View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Systematic Review of Curriculum-Based Measurement with Students Who Are Deaf

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Systematic Review of Curriculum-Based Measurement with Students Who Are Deaf
Language: English
Authors: Lam, Elizabeth A., McMaster, Kristen L., Rose, Susan
Source: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. Oct 2020 25(4):398-410.
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: 13
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Descriptors: Deafness, Hearing Impairments, Curriculum Based Assessment, Sign Language, Reading Fluency, Silent Reading, Cloze Procedure, Reading Tests
DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enaa020
ISSN: 1081-4159
Abstract: This review systematically identified and compared the technical adequacy (reliability and validity evidence) of reading curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tasks administered to students who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). This review included all available literature written in English. The nine studies identified used four CBM tasks: signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency, cloze (write in missing words given blank lines within a passage), and maze (circle the target word given multiple choice options within a passage). Data obtained from these measures were generally found to be internally consistent and stable with validity evidence varying across measures. Emerging evidence supports the utility of CBM for students who are DHH. Further empirical evidence is needed to continue to explore technical properties, identify if student scores are sensitive to growth over short periods of time, and examine whether CBM data can be used to inform instructional decision-making to improve student outcomes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1273482
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHbFeEVzA7Lx_RmQG-RX51IAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFv4Y683fAqTknE1ogIBEICBmnV-tOw1KS1r2jtG6CuVAI8NQfkNYNB4e7KW7m6xIiQ27ny3GvFmmNQb-p7DBWde4PxrNLr9QlyiWpFULZfXR7hH9MZYotEB7ez0rFce0MaKYFkyV70tx2ATpWDE_MInzbgAwxixr2V2ol03buL_UiEIeZuPBkeB7gIfj8BNBF9yDeaJGtMSbp42pNYvc0mtsm36B78Fb7NAhGQ=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0145718577;big01aug.20;2020Sep15.02:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0145718577-1">Systematic Review of Curriculum-Based Measurement with Students Who Are Deaf </title> <p>This review systematically identified and compared the technical adequacy (reliability and validity evidence) of reading curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tasks administered to students who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). This review included all available literature written in English. The nine studies identified used four CBM tasks: signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency, cloze (write in missing words given blank lines within a passage), and maze (circle the target word given multiple choice options within a passage). Data obtained from these measures were generally found to be internally consistent and stable with validity evidence varying across measures. Emerging evidence supports the utility of CBM for students who are DHH. Further empirical evidence is needed to continue to explore technical properties, identify if student scores are sensitive to growth over short periods of time, and examine whether CBM data can be used to inform instructional decision-making to improve student outcomes.</p> <p>Students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) are a heterogeneous population, with some students meeting or exceeding literacy benchmarks and others demonstrating limited proficiency (Mayer & Trezek, 2018). A large majority of students experience persistent delays in obtaining proficiency similar to their same-aged peers with typical levels of hearing (Allinder & Eccarius, 1999; Luckner, 2013). Limited literacy proficiency can impede students who are DHH from finishing high school (Appelman et al. 2012), can create barriers in postsecondary education (Hartmann, 2010), and present challenges with meeting literacy demands in the workplace (Luft, 2012).</p> <p>Educational legislation calls for the use of data-based instruction and evidenced-based educational strategies to efficiently and effectively provide high-quality instruction and targeted individualized instruction to students who are at risk or with disabilities (IDEIA, 2004; ESSA, 2015). As such, there is a need for researchers to develop and practitioners to implement evidenced-based practices to address the persistent problem of underachievement for this subgroup of students who are DHH (Luft, 2018). Evidenced-based practices are supported by the use of valid and reliable assessment to measure student response to instruction and to use data to modify the approach when needed (Rose, 2007; Thomas & Marvin, 2016).</p> <p>Within the field, there remains a critical need for assessment tools that can reliably measure a student's skill level, can generate data that predict performance on comprehensive assessment measures, are sensitive to growth over short periods of time, and can inform instructional decision-making for students who are DHH (Thomas & Marvin, 2016). One assessment method that shows promise to inform instructional planning is curriculum-based measurement (CBM; Devenow, 2003; Luckner & Bowen, 2006; Rose, 2007).</p> <p>CBM, as conceptualized by Deno (1985), is an approach that can effectively provide "vital signs" of a student's overall academic performance. CBM was designed to measure students' responsiveness to instruction and inform service delivery. Deno (1985) described that CBM should meet the following criteria: It should be (a) reliable and valid, (b) simple and efficient, (c) easy to understand, and (d) inexpensive. CBM tools are designed to be quick, efficient, and sensitive to growth over short periods of time.