Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading.

In this article, the authors review the research on curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in reading published since the time of Marston's 1989 review. They focus on the technical adequacy of CBM related to measures, materials, and representation of growth. The authors conclude by discussing issues to be addressed in future research, and they raise the possibility of the development of a seamless and flexible system of progress monitoring that can be used to monitor students' progress across students, settings, and purposes.

**********

Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a method for monitoring student growth in an academic area and evaluating the effects of instructional programs on that growth (Deno, 1985). CBM was designed to be part of a problem-solving approach to special education whereby the academic difficulties of students would be viewed as problems to be solved rather than as immutable characteristics within a child (Deno, 1990). In the problem-solving approach, teachers were the "problem solvers" who constantly evaluated and modified students' instructional programs. For a problem-solving approach to be effective, it was necessary for teachers to have a tool that could be used to evaluate growth in response to instruction. CBM was developed to serve that purpose.

Two separate but related concerns drove the initial research into the development of CBM (Deno, 1985). The first was the concern for technical adequacy. If teachers were to use the measures to make instructional decisions, the measures would have to have demonstrated reliability and validity. The second was the concern for practicality. If teachers were to use the measures on an ongoing and frequent basis to evaluate instructional programs, the measures would have to be simple, efficient, easily understood, and inexpensive. These dual concerns led to the concept of "vital signs," or indicators of student performance (Deno, 1985). CBM measures were conceptualized to be short samples of work that would be indicators, or vital signs, of academic performance. The samples would need to be valid and reliable with respect to the broader academic domain they were representing, but would also need to be designed to be given on a frequent and repeated basis.

In 1989, Marston reviewed the existing research on CBM. At that time, CBM was viewed primarily as a progress-monitoring tool in basic skills for special education students at the elementary-school level (although there were discussions and instances of its uses more broadly, for example, see Shinn, 1989). Research in reading focused on two measures: word identification and reading aloud. The results of Marston's review provided support for the use of these two measures as indicators of general reading proficiency. In terms of reliability, results of five studies revealed test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from .82 to .97, with most coefficients above .90, and alternate-form reliability coefficients ranging from .84 to .96, with most coefficients above .90. Interrater agreement was .99. In terms of validity, 14 studies were reviewed. Criterion-related validity coefficients with published measures of reading ranged from .63 to .90, with most above .80. Criterion-related validity coefficients with basal reading series criterion mastery tests ranged from .57 to .86, with half above .80. Reading aloud correlated with teacher judgment and with various measures of reading comprehension, discriminated between lower and higher performing students, and was sensitive to growth.

Since the time of Marston's (1989) review, the research on CBM has expanded considerably--especially in the area of reading--making an updated review timely. Our purpose in writing this review is to gather, summarize, and reflect on the expansive body of literature published over the last 18 years on CBM in reading. We focus this review on issues of technical adequacy as they relate to measures, materials, and growth. Given the vast amount of material and the diversity of topics covered in this review, we insert summaries and discussion points throughout the article. In our final section, we draw conclusions, raise issues related to future research, and discuss the potential development of a seamless and flexible system of progress monitoring that can be used across students, settings, and purposes.

Method