Technical Characteristics of Curriculum-Based Measurement with Students Who Are Deaf
Saved in:
| 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.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGG57A3aLnnjINxVEsGzHJAAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCHZiMLjjI64rRtqzAIBEICBmvgCtb42r8TOoca1r_fChLUtWlydl35t0QQ_zMfrizUJuAyfNMIXPSMENwKboTUBKz64tbnn5Tuanexo7_YohQ4YttfWqczsazusNz04rA1qonuSMDICTUV8bxVV_cWGQtuihGdlL3QWaZlqnKH9-D6OgpY1q81MosVc6Khc-ZMo-5dQojtuvUNZCo39a0SXarFlBbRDRMworvg= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0143509752;big01jul.20;2020Jun02.06:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0143509752-1">Technical Characteristics of Curriculum-Based Measurement With Students Who Are Deaf </title> <p>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 = .61 to.84 (p s  &lt;  .01); criterion-related validity coefficients ranged from r = .33 to.67 (most p s &lt; .01). For SRF, reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores ranged from r = .50 to.75 (p s  &lt;  .01); validity ranged from r = .25 to.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.</p> <p>Many students who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) struggle to acquire the literacy skills needed for school success ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>]), which subsequently may limit postsecondary outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref5">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref6">32</reflink>]). To increase literacy outcomes, practitioners need high-quality evidenced-based practices and robust progress monitoring systems to identify whether or not a student is responding to instruction and to adjust the instructional approach if needed ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref8">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>The aim of this study was to contribute to the body of evidence to establish the technical characteristics of static curriculum-based measurement (CBM) scores for students who are DHH, the first step in establishing potential instructional relevance of CBM as a progress monitoring tool in the classroom ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>]). Below, we define CBM and research that has been conducted with students who are DHH thus far and then discuss specific considerations for use of CBM with this population.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-2">CBM and a Proposed Research Line</hd> <p>CBM, as conceptualized by [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>], is an assessment method designed to serve as a "vital sign" of a student's educational health. The underlying premise is that short, easy-to-administer reading probes could be delivered frequently and serve as a general indicator of a student's overall reading skills and also capture student growth over short periods of time.</p> <p>To establish the utility of CBM, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>] recommended a three-stage approach. In Stage 1, the researchers determine the technical features of student scores on CBM tools at one time point (a static score). The purpose of Stage 1 is to determine if student scores on CBMs are consistent and stable (reliability) and related to the criterion measure (validity). In Stage 2, the researchers determine whether increasing or decreasing CBM scores over time are associated with a change in a student's overall rate of growth (as measured by slope). In Stage 3, the researchers explore whether practitioners can use the CBM data to make improved instructional decisions to promote student achievement.</p> <p>For students with typical levels of hearing, evidence indicates that collecting and using progress monitoring data to engage in data-based decision-making may lead to improved literacy outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]). These findings are substantiated from decades of research establishing sound technical characteristics (reliability and validity) of CBM tools (Stage 1), an evidence that CBM tools can capture student growth over a short period of time through repeated measurement (Stage 2) and that, when practitioners use the data to inform decision-making of educational programming, improved student outcomes may result (Stage 3) ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref18">46</reflink>]). Further research is needed to explore if these findings hold with students who are DHH.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-3">Systematic Review of Existing Research</hd> <p>In service of Stage 1, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref19">23</reflink>] conducted a review of the literature to determine the current state of knowledge of the technical characteristics of CBM with students who are DHH, Stage 1 of the validation process ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]). For all measures, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>] analyzed whether the CBM tasks produced data that were consistent and stable (i.e., reliable) and if CBM performance could serve as a general outcome measure of overall reading skill (i.e., valid).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>] identified nine studies of four different CBM tasks: signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency (SRF), cloze, and maze. For the signed reading fluency task, students read a passage and provide a signed interpretation. For scoring, authors who used this tool either required a one-on-one correspondence between the written text and the signed response ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>]) or evaluated the quality of the signed interpretation ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>SRF consists of students marking boundaries between words when reading. More specifically, students are presented with a modified passage in which the story is presented in all upper case letters with no spaces or punctuation. When reading the passage, the students place boundaries between the words by drawing a vertical line. An example may read: "A G I R L R A N O U T O F T H E." And a student draws a vertical line between the words: "A | GIRL | RAN| OUT | OF | THE."</p> <p>The cloze task refers to a passage in which every fifth word is deleted and replaced with a blank line of standard length to replace the deleted words. The student silently reads the passage and is instructed to write in the missing words. For analysis, authors have given credit only when the target word was written correctly ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]) or have also accepted written words as correct if text coherence was maintained ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Maze is a modified cloze technique ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>]). For the task, students are presented with passages to read silently. The first sentence of the passage is left intact. For the remaining sentences in the passage, every seventh word is eliminated and replaced with a blank line, and three response choices are provided. The target word is randomly assigned to the first, second, or third position. An example may read: "All three children started at the <bold>(hers, since, same)</bold> time and ran around the school." ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]). The student selects the word that best fit the sentence.</p> <p>The authors used descriptive classification to guide comparisons across studies. For reliability, a correlation above.80 was considered strong, between.60 and.79 as moderate, and.59 and below as weak. For validity, correlations above.50 were considered strong, between.30 and.49 as moderate, and.29 and below weak. Within the context of this study, the term "sufficient" referred to correlations that fell in the strong ranges (reliability ≥.80; validity ≥.50). See [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>] for further description.</p> <p>Results across the nine studies indicated that reliability was generally strong as measured by inter-rater, internal consistency, stability, and equivalence analyses. In other words, student performance was generally consistent and stable on the various CBM tasks. In contrast, validity evidence varied across measures. For signed reading fluency, validity evidence fell in the moderate to strong ranges; however, results indicated lower correlations than those typically reported for oral reading fluency with typical levels of hearing (.60 to.90; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref30">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref31">46</reflink>]), suggesting these forms do not appear to function similarly for students who are DHH and students with typical levels of hearing. Based on two research studies, cloze procedures yielded student performance results that did not clearly capture or identify a student's general reading skill.</p> <p>For SRF, the correlations obtained with students who were DHH (<emph>r</emph> =.54 to.90) were generally similar to the results obtained from students with typical levels of hearing (<emph>r</emph> =.57 to.80; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref32">42</reflink>]). For maze, the validity evidence obtained from student scores supported the use of maze with students who are DHH especially for elementary and middle school students when the task was 1 to 2 min in length and the metrics of correct choices and corrected choices were employed. The results of the systemic review suggest preliminary evidence of promising technical characteristics of student scores for signed reading fluency, SRF, and maze.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-4">Special Considerations for CBM With Students Who Are DHH</hd> <p>As described above, some researchers have explored the technical adequacy of using CBM with students who are DHH to build evidence for potential educational use ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref33">23</reflink>]), Stage 1 of the research line recommended by [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]. Meanwhile, another set of researchers have explored the utility of CBM, by examining the potential impact of modifications and accommodations on testing considerations and appropriateness. Experts within the field of deaf education have analyzed CBM tools and provided recommendations on use based on communication modes ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref35">27</reflink>]). Using a survey and interview format, teachers described the conditions and consideration when using available CBM tools with students who are DHH in the classroom setting ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]). Additionally, researchers describe general accommodations and complexities when assessing students who are DHH, which may have implications for CBM ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Researchers interested in generating reliability and validity evidence for CBM with students who are DHH may also consider the heterogeneity of the population of students who are DHH and role of testing accommodation and modifications in delivery and interpretation of scores. Considerations may include the type of task (e.g., opportunities to learn content, level of flexibility in ways to process the task), student demographics (e.g., culture, race, language background, communication mode[s]), and accommodations (e.g., signed directions, repeated directions, signed student response, extended time) ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref39">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref40">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref42">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Empirical research is needed to directly explore the effects of these variables when examining evidence of the utility of CBM with students who are DHH. For example, even though the use of a signed student response may appear to promote test access, the accommodation may require the student to engage in translation (English text to American Sign Language response), which may require a higher cognitive load, may engage additional nonreading constructs, and could jeopardize the reliability and validity of the scores obtained ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref43">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within the context of establishing technical characteristics of CBM with students who are DHH, researchers need to consider the conditions under which the measures will be delivered (e.g., with or without modification, what set of modifications, how will the modifications be delivered in a standardized way). The potential use of technology to provide accommodations in a standardized format may serve as a possible solution ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref44">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref46">44</reflink>]) that requires validation in the context of CBM. There is no research to date that has systematically explored the use of technology to deliver standardized accommodations when administering CBM for students who are DHH.</p> <p>Further research is needed to identify the technical characteristics of scores for students who are DHH using CBM, Stage 1 ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref47">14</reflink>]). Next, further research need to explore the extent to which changes in student scores over time reflect student growth (Stage 2) and build a body of evidence to determine the utility of these measures in instructional decision-making (Stage 3). Considerations as to the role of modifications and accommodations to the testing conditions require systematic analysis as well.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-5">Selection of CBM Tasks for Additional Exploration</hd> <p>Based on the systematic review and special considerations for students who are DHH, we considered all four measures (signed reading fluency, SRF, cloze, and maze) for future exploration. First, cloze was excluded in favor of maze. It appeared that the multiple-choice structure of maze, as compared to the fill-in-the-blank structure of cloze, limited variation in potential responses, reduced the need to define boundaries between correct and incorrect written-in responses and increased scoring ease—which may have contributed to higher reliability and validity scores with maze.</p> <p>Second, SRF and sign reading fluency were both considered viable candidates as the systematic review suggested student scores, which demonstrated adequate reliability and validity. To aid in decision-making, the underlying principles from [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>] of simple, efficient, and easy-to-understand contributed to the selection. SRF was ultimately selected, as it was easy to administer, and could be scored quickly by an administrator or computer, and students could process the task with or without knowledge of sign language—a possibility creating opportunities for a greater sample size. Though, maze and SRF were selected for this study, it is recommended that future studies explore the utility of signed reading fluency as it may provide a complement to maze and SRF as CBM options for students who are DHH.