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-2">Use of CBM with Hearing Populations</hd> <p>For students with typical levels of hearing, oral reading fluency (ORF) is the most commonly used CBM tool. Within the context of progress monitoring, students are administered the ORF task as often as once a week with performance scored and charted. The general process is as follows: Students are presented with a passage and prompted to read the text aloud in the time allotted (e.g. 1 min). The examiner tracks as the student reads, marks incorrectly read words on the examiner copy, and calculates the total number of words read correctly.</p> <p>Previous literature reviews have established the appropriateness of using ORF within the screening and benchmarking process (Marston, 1989; Wayman et al. 2007). Researchers have demonstrated that CBM tasks correlate well with high-stakes state tests and standardized achievement tests and are sensitive to growth over short periods of time (Ticha et al. 2009; Hunley et al. 2013; Shin & McMaster, 2019). The utility of CBM with students with intellectual disabilities and with English learners (Els) has been supported (Christ et al. 2010; Sandberg & Reschly, 2011; Hosp et al. 2014). When practitioners who work with students with typical levels of hearing, they use CBM data to make instructional decisions, and improved student literacy outcomes have been observed (Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012; Jung et al. 2018).</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-3">Research on CBM with Deaf Students</hd> <p>Since CBM has been demonstrated to provide reliable and valid data for students with typical levels of hearing, it begs the question: Could CBM provide useful data for students who are DHH? Currently, the most common assessment tools used with students who are DHH are state and commercial achievement tests (Luckner & Bowen, 2006), which are limited in the extent to which they can inform instruction (Bruce et al. 2018). Progress monitoring tools such as CBM could supplement achievement tests and provide more timely information for day-to-day instruction (Devenow, 2003; Luckner & Bowen, 2006; Rose, 2007).</p> <p>Careful consideration is needed to determine the appropriateness of CBM with the heterogeneous population of students who are DHH. Research from cognitive science identified that some students who are DHH may decode and linguistically process text differently than their hearing counterparts (Marschark, 2006; Marschark et al. 2011), which suggests that selecting CBM tasks that require less reliance on oral production in decoding may be more appropriate.</p> <p>Luckner (2013) asked experts in the field of deafness to rate the appropriateness of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) reading probes, which are a type of CBM. The probes included the following: initial sound fluency, letter naming fluency, phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency, oral reading fluency, retell fluency, and word use fluency. In general, experts rated DIBELS probes as mostly appropriate for children who use spoken language, possibly appropriate for students who use spoken language and sign, and not appropriate for students who use sign language. Luckner (2013) acknowledged limitations such as the term "appropriate" not being defined, how students vary across multiple factors not only communication mode, and that communication modalities may be more complex than a three-category delineation. Luckner (2013) called for further research exploring the technical properties of student scores and the potential of using CBM for progress monitoring. Given the need for viable assessments tools for students who are DHH, the appropriateness of these tools for other special populations, and the call for future research to explore the technical features of CBM with students who are DHH, we conducted this systematic review.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-4">Purpose of Review</hd> <p>The purpose of this review was to explore the technical adequacy of CBM with students who are DHH. According to Fuchs (2004), a three-phased approach is needed to establish a body of evidence to support CBM measures within the instructional planning process. The process includes (a) demonstrating the technical adequacy (reliability and criterion validity) of the measures, (b) examining sensitivity to growth over time, and (c) exploring how CBM data is used within the data-based decision-making process. We aimed to explore the current body of evidence (phase 1) and create a springboard for future researchers to explore whether the data generated from these measures are sensitive to growth over short periods of time (phase 2) or can be used in the data-based decision-making process (phase 3) for students who are DHH.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-5">Method</hd> <p>To determine the utility of CBM for this population, the first step is to explore features of technical adequacy including reliability and validity (Fuchs, 2004). Below we describe the literature search process, the inclusion criteria, and coding process.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-6">Literature Search</hd> <p>To identify relevant studies, we followed a three-step process (see Figure 1). First, we broadly searched the Academic Search Premier, ERIC, Education Index Retrospective (1929–1983), and Psych Info databases. Keyword terms related to deafness (<emph>deaf</emph>, <emph>deafness</emph>, <emph>hearing impairment</emph>, <emph>hearing loss</emph>, <emph>partial hearing</emph>, and <emph>hard of hearing</emph>) were paired with CBM terms (<emph>CBM</emph>, <emph>curriculum-based assessment</emph>, <emph>progress monitoring</emph>, <emph>response to intervention</emph>, <emph>cloze procedure</emph>, <emph>DIBELS</emph>, <emph>oral reading fluency</emph>, and <emph>miscue analysis</emph>). As the search included a large timespan, the term "hearing impairment" was used with the intent to identify a greater number of potential studies, especially for studies with older publication dates. We limited our search to articles written in English. The initial search yielded 1,333 articles. The initial search articles were screened for duplication, with 476 articles remaining. We screened each title for relevance (<emph>n</emph> = 16) and then reviewed the full articles based on the inclusion criteria, yielding six articles.