicals; Educational tests and measurements -- Periodicals; 371.713
• DOI: 10.1177/0734282917729263
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0734-2829

Abstract

This study examined the diagnostic accuracy associated with decision making as is typically conducted with curriculum-based measurement (CBM) approaches to progress monitoring. Using previously published estimates of the standard errors of estimate associated with CBM, 20, 000 progress-monitoring data sets were simulated to model student reading growth of two-word increase per week across 15 consecutive weeks. Results indicated that an unacceptably high proportion of cases were falsely identified as nonresponsive to intervention when a common 4-point decision rule was applied, under the context of typical levels of probe reliability. As reliability and stringency of the decision-making rule increased, such errors decreased. Findings are particularly relevant to those who use a multi-tiered response-to-intervention model for evaluating formative changes associated with instructional intervention and evaluating responsiveness to intervention across multiple tiers of intervention.