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-6">Purpose of the Study</hd> <p>In this study, we compared the reliability and criterion-related validity of student scores from CBM (maze and SRF) administered in paper–pencil and e-based formats. We also compared student performance between the paper–pencil and e-based conditions. This study adds to the literature in two main ways. First, the study builds upon existing research by examining whether scores from CBM tools are consistent across leveled reading passages (reliability) and if the scores can serve as general outcome measures and predict student performance on criterion-referenced tests (criterion-related validity) for students who are DHH. Second, this study is the first to date to systematically compare student performance on paper–pencil versus e-based formats for this population. We addressed the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Does the maze produce scores with sufficient alternate form reliability (r ≥.80) and sufficient criterion-related validity (r ≥.50) on two administrative conditions (paper–pencil and e-based) for students who are DHH?</item> <p></p> <item> Does the SRF produce scores with sufficient alternate form reliability (r ≥.80) and sufficient criterion-related validity (r ≥.50) on two administrative conditions (paper–pencil and e-based) for students who are DHH?</item> <p></p> <item> Do students who are DHH perform significantly differently on the maze when it is administered in paper–pencil versus e-based conditions?</item> <p></p> <item> Do students who are DHH perform significantly differently on the SRF when it is administered in paper–pencil versus e-based conditions?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the feasibility of administering the paper–pencil and e-based conditions in educational settings?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0143509752-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0143509752-8">Setting and Participants</hd> <p>Students were recruited from a large metropolitan area within the Upper Midwest. Recruiting efforts included contacting independent school districts, collaborate districts that provided DHH services to multiple independent districts, and schools for the deaf. Seven independent districts not served by collaborative districts, two collaborative districts, and schools for the deaf were contacted. One independent school district and two collaborative districts were elected to participate. All schools were within 25 miles from the university. In all schools, the primary language of instruction was spoken English. Sign language was provided within the instructional environment for a few students who used American Sign Language or total communication. The schools where sign language was the primary communication mode declined participation.</p> <p>From the participating independent and collaborative districts, 25 teachers were eligible, and 23 agreed to participate. Of these, 11 selected a "low-involvement" option (helping to schedule assessments administered by researchers to students on their caseloads), and 10 selected a "high-involvement" option (delivering the assessments to students on their caseloads themselves). The majority of participating teachers were female, White, and non-Hispanic (<emph>n</emph> = 20). Two teachers reported having a hearing loss. All teachers were licensed by the state as teachers of DHH.</p> <p>To be eligible to participate, each student had to have: (a) a documented hearing loss; (b) a reading level between the second to fifth grade according to teacher report; (c) placement in grades 2 through 12; and (d) no known motor or uncorrected vision impairment. Teachers were instructed to use information from the student's IEP and work samples to determine if the student met the eligibility criteria. Using this process, teachers identified 58 students. Of the 58 students, 42 parent approvals were received, and 2 students did not provide assent, yielding 40 student participants, which translated to 31 schools having 1 or more student participant. Table 1 provides student demographic information including number and percentages of students in each demographic category.</p> <p>Table 1 Student demographics</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;All students (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 40). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;Subset with MAP (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 27). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Characteristic. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Frequency. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;%. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Frequency. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;%. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Grade &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Elementary &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;33 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;83% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;21 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;78% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Middle school &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;13% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;High school &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Sex (M) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;38% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;11 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;41% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Ethnicity (Hispanic) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;11% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Asian &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;18% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;26% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;African American or Black &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;18% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;22% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Caucasian &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;20 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;50% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;American Indian or Alaskan Native &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Other &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Language &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;ASL only &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Total communication (sign + voice) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Spoken English only &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;26 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;65% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;18 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;67% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;English and additional spoken language &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;9 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;23% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;30% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;IEP federal setting &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;35 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;88% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;23 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;85% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3 and 4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Free/reduced lunch &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;16 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;40% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;13 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;48% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Title 1 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;19% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hearing loss &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Mild and mild/moderate &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;9 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;23% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;19% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Moderate and moderate/severe &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;14 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;35% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Severe and profound &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;9 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;23% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Unilateral (hearing loss in one ear only) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;22% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Sloping (hearing loss spans more than one range) &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Amplification &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cochlear implant &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;20% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;11% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hearing aid &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;22 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;55% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;56% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Bone conductor &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Sound field &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;None &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;11% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Deaf parent &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0% &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0143509752-9">Measures and Materials</hd> <p>The study included CBM tasks (maze and SRF), criterion measures (measures of academic progress [MAP] and Woodcock–Johnson III Passage Comprehension), and ratings of feasibility and utility.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-10">Maze</hd> <p>Maze is a modified cloze procedure (see introduction for further details). The maze passages were selected from the [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>]. The "Set 3" passages or third grade reading level passages were reviewed. For inclusion, passages needed to have a Lexile rating between 600 L and 730 L (25–75% percentile) and to have a third grade Flesch–Kincaid reading level. Of the 23 screened passages, 5 met the criteria. To fit within the 700-character limitation of the e-based monitor display screen, these five passages were reduced in length. Each passage was rechecked to confirm that the reading level criteria were still met. One passage was ultimately dropped, as readability could not be successfully maintained when the character space was altered.</p> <p>We identified and used three scores in this study: correct maze choices (CMC, total number of correctly identified selections within 1 min), correct maze choices minus incorrect maze choices (CMC−IMC, total number of correctly identified selections minus incorrect selections within 1 min), and correct maze choices minus ½ incorrect maze choices (CMC−IMC/2, total number of correctly identified selections minus the total of incorrect selections divided by 2). IMC is defined as the selection of a distractor item.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-11">Silent Reading Fluency</hd> <p>SRF requires students to draw boundaries between words (see introduction for further details). To identify four SRF passages for this study, the passages from [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref50">3</reflink>], <emph>Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency: Second Edition</emph> (TOSCRF-2; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]) and <emph>Reading Milestones Placement and Monitoring</emph> (RMPM, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref52">34</reflink>]) were reviewed. For inclusion of SRF passages, the Flesch–Kincaid reading level had to be at third grade; however, a broader lexical range of 520 L to 820 L was used to account for variation in grammatical sequences. Of the 261 screened passages, 12 were identified as possible passages. These passages were then screened for the number of characters and number of words. Upon review, the first author selected four passages that most closely matched the readability criteria, were similar in character length, and had similar numbers of words. Three passages were obtained from TOSCRF-2 and one passage from RMPM.</p> <p>Two scoring metrics were used: correct boundaries (the number of boundary lines selected by the student that correctly separated words within the probe) and percent correct (by dividing the number of correct boundaries by the sum of correct boundaries and incorrect boundaries). Incorrect boundaries is defined as adding a boundary line in an incorrect location or not adding a boundary line when one is needed.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-12">Measures of Academic Progress</hd> <p>When available, all participating students' Spring 2015 scores on the MAP ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref53">37</reflink>]) reading test were obtained. Of the study participants, 68% (<emph>n</emph> = 27) participated in the MAP ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref54">37</reflink>]), an e-based adaptive assessment ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref55">39</reflink>]). Test–retest reliability with the 2002 Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) norms in reading for third grade fall-to-spring was <emph>r</emph> =.87 and spring-to-spring was <emph>r</emph> =.89 ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref56">38</reflink>]). The MAP measure has not been normed on students who are DHH.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-13">WJ-III Passage Comprehension</hd> <p>Preliminary evidence from the Center on Literacy and Deafness indicates that the WJ-III Passage Comprehension subtest ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref57">47</reflink>]) may be appropriate for use with young students who are DHH ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref59">25</reflink>]) and thus was used for this study. For this subtest, students were presented with texts and prompted to identify the missing word in sentences and paragraphs. Using the split-half procedure with the normative data, the median test reliability for the WJ-III Passage Comprehension subtest ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref60">47</reflink>]) is <emph>r</emph> =.80 with a median standard error of measurement of 5.12 ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref61">43</reflink>]) for students with typical levels of hearing.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-14">Feasibility and Utility</hd> <p>Participating students and teachers rated feasibility and utility of CBM tasks following administration of both conditions (described below). Students rated their preferences between conditions and the level of helpfulness of the accommodations in the e-based condition.