View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Technical Characteristics of Curriculum-Based Measurement with Students Who Are Deaf

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Technical Characteristics of Curriculum-Based Measurement with Students Who Are Deaf
Language: English
Authors: Lam, Elizabeth A., Rose, Susan, McMaster, Kristen L.
Source: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. Jul 2020 25(3):318-333.
Availability: Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44-1865-353907; Fax: +44-1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Deafness, Hearing Impairments, Curriculum Based Assessment, Evaluation Methods, Scores, Reliability, Validity, Computer Assisted Testing, Elementary School Students, Silent Reading, Reading Fluency
DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enaa003
ISSN: 1081-4159
Abstract: This study compared the reliability and validity of student scores from paper--pencil and e-based assessments using the "maze" and "silent reading fluency" (SRF) tasks. Forty students who were deaf and hard of hearing and reading between the second and fifth grade reading levels and their teachers (n = 21) participated. For maze, alternate form reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores and correct scores adjusted for guessing ranged from r = 0.61 to 0.84 (ps < 0.01); criterion-related validity coefficients ranged from r = 0.33 to 0.67 (most ps < 0.01). For SRF, reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores ranged from r = 0.50 to 0.75 (ps < 0.01); validity ranged from r = 0.25 to 0.72. Differences between student performance on paper-pencil and e-based conditions were generally non-significant for maze; significant differences between conditions for SRF favored the paper--pencil condition. Findings suggest that maze holds promise, with inconclusive results for SRF.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1256374
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Description
Abstract:This study compared the reliability and validity of student scores from paper--pencil and e-based assessments using the "maze" and "silent reading fluency" (SRF) tasks. Forty students who were deaf and hard of hearing and reading between the second and fifth grade reading levels and their teachers (n = 21) participated. For maze, alternate form reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores and correct scores adjusted for guessing ranged from r = 0.61 to 0.84 (ps < 0.01); criterion-related validity coefficients ranged from r = 0.33 to 0.67 (most ps < 0.01). For SRF, reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores ranged from r = 0.50 to 0.75 (ps < 0.01); validity ranged from r = 0.25 to 0.72. Differences between student performance on paper-pencil and e-based conditions were generally non-significant for maze; significant differences between conditions for SRF favored the paper--pencil condition. Findings suggest that maze holds promise, with inconclusive results for SRF.
ISSN:1081-4159
DOI:10.1093/deafed/enaa003