</p> <p>Participating teachers completed the Usage Rating Profile-Assessment (URP-A) ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref62">6</reflink>]). The URP-A consists of 28 items, divided into 6 factors: acceptability (9 items; e.g., I would be interested in implementing this assessment, it could be easily integrated into my existing practices, is a fair way to measure student skill), understanding (3 items; I understand the procedures and aspects of the tool), home–school collaboration (3 items; parent–school coordination is needed to effectively implement), feasibility (6 items; preparation and implementation of the tool could fit within my existing schedule), system climate (4 items; this tool is consistent with my school practices, and my administrator would be supportive), and system support (3 items, I would require additional professional development to carry out this tool). Teachers completed this measure twice, once rating the paper–pencil condition and once rating the e-based condition rating their level of agreement from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree."</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-15">Research Design</hd> <p>A correlational design was used to explore the strength of the relation between student scores on the maze and SRF with their performance on these same measures (reliability) and with criterion measures (validity). The classifications of weak, moderate, and strong used within [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>] systematic review were applied to the results obtained in this study. Additionally, the independent variable (administration type: paper–pencil versus e-based) was manipulated to determine if students' scores from the maze and SRF were reliably different across conditions.</p> <p>The repeated-measures research design was composed of three elements: condition, CBM form, and passages. At the condition level, administration across participants was counterbalanced, so students either engaged in paper–pencil or e-based condition on Day 1 and the other condition on Day 2 (testing separated by 7 days or less). Within condition, the CBM form (maze or SRF) was counterbalanced, so students either engaged in maze and then SRF or SRF and then maze tasks. Within condition and CBM form, the passages were randomized. Eight passages were used for this study, with some passages repeating (two maze and two SRF passages) and others not repeating (one maze and one SRF passage). Repeating passages were entitled "race" and "accident" for maze and "when" and "twelve" for SRF. Repeating probes were used to directly compare conditions. Non-repeating probes were used as distractors to the repeating probes.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-16">Conditions</hd> <p>The independent variable was manipulated to identify if students performed statistically significantly differently on maze and SRF as a function of condition. Below, each condition is described with key differences outlined.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-17">Paper–Pencil Condition</hd> <p>Test examiners followed scripted directions, provided students with additional instruction following the practice items when needed, monitored the student, recorded the time of completion, and prompted the student to move to the next passage. There was no extrinsic motivational component. Out of the 40 students, modified directions were provided for 5 learners in American sign Language (<emph>n</emph> = 1) or total communication (<emph>n</emph> = 4).</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-18">e-Based</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>]) was designed to provide a set of standardized accommodations specifically for use with students who are DHH. The e-based condition differed from the paper–pencil condition on six key features: (a) directions were provided using a visual simulation format and repeated practice items, neither of which required spoken or signed directions; (b) following each probe, students received immediate computer-generated corrective feedback; (c) a text movement feature allowed a student's response to be integrated into the passage with the word selection moving to the blank line in the maze passage or the letters separating when a line was added in SRF; (d) when a student changed his or her answer, the prior response was removed; (e) a visual clock was provided to show the passage of time; and (f) a motivational feature denoted a student's progress across time.</p> <p>In summary, the independent variable was manipulated to identify if students performed reliably differently in the paper–pencil condition (no accommodations) or in the e-based condition (six accommodations).</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-19">Procedures</hd> <p>The 10 teachers who selected the high-involvement option received training on administration. The first author met with the teachers and a graduate research assistant and provided the following information: background and study purpose, overview and guidelines for completing study testing materials, guidance on how to adhere to testing order, and demonstration of all four testing conditions. One teacher had students who used total communication as their primary mode of communication. The teacher was provided with additional guidance on how to translate directions within the context of this study. Following the training session, the first author completed formal fidelity of administration checks with a criterion of 90%. All teachers and graduate research assistants met the criterion. High-involvement teachers assessed all participating students on their caseloads with CBM (<emph>n</emph> = 23, 58% of the sample). The first author and a trained graduate student, as mentioned above, administered the remaining CBM and the WJ-III Passage Comprehension subtest ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref65">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>The order of administration for each student followed the previously described counterbalanced and randomized order. The WJ-III Passage Comprehension subtest was administered on Days 1 or 2. The e-based condition was administered on a computer with a mouse. After all administrations, students and the teachers who selected the high-involvement option completed the feasibility and utility forms. MAP ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref66">37</reflink>]) data were collected when available from the districts (typically Spring 2015).</p> <p>Fidelity of administration was collected on at least 20% of administrations delivered by teachers, the first author, and research assistant. Twenty-five percent of all CBM paper–pencil tasks and the WJ-III Passage Comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref67">47</reflink>]) were double scored by a trained graduate student, and a point-by-point inter-rater agreement was reported. Double scoring was not needed in the e-based condition, as it was automatically scored by the Avenue: PM suite.</p> <p>Inter-rater agreement of scoring was 100% for the paper–pencil maze data (25% reviewed) and 95% to 100% (<emph>M</emph> = 100%) for the paper–pencil condition of SRF (25% reviewed). For teachers, fidelity of administration was 82% to 100% (M = 93%) for paper–pencil and 79% to 100% (M = 95%) for e-based. For the first author, fidelity of administration rated by a trained research assistant was 100% for paper–pencil, 94% to 100% (M = 99%) for e-based, and 100% for the WJ-III Passage Comprehension subtest ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref68">47</reflink>]). For the trained graduate assistant, fidelity of administration of the WJ-III Passage Comprehension subtest ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref69">47</reflink>]) was 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-20">Data and Analysis</hd> <p>Data were collected for each CBM tool (maze, SRF) and WJ-III Passage Comprehension subtest ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref70">47</reflink>]) for each student participant (<emph>n</emph> = 40). The frequency of outlier data produced by each student was analyzed, yielding a reduced dataset (<emph>n</emph> = 37). (See the Results section.) MAP ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref71">37</reflink>]) Spring 2015 data were available for 27 of the 40 students. Pearson product–moment correlations were used to compare the strength of the relationship between all CBM scores (across forms of the same measure) and with the criterion measures (e.g., MAP and WJ-III Passage Comprehension) for both conditions (e.g., paper–pencil and e-based). The effect of paper–pencil versus e-based administration conditions was compared using a <emph>t-</emph>test with the use of Bonferroni adjustments.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-21">Results</hd> <p>We explored the reliability and criterion-related validity of scores from maze and SRF in paper–pencil and e-based conditions. Descriptive classifications used to classify ranges of reliability and validity are noted below (see the Introduction for specific ranges).</p> <p>Table 2 Maze: descriptive data for full and reduced dataset</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;Full (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 40). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;Reduced (&lt;italic&gt;n =&lt;/italic&gt; 37). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Mean. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Mean. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Paper&amp;#8211;pencil &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8.10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.98 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.62 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.19 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.53 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.86 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.12 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.38 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Accident &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.81 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.17 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.23 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.89 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.98 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.52 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.16 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.73 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pike &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.34 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.77 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.89 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.26 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.38 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.24 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.32 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.80 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.38 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.14 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;e-based &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8.55 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.58 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8.03 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.85 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.11 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.41 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.89 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.11 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Accident &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.60 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.64 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.24 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.67 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.62 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.62 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.63 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.14 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.93 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Around the world &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8.83 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8.22 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.22 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8.35 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.66 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.76 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8.59 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.54 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.99 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> CMC = correct maze choices; IMC = incorrect maze choices; CMC−IMC= correct maze choices−incorrect maze choices; CMC−IMC/2 = correct maze choices−(incorrect maze choices/2).</p> <p>Table 3 Silent reading fluency: descriptive data for full and reduced dataset</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;Full (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 40). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Reduced&lt;/italic&gt; (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 37). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Mean. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Mean. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;SD. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Paper&amp;#8211;pencil &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.42 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;12.15 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;29.54 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;11.87 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;23.60 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8.66 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;22.92 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;8.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;88.89 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15.74 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;88.81 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15.85 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Twelve &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.67 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;24.26 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10.12 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;19.49 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.53 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;18.94 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.20 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;78.66 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.72 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;78.28 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.41 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;31.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15.35 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;30.48 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15.62 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;26.08 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;11.85 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25.27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;11.92 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;87.72 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;17.27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;87.74 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;17.53 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;e-based &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;16.67 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.35 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;16.66 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.56 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;75.92 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;26.36 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;75.77 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;27.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Twelve &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;16.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.24 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;16.13 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;73.16 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;23.92 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;72.17 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;24.11 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;18.48 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.87 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;18.60 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;83.39 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;83.80 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;15.11 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4 Criterion measures: full and reduced dataset</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Full dataset &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;26.07 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.65 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Reduced dataset &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;26.08 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.17 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Full dataset &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;205.07 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;12.58 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Reduced dataset &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;203.64 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;11.91 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. WJ-III Passage Comprehension <emph>M</emph> = raw score; MAP <emph>M</emph> = RIT score.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-22">Descriptive Data</hd> <p>Descriptive data for maze (see Table 2) and SRF (see Table 3) are presented below. To explore the impact of outliers on the data distribution, the first author identified outliers for each of the 45 scores generated from the CBM. Subsequently, the first author counted and recorded how many scores were identified as an outlier score for each participant. Of the 40 participants, 24 students did not have any outlier scores, 13 had 1 to 3 outlier scores, 1 student had 9 outlier scores, and 2 students had 10 outlier scores. Based on this analysis, the three participants who had the highest frequency of outlier scores were dropped from the analysis (one student below the group, two students above the group). Of the students who were dropped from analysis, one student received special education services in a Federal Setting IV and used American sign Language as his primary mode of communication. Two students received services in a Federal Setting 1, one student communicated using spoken English and Chinese, and the other communicated using spoken English only. The reduced dataset included three less participants (<emph>n</emph> = 37).</p> <p>Table 4 displays the distribution statistics for the criterion measures. For the WJ-III Passage Comprehension subtest ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref72">47</reflink>]), the full dataset included all students, and the modified data included three less students whose data was dropped from analysis. As the MAP ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref73">37</reflink>]) was not required by all districts, not all student participants had a MAP score (27 of 40 participants). Two of the dropped students had taken the MAP, and thus the full dataset was reduced by two for the MAP ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref74">37</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-23">Technical Characteristics of Maze and SRF</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0143509752-24">Maze Reliability and Criterion-Related Validity</hd> <p>For alternate form reliability, some correlation coefficients (measuring correct or correct after adjustment for guessing CBM score types) fell in the sufficient range (<emph>r</emph> &gt;.80, <emph>r</emph> =.80 and.84; <emph>p</emph>s &lt;.01), with the majority slightly below the sufficient range (<emph>r</emph> =.61 to.78) (see Table 5).</p> <p>Table 5 Maze: alternate form reliability coefficients</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;CI (95%). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;t&lt;/italic&gt;(35). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;LL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;UL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Paper&amp;#8211;pencil &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race-accident &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.84 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.72 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.92 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;9.35 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.84 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.70 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.91 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;9.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.84 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.92 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;9.27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race-pike &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.76 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.87 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.86 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.66 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.81 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.20 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.51 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.84 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.04 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pike-accident &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.78 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.61 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.88 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.73 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.53 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.85 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.76 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.58 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.87 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.89 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;e-based &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race-accident &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.74 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.55 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.86 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.5 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.72 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.52 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.85 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.15 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.73 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.54 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.85 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.39 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race-around the world &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.80 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.64 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.89 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;7.80 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.66 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.81 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.26 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.73 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.54 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.86 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Around the world-accident &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.66 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.81 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.61 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.35 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.78 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.51 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.64 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.39 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.80 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.88 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> Coefficients ≥.80 in boldface. CMC = correct maze choices; LL = lower limited; UL = upper limit; CMC−IMC= correct maze choices−incorrect maze choices; CMC−IMC/2 = correct maze choices−(incorrect maze choices/2).</p> <p>For the criterion-related validity in the paper–pencil condition, the majority of the correlations were sufficient (CMC, CMC−IMC, CMC−IMC/2, <emph>rs</emph> =.50 to.67) and significant. In the e-based condition, the majority of the correlations were sufficient (CMC, CMC−IMC, CMC−IMC/2, <emph>rs</emph> =.50 to.61) and significant. Pearson product–moment correlations for the passages delivered in the paper–pencil condition and the e-based condition for maze are displayed in Tables 6 and 7.</p> <p>Table 6 Maze: criterion-related validity coefficients for the paper–pencil condition</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;CI (95%). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;t&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;LL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;UL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Paper&amp;#8211;pencil &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.48 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.18 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.70 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.24 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.21 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.49 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.20 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.70 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.34 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.61 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.28 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.81 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.66 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.60 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.81 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.64 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.61 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.28 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.81 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.65 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Accident-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.76 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.11 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.58 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.32 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.76 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.26 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.58 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.32 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.76 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.21 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Accident-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.65 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.35 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.83 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.12 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.67 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.38 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.84 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.36 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.67 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.84 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pike-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.33 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.59 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.06 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.05 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;.32 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.59 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;2.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.05 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.38 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.07 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.63 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.46 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.36 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.04 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.61 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.29 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.03 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pike-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.49 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.12 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.74 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.69 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.13 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.75 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.74 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.13 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.75 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.75 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> Coefficients ≥.50 in boldface. CMC = correct maze choices; LL = lower limited; UL = upper limit; CMC−IMC = correct maze choices−incorrect maze choices; CMC−IMC/2 = correct maze choices−(incorrect maze choices/2); WJ-III Passage Comprehension = Woodcock–Johnson, test of achievement, third edition, passage comprehension subtest.</p> <p>Table 7 Maze: criterion-related validity coefficients the e-based condition</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;CI (95%). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;t&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;LL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;UL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;e-based &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.21 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.42 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.51 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.23 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.72 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.54 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.51 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.22 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.72 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.52 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.22 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.79 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.31 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.51 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.14 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.75 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.83 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.54 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.18 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.77 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.08 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Accident-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.12 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.66 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.83 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.49 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.20 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.70 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.33 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.46 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.17 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.69 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Accident-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.56 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.21 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.78 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.21 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.54 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.18 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.77 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.55 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.20 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.78 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.15 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Around the world-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.48 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.18 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.69 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.21 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.52 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.24 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.72 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.63 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.21 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Around the world-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.60 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.80 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.58 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.61 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.28 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.81 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.67 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.61 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.28 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.81 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.65 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> Coefficients ≥.50 in boldface. CMC = correct maze choices; LL = lower limited; UL = upper limit; CMC−IMC = correct maze choices−incorrect maze choices; CMC−IMC/2 = correct maze choices−(incorrect maze choices/2); WJ-III Passage Comprehension = Woodcock–Johnson, test of achievement, third edition, passage comprehension subtest.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-25">SRF Reliability and Criterion-Related Validity</hd> <p>For alternate form reliability, none of the correlations fell within the sufficient range (<emph>r</emph> =.39 to.73). Pearson product–moment correlations for the passages delivered in the paper–pencil condition and the e-based condition are displayed in Table 8.</p> <p>Table 8 Silent reading fluency: alternate form reliability coefficients</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;CI (95%). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;t&lt;/italic&gt; (35). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;LL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;UL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Paper&amp;#8211;pencil &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Twelve-when &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.69 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.47 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.83 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.60 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.70 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.49 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.84 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.85 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.59 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.33 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.77 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.34 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When-the &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.64 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.80 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.95 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.64 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.80 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.96 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.46 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.16 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.68 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.04 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The-twelve &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.22 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.46 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.51 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.22 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.47 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.39 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.07 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.63 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.49 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;e-based &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Twelve-when &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.75 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.56 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.86 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.68 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.49 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.84 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.89 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When&amp;#8211;a &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.68 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.45 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.82 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.45 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.49 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.20 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.36 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A-twelve &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.73 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.52 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.85 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;6.23 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.53 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.24 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.73 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.65 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> Coefficients ≥.80 in boldface.</p> <p>For criterion-related validity, the correlations between the WJ-III Passage Comprehension subtest ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref75">47</reflink>]) and the SRF were rarely sufficient. For the MAP ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref76">37</reflink>]), sufficient correlations were noted in both paper–pencil and e-based for the "twelve" passage, and sufficient correlations were only present for the "when" and "the" passages in the paper–pencil condition. Pearson product–moment correlations for the passages delivered in the paper–pencil condition and the e-based condition for SRF are displayed in Tables 9 and 10.</p> <p>Table 9 Silent reading fluency: criterion-related validity coefficients for the paper–pencil condition</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;CI (95%). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;t&lt;/italic&gt; (35). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;LL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;UL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Paper&amp;#8211;pencil &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.09 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.64 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.60 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.41 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.65 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.67 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.06 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.55 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.67 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.23 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.79 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.35 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.55 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.19 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.77 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.12 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.22 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.79 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.32 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Twelve-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.48 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.19 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.70 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.45 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.15 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.68 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.49 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.20 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.70 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.36 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Twelve-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.44 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.86 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.84 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.72 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.45 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.87 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.93 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.73 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.46 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.87 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.06 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.33 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.59 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.06 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.05 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.03 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.86 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.07 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.09 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.64 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.58 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;The-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct words identified &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.55 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.19 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.77 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.12 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.53 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.17 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.77 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.44 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.05 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.33 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.03 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> Coefficients ≥.50 in boldface. WJ-III Passage Comprehension = Woodcock–Johnson: test of achievement, third edition, passage comprehension subtest.</p> <p>Table 10 Silent reading fluency: criterion-related validity coefficients for the e-based condition</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;CI (95%). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;t&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;LL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;UL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;e-based &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.27 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.06 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.55 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.68 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.26 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.07 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.54 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.58 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.12 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;When-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.48 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.74 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.62 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.47 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.09 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.73 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.53 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Twelve-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.34 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.60 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.12 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.04 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.21 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.44 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Twelve-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.51 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.14 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.75 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.82 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.58 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.24 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.79 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;3.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A-WJ-III Passage Comprehension &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.09 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.53 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.14 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.08 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.40 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.62 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A-MAP &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.03 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.67 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.90 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.07 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.28 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.13 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.61 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.39 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.18 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> Coefficients ≥.50 in boldface. WJ-III Passage Comprehension = Woodcock–Johnson test of achievement, third edition, passage comprehension subtest.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-26">Effects of Delivery Formats</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0143509752-27">Maze: Paper–Pencil vs. e-Based</hd> <p>In this study, the effect of type of administration was explored. For the maze, when probes were analyzed individually, the differences between conditions were non-significant. When the passages were collapsed, again the difference in mean performance was generally non-significant except for one score (CMC, favoring e-based). A paired sample <emph>t</emph>-test (two-tailed, <emph>p</emph> =.05) was used to compare these two mean values (Table 11). These results suggest that student performance did not vary based on the type of administration.</p> <p>Table 11 Paired sample <emph>t</emph>-test comparing mean paper–pencil student performance scores to mean e-based student performance scores across scores for maze</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;CBM type. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Metric. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;Paper&amp;#8211;pencil. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;Computer. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;t&lt;/italic&gt;(36). &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th colspan="2"&gt;95% CI. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;d&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;LL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;UL. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Maze &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.96 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.04 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.83 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.82 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;2.71 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;1.51 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;.22 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.44 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.29 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.16 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.07 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;2.19 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.03 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;1.39 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.05 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.23 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;CMC&amp;#8722;IMC/2 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.70 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.16 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.50 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.93 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;2.47 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.02 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;1.45 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.14 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.26 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SRF &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Correct boundaries &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;22.38 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.93 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;17.13 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.30 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.69 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.98 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7.52 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.73 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Percent correct &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;84.94 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.49 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;77.25 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;18.99 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.44 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#60;.01 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.16 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.23 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.46 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> SRF = silent reading fluency. <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01 in boldface (<emph>p</emph> value after Bonferroni correction). CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; CMC = correct maze choices; IMC = incorrect maze choices; CMC−IMC = correct maze choices−incorrect maze choices; CMC−IMC/2 = correct maze choices−(incorrect maze choices/2).</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-28">SRF: Paper–Pencil vs. e-Based</hd> <p>A paired sample <emph>t</emph>-test (two-tailed, <emph>p</emph> =.05) was used to compare the mean values between paper–pencil and e-based administration of SRF (Table 11).There was a statistically significant difference between paper–pencil and e-based, with greater student performance demonstrated in the paper–pencil condition, on average (correct boundaries <emph>d =.73</emph>; percent correct <emph>d</emph> =.46).</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-29">Feasibility and Utility</hd> <p>According to the URP-A ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref77">6</reflink>]), teachers rated their level of agreement from strongly disagree (rated a value of 1) to strongly agree (rated a value of 6). In general, teachers' ratings were generally similar across conditions. In both conditions, teachers' average ratings on the factors of understanding, feasibility, and school climate fell within the "agree" rating. These findings suggest that teachers, on average, were knowledgeable about the task and knew how to carry out the procedures (understanding), that teachers thought the preparation and implementation demands of the task could fit within their schedule (feasibility), and that the tool would align within their current school environment (school climate).</p> <p>In both conditions, teachers' average ratings on the factors of home–school collaboration and system support fell within the "disagree" range with scores ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Overall, these findings generally suggest that, on average, teachers perceived that the tools could be carried out independent of a home–school relationship (home–school collaboration) and that additional professional development from the school would not be required. However, teachers' responses varied widely. On the remaining factor of acceptability, teachers' responses across conditions fell, on average, within the "slightly agree" range. Results suggest that teachers varied in their perception of acceptability, though slightly more teachers were in favor of accepting the tool for their use in their classroom, were being interested in using the tool, and thought it was a fair and effective way to measure student reading. See Table 12.</p> <p>Table 12 Teachers' ratings of the paper–pencil and e-based conditions</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Mean. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Range. &lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Paper&amp;#8211;pencil &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Acceptability &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.20 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.41 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.67&amp;#8211;4.89 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Understanding &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.07 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.44 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.67&amp;#8211;6.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Home&amp;#8211;school collaboration &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.57 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.29 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.33&amp;#8211;6.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Feasibility &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.09 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.38 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.50&amp;#8211;5.83 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;System climate &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.03 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.51 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.25&amp;#8211;5.75 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;System support &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.23 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.89 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.00&amp;#8211;4.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;e-based &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Acceptability &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;4.38 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.48 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.78&amp;#8211;5.11 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Understanding &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.70 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.00&amp;#8211;6.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Home&amp;#8211;school collaboration &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.37 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.36 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.00&amp;#8211;6.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Feasibility &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.18 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;.43 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.67&amp;#8211;6.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;System climate &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;5.08 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;0.64 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.00&amp;#8211;6.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;System support &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;10 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;2.53 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;1.08 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.00&amp;#8211;5.00 &lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>On the student survey, students rated their preference on delivery format. Most students either preferred the computer delivery or no preference between conditions for the directions or practice items. For testing items, most students preferred administration on the computer for maze (62%), with less preference favoring the computer administration for SRF (43%). Most students stated they would recommend the computer (41%) or either condition (51%) to a friend; only 8% of students stated they would recommend the paper–pencil condition and not the computer condition to a friend. For the e-based condition, students rated their perception of helpfulness (ratings: helpful, kind of helpful, not helpful) of each accommodation. Eighty-nine percent or more of the students rated the following accommodations as "helpful" or "kind of helpful": video directions, practicing, feedback, text movement, self-correction, and motivational bar. In contrast, students' perceptions of helpfulness of the visual timer were mixed (rated as "helpful" 27%, "kind of helpful" 27%, "not helpful" 46%).</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-30">Discussion</hd> <p>In this study, we explored the technical characteristics (reliability and criterion-related validity) of maze and SRF for students who are DHH and compared delivery formats in a paper–pencil condition and an e-based condition. The aim of this study was to contribute to the body of evidence to establish the technical characteristics of static CBM scores, the first step in establishing potential instructional relevance of CBM as a progress monitoring tool in the classroom ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref78">14</reflink>]). Below we explore the technical characteristics for maze and SRF, effects of delivery format, study limitations, and future directions.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-31">Technical Characteristics of Maze and SRF</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0143509752-32">Maze</hd> <p>Student scores on the maze were generally stable across different forms of equivalent difficulty as measured by the metrics of number correct or number correct after adjusting for guessing (<emph>r</emph> &gt;.80, <emph>r</emph> =.80 and.84; <emph>ps</emph> &lt;.01). Findings also support the interpretation that student scores on the CBM tasks were reflective of the students' overall reading ability as measured by the achievement tests (CMC, CMC−IMC, CMC−IMC/2, <emph>rs</emph> =.50 to.67).</p> <p>Four prior studies examined the utility of maze with students who are DHH with general findings supporting the potential utility of the tool, with some variation across studies in the strength of the reliability and validity evidence ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref79">23</reflink>]). Findings from this study are generally consistent with the previous research in terms of reliability coefficients, but slightly lower-validity correlation coefficients were present in some cases. The possible variation between this study and previous studies may be attributed to differences in type of criterion measure used (full battery versus subtest), differences in specific skills measured by each criterion measure, differences in administration protocols and testing materials, and differences in the sample of students who are DHH in each study. Even though some correlations were below what was expected based on the previous research, the majority of the correlations fell within the sufficient range, suggesting potential promise and utility for maze for students who are DHH.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-33">Silent Reading Fluency</hd> <p>In contrast to maze, the findings suggest that SRF probes did not adequately capture a student's reading skill as student performance varied between forms of equal difficulty and did not relate well to the performance on criterion measures in both the paper–pencil and e-based conditions.</p> <p>In one prior study to date, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref80">42</reflink>] explored the use of SRF with students who were DHH with more promising findings. To directly compare the findings between [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref81">42</reflink>] and this study, student scores in the paper–pencil condition using the correct words identified metric for alternate form reliability and criterion validity with the MAP were analyzed. For reliability, the findings from [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref82">42</reflink>] yielded higher alternate form reliability (.92) as compared to this study (.50,.64,.69). These results suggest that student scores were more stable across forms of equal difficulty in [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref83">42</reflink>] than in this study. The criterion measures between [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref84">42</reflink>] and this study for the MAP were more comparable (Rose et al.,.55 to.71; this study.55 to.71); but across all the criterion measures, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref85">42</reflink>] generally reported higher correlations.</p> <p>Notable differences between [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref86">42</reflink>] and this study on the following features are present: sample size (<emph>n</emph> = 101 in [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref87">42</reflink>] versus <emph>n</emph> = 37 in this study), demographics, (primarily residential school to primarily mainstream classroom), length and construction of SRF passages (3 min versus 1 min, isolated versus graduated passages), and scoring protocol (correct words identified versus four scoring types). One factor that may affect the validity evidence was that SRF was designed to be a measure of comprehension of linguistic structures in the context of reading text, while the criterion measures MAP and WJ-III Passage Comprehension subtest are measures of reading comprehension only. Further research is needed to explore the potential utility of SRF and the potential influences of these factors.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-34">Effects of Delivery Formats</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0143509752-35">Maze Paper–Pencil vs. e-Based</hd> <p>There is no previous research to date comparing the effect of e-based delivery to student performance on maze passages with students who are DHH. However, researchers ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref88">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref89">29</reflink>]) have suggested that students who are DHH may benefit from modifications to promote test access. Additionally, researchers ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref90">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref91">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref92">41</reflink>]) have suggested that e-based delivery might reduce some of the barriers or challenges associated with providing accommodations for students who are DHH.</p> <p>The finding that administration type (paper–pencil versus e-based) did not consistently affect student performance on the maze could be interpreted in the following ways. The data appear to suggest that if the examiner uses the correct score (CMC) or correct score adjusting for guessing (CMC−IMC, CMC−IMC/2), then either test administration approach (paper–pencil or e-based) appears to hold utility. Adding e-based into the repertoire of CBM delivery options may have potential to increase the use of progress monitoring for students who are DHH.</p> <p>As multiple accommodations were provided in the [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref93">3</reflink>] suite, one might hypothesize that students would demonstrate higher performance in the e-based condition as compared to the paper–pencil condition. During the student survey and informal observation of testing sessions, it was noted that students did not consistently use all of the modifications provided to them. For example, when viewing the feedback page (students could see the correct and incorrect answers), many students did not appear to actively review their answers prior to moving to the next screen. They were observed to often click "next" within 1 to 2 s of seeing the review screen. These findings are consistent with [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref94">4</reflink>] perspective that test-taking strategies may need to be explicitly taught.</p> <p>Also, during the student survey, some students stated that they had not seen the motivational bar even though it was present on the screen. On the student survey, the usefulness of the timer had mixed reviews by students, 27% of students rated the timer as helpful, 27% rated kind of helpful, and 46% rated not helpful. In regard to timer visibility, prior research from [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref95">9</reflink>] reported higher student performance when the timer was facing the child. However, non-significant findings between conditions where the timer was visible versus concealed was reported by [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref96">45</reflink>]. Within the context of this study, the informal statements made by students and findings from the student survey suggest that there may be a difference between which accommodations are provided to students and which are effectively used by students.</p> <p>Overall, these findings suggest that the maze appears to hold promise for students who are DHH in either medium. There generally was not a statistically significant difference between the paper–pencil and e-based conditions for the maze, with a few isolated exceptions. Given some student preference and the possibility that the e-based version may save time in administration and scoring, e-based assessment may be a viable consideration in delivery of the maze for students who are DHH.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-36">SRF: Paper–Pencil vs. e-Based</hd> <p>The SRF task requires students to quickly and accurately place vertical lines between the boundaries between words. First, though not directly measured in the study, upon observation of students engaging with the tool, there appeared to be motoric differences between how rapidly a student could locate and draw a vertical line with their pencil as compared to moving the computer mouse to the correct spot and clicking their answer. Some students were observed to have stilted movements when using a mouse or would need to re-click as they had either not placed the computer mouse in the right place on the computer screen or did not click the mouse correctly. These findings highlight that response time may be an important variable influencing a student's score; it is possible that the differences favoring paper–pencil is less of a reflection of the utility of the testing modifications but more a reflection of a student's speed of response.</p> <p>Second, when administering the tool, many students finished the paper–pencil and e-based SRF text prior to the 1-min time limit as the SRF passages needed to be of shorter length due to space limitations. Even though all scores under 1 min were prorated, a prorated score cannot be assumed to be exactly the same as the score the student would have obtained if given a longer passage. Even though this limitation likely influenced the paper–pencil and e-based passages the same (as the same size limitations were applied to paper–pencil), there is a concern related to the accuracy of measurement that could have impacted these findings. These findings suggest that limitations on test space may be a relevant consideration that could be a factor that impacts scores.</p> <p>Third, the findings suggest that when combining scores across passages, students who were DHH identified more correct answers and made fewer errors when engaging in the paper–pencil condition. As the testing modifications to promote test access were presented as a "package," it is unknown if there were components of the package that enhanced performance and components of the package that deterred performance when students engaged in the SRF.</p> <p>The findings from this study suggest that maze appears to hold promise whereas the results from SRF are inconclusive. When comparing the paper–pencil versus e-based delivery formats, results suggest that for maze either delivery format may yield similar results whereas a notable different in performance between conditions were noted for SRF. When interpreting teacher and student usability and feasibility data with informal observations, results highlight that students may need explicit instruction and practice on how to use a given accommodation and that presence of the accommodation alone may be insufficient.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-37">Limitations</hd> <p>Findings of this study must be interpreted in light of the following limitations. The sample size was small (<emph>n</emph> = 37), and students are diverse (e.g., age, reading level, hearing loss status). Within the sample, English was the most common language of instruction in the school setting and the primary language for most students in the sample. As such, the presence of schools where American sign Language or English-based signing is the primary mode of communication or students who use sign language as their primary communication mode was underrepresented in this study. Also, broad eligibility criteria were used due to the low incidence of deafness; however, these criteria likely created a wide variation in the sample.</p> <p>When comparing conditions, the study would have been enhanced if student response time and accuracy with a pencil and mouse were quantified, a larger text display per passage on SRF was possible to decrease the need for proration, and a measure of language proficiency were used. As a note, to address the concerns related to response time accuracy obtained from this study, the Avenue: PM designers have redesigned e-based SRF to a touch screen response to replace the need to rely on the computer mouse for administration.</p> <p>Also, since the criterion measures were initially designed for use with students who are DHH, it is unknown if the measures to which the CBM were compared were meaningful indicators of performance. Even with these limitations, this study provides a starting point for future research in the areas of CBM, deafness, and e-based assessment accommodations.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-38">Future Directions</hd> <p>Future research is needed to extend the three-stage research line recommended by [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref97">14</reflink>] to establish the viability of CBM as a useful tool to promote student achievement for students who are DHH. In the service of Stage 1, additional research is needed to explore if students who are DHH generally produce similar performance on similar leveled passages (reliability) and whether student performance on the CBM serves as meaningful predictor of student performance on the outcome measures such as standardized tests (validity) ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref98">14</reflink>], Stage 1).</p> <p>When conceptualizing research studies, we recommended research teams consider the recommendations from [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref99">4</reflink>], as it relates to test selection, delivery (with and without accommodations), scoring, and interpretation. Attention to these features may assist in gaining an understanding of the technical characteristics of student scores for students who are DHH and identify any nuances in performance across student samples (e.g., communication modality, age, reading level) or administrative conditions (e.g., visual directions, feedback, motivational systems). If findings from research studies suggest sound technical properties, CBM may be able to provide teachers with a tool to predict and measure a student's overall reading skill in a quick, efficient, and easy-to-understand manner ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref100">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>If researchers establish the appropriateness of CBM in Stage 1, additional research is needed to explore how student scores function across time. For example, does an increase in student weekly progress monitoring data using CBM correspond with an increase in the student's overall reading proficiency? Can an increase a student scores across time suggest the student has gained greater reading skill? If Stage 2 yields promising findings, these results would suggest that teachers could gain more timely information as to their student's progress.</p> <p>If Stage 1 and Stage 2 yield promising results, the last stage would be to explore whether teachers can use the data to inform instructional decision-making (Stage 3). If findings are promising, teachers would be able to successfully interpret CBM graphs (e.g., level, trend, variability) and make appropriate decisions to adjust instruction based on student data to accelerate student progress toward grade level skills. Through these three stages, it is recommended that researchers and practitioners work in partnership to extend research in the field to inform instructional programming.</p> <hd id="AN0143509752-39">Conclusion</hd> <p>To increase the literacy outcomes for students who are DHH, professionals need to provide high-quality instruction that is informed by accurate and valid assessment data. This research study explored whether students' scores from maze and SRF had sufficient reliability and criterion-related validity in a paper–pencil and e-based administration format. Overall, findings suggest that maze holds promise for use with students who are DHH in both conditions, with inconclusive results for SRF. Future research is needed to explore the utility of maze and SRF and the impact of e-based progress monitoring tools.</p> <ref id="AN0143509752-40"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref23" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allinder, R. M., &amp; Eccarius, M. A. (1999). Exploring the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement in reading for children who used manually coded English. Exceptional Children, 65, 271 – 283. doi: 10.1177/001440299906500210 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Appelman, K. I., Callahan, J. O., Mayer, M. H., Luetke, B. S., &amp; Stryker, D. S. (2012). Education, employment, and independent living of young adults who are deaf and hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 157, 264 – 275. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.1619 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref50" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Avenue: PM. (2011). Computer software. Minneapolis, MN : Supported by the United States Department of Education: Office of Special Education Programs Stepping Stones Grant. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref38" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cawthon, S. (2015). From the margins to the spotlight: Diverse deaf and hard of hearing student populations and standardized assessment accessibility. American Annals of the Deaf, 160, 385 – 394. doi: 10.1353/aad.2015.0036 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref37" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cawthon, S., &amp; Leppo, R. (2013). Assessment accommodations on tests of academic achievement for students who are deaf or hard of hearing: A qualitative meta-analysis of the research literature. American Annals of the Deaf, 158, 363 – 376. doi: 10.1353/aad.2013.0023 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref62" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chafouleas, S. M., Miller, F. G., Briesch, A. M., Neugebauer, S. R., &amp; Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2012). Usage Rating Profile – Assessment. Storrs : University of Connecticut. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Deno, S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternate. Exceptional Children, 52, 219 – 232. doi: 10.1177/001440298505200303 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref44" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., &amp; Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3, 1 – 32. Retrieved from. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1660 OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref95" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Derr-Minneci, T. F., &amp; Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Validating curriculum-based measurement in reading from a behavioral perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 2 – 16. doi: 10.1037/h0088244 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Easterbrooks, S. R., &amp; Huston, S. G. (2008). The signed reading fluency of students who are deaf /hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 37 – 54. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enm030 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Easterbrooks, S., &amp; Stephenson, B. (2006). An examination of twenty literacy, science, and mathematics practices used to educate students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 151, 385 – 397. doi: 10.1353/aad.2006.0043 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edcheckup, L. L. C., &amp; Children's Educational Services database (2005). Computer software and database. Edina, MN. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emary (2012). Analyzing the various aspects of e-learning modules for the hearing impaired students. International Journal of Academic Research, 4, 122 – 130. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188 – 193. Retrieved from. https://naspjournals.org/loi/spsr OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S., &amp; Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45 – 59. Retrieved from. https://naspjournals.org/loi/spsr OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., &amp; Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239 – 256. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S., &amp; Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195 – 203. doi: 10.1177/0022219412442150 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammill, D. D., Wiederholt, J. L., &amp; Allen, E. A. (2006). TOSCRF: Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency, Examiner's manual. Austin, TX : Pro-Ed. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartmann, E. A. (2010). Evaluating employment outcomes of adults who are deaf or hard of hearing (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). New York, NY : Teachers College, Columbia University. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karchmer, M. A., &amp; Mitchell, R. E. (2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In M. Marschark &amp; P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education (pp. 21 – 37). New York: NY : Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, L. P., &amp; Ewoldt, C. (1984). Interpreting nonverbatim cloze responses to evaluate program success and diagnose student needs for reading instruction. American Annals of the Deaf, 129, 45 – 51. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.0857 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., &amp; Johnstone, C. (2006). Accommodations and universal design: Supporting access to assessments in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19, 163 – 172. Retrieved from. https://<ulink href="http://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped">www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped</ulink> OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam, E., McMaster, K. L., &amp; Rose, S. (2019). Systematic review of curriculum-based measurement with students who are deaf. Unpublished manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaSasso, C. (1980). Validity and reliability of the cloze procedure as a measure of readability for prelingually, profoundly deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 125, 559 – 563. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.1497 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lederberg, A. R., Schick, B., Webb, M. L., Connor, C. M., Easterbrooks, S. R., Antia, S., &amp; Kushalnagar, P. (2014). The role of language and decoding skills in early literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Paper presentation at the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading annual meeting. Santa Fe, NM. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lederberg, A. R., Antia, S., Easterbrooks, S. R., Schick, B., Branum-Martin, L., Connor, C. M., &amp; Webb, M. L. (2014). Development of language and literacy in deaf and hard-of-hearing elementary school children: Strengths and weaknesses. Paper presentation at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting. Philadelphia, PA : Language and Literacy Learning of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children Symposium. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luckner, J. L. (2013). Using the dynamic indicators of basic literacy skills with students who are deaf or hard of hearing: Perspectives of a panel of experts. American Annals of the Deaf, 158, 7 – 19. doi: 10.1353/aad.2013.0012 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luckner, J., &amp; Bowen, S. (2006). Assessment practices of professionals serving students who are deaf or hard of hearing: An initial investigation. American Annals of the Deaf, 151, 410 – 417. doi: 10.1353/aad.2006.0046 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luckner, J. L., &amp; Bowen, S. K. (2010). Teachers' use and perceptions of progress monitoring. American Annals of the Deaf, 155, 397 – 406. doi: 10.1353/aad.2010.0031 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luckner, J., Sebald, A., Cooney, J., Young, J., &amp; Muir, S. (2005). An examination of the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 150, 443 – 456. doi: 10.1353/aad.2006.0008 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luft, P. (2012). Employment and independent living skills of public school high school deaf students: Analyses of the transition competence battery response patterns. Journal of the American Deafness &amp; Rehabilitation Association, 45, 292 – 313. Retrieved from. https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara/about.html OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luft, P., &amp; Huff, K. (2011). How prepared are transition-age deaf and hard of hearing students for adult living? Results of the transition competence battery. American Annals of the Deaf, 155, 569 – 579. doi: 10.1353/aad.2011.0000 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do it. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY : Guilford Press. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAnally, P. L., &amp; Rose, S. (2012). Reading Milestones Placement and Monitoring: RMPM Manual. Austin, TX : Pro-Ed. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marschark, M. (2006). Intellectual functioning of deaf adults and children: Answers and questions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 70 – 89. doi: 10.1080/09541440500216028 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marschark, M., Spencer, P., Adams, J., &amp; Sapere, P. (2011). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Teaching to their cognitive strengths and needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26, 3 – 16. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2011.543540 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Northwest Evaluation Association (2003). Technical manual for the NWEA Measures of Academic Progress and achievement level tests. Portland, OR : Northwest Evaluation Association. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Northwest Evaluation Association (2004). NWEA achievement level test and Measures of Academic Progress. Lake Oswego, OR : Northwest Evaluation Association. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Northwest Evaluation Association (2014). Measures of Academic Progress: An introduction to MAP Computer Adaptive Interim Assessment. Portland, OR : Northwest Evaluation Association. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose. S. (2007). Monitoring progress of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, Washington, DC. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, D., &amp; Dolan, B. (2000). Universal design for learning: Associate editor's column. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 47 – 51. doi: 10.1177/016264340001500407 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, S., McAnally, P., Barkmeier, L., Virnig, S., &amp; Long, J. (2008). Silent Reading Fluency Test: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth for students who are deaf and hard of hearing at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. (Report No. 9). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., &amp; Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical abstract Woodcock-Johnson III assessment service bulletin No. 2. Itasca, IL : Riverside Publishing. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shyyan, V., Christensen, L. L., Rogers, C., &amp; Kincaid, A. (2014). Sign support guidelines for accessible assessments: Insight from cognitive labs. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, Enhanced Assessment Grant (#S368A120006), U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, C. D., Meisinger, E. B., Floyd, R. G., &amp; VanDerHeyden, A. (2013). Variations in directions and overt timing on oral reading accuracy, fluency, and prosody. School Psychology Review, 42, 437 – 447. Retrieved from. https://naspjournals.org/loi/spsr OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wayman, M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H., Ticha, R., &amp; Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85 – 120. doi: 10.1177/00224669070410020401 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., &amp; Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL : Riverside Publishing. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Elizabeth A Lam; Susan Rose and Kristen L McMaster</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Correspondence should be sent to Elizabeth A. Lam, Educational Psychology Department, 250 Education Sciences Building, 56 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA (e-mail:)</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref96"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1256374 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Technical Characteristics of Curriculum-Based Measurement with Students Who Are Deaf – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lam%2C+Elizabeth+A%2E%22">Lam, Elizabeth A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rose%2C+Susan%22">Rose, Susan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McMaster%2C+Kristen+L%2E%22">McMaster, Kristen L.</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Deaf+Studies+and+Deaf+Education%22"><i>Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education</i></searchLink>. Jul 2020 25(3):318-333. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: 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/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 16 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2020 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Deafness%22">Deafness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hearing+Impairments%22">Hearing Impairments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Based+Assessment%22">Curriculum Based Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reliability%22">Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Validity%22">Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Assisted+Testing%22">Computer Assisted Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Silent+Reading%22">Silent Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Fluency%22">Reading Fluency</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1093/deafed/enaa003 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1081-4159 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: 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. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2020 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1256374 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1256374 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1093/deafed/enaa003 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 16 StartPage: 318 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Deafness Type: general – SubjectFull: Hearing Impairments Type: general – SubjectFull: Curriculum Based Assessment Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Scores Type: general – SubjectFull: Reliability Type: general – SubjectFull: Validity Type: general – SubjectFull: Computer Assisted Testing Type: general – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Silent Reading Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Fluency Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Technical Characteristics of Curriculum-Based Measurement with Students Who Are Deaf Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lam, Elizabeth A. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Rose, Susan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: McMaster, Kristen L. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 07 Type: published Y: 2020 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1081-4159 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 25 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