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. class="chapter-para">Systematic review screening process documents the systematic search process including the following steps: identification, screening, eligibility, and included studies.</p> <p>Next, we then identified articles from various data sources and applied the same search method. We conducted ancestral searches of 2 highly relevant conceptual/review articles (Luckner, 2012; Rose, 2007), which yielded 122 studies; 7 were identified as potentially relevant, and 4 were identified for inclusion. We identified the most frequently occurring data sources from the initial searches (<emph>Exceptional Children</emph>, <emph>American Annals of the Deaf</emph>, and <emph>Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education</emph>) and examined current abstracts (2012–2019), 547 articles were identified; one article was identified for review, but did not meet criteria. We examined 38 technical reports from the <emph>Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (RIPM)</emph>, and 1 article was identified (Rose, 2008) and met the inclusion criteria in the full-text screen. We identified an additional unpublished master's thesis (Barkmeier, 2009) which shared the same sample of participants as Rose (2008) but analyzed student performance on a different set of measures. The master's thesis was screened, met criteria, and was ultimately included.</p> <p>Last, we conducted an interrater agreement (IRA) to determine the consistency in decision-making. A trained researcher, independent of the authors, conducted the review of 20% of the articles at each stage. IRA was as follows: initial database (99% title screen, 100% full screen), ancestral searches (88%, 100%), frequently occurring journals (99%, 100%), and RIPM (100%, 100%). All disagreements were reviewed and resolved.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-7">Inclusion Criteria</hd> <p>To be included in this review, each study needed to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) assess the reading performance of students who are DHH using at least one CBM reading task, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) explore the technical characteristics (validity and reliability) of student scores, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) be written in English inclusive of theses, dissertations, and technical reports. For the CBM requirement, we accepted studies that generally met the criteria set forth by Deno (1985), except in some cases the scoring did not meet the criteria of simple and efficient.</p> <p>For the reliability and validity requirements, we used the definitions set forth by the American Educational Research Association (AERA, 1999). As defined, reliability refers to "the consistency of such measurements when the testing procedure is repeated on a population of individuals or groups" (p. 25). Within this context, researchers explored the consistency of the metrics of the CBM tasks by analyzing inter-rater agreement, internal consistency, stability, and equivalence. According to AERA (1999), validity refers to "the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of the test" (p. 9). In this context, students CBM performance was compared to a student's performance on standardized tests, other fluency measures, and teacher ratings.</p> <p>The review included peer-reviewed articles, technical reports, dissertations, and master's theses. In their article on quality indicators for systematic reviews of research, Talbott et al. (2017) recommended actively seeking and including all works (including dissertations, theses, and other forms of "gray literature") to have the full range of relevant studies to review. The intent of the inclusive approach is to review the full population of studies to reduce bias, consistent with the recommendations from Talbott et al. (2017).</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-8">Coding</hd> <p>Each article identified in this systematic review was coded on key features of reliability and validity. For reliability, articles were coded on three features: analysis, metrics, and findings. For the analysis, the article was categorized based on the method by which reliability was explored, which included one or more of the following codes: inter-rater, internal consistency, alternate form, and test retest. For metrics, the article was coded based on the scoring type identified by the authors. For example, for the maze CBM task, the metrics included the number of correctly identified words ("correct" metric), number of words correctly identified words after adjusting for guessing ("corrected" metric), number of words read ("scan" metric), and number of incorrectly identified words ("incorrect" metric). Due to the variation across study types, the metrics used varied. For findings, the authors reported reliability correlations or percentages, with findings from significance testing included when available (see Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1 Reliability of CBM for students who are deaf or hard of hearing</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Citation. </th><th>Analysis. </th><th>Metrics. </th><th>Findings. </th><th><italic>p</italic> values when available. </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">Signed reading fluency </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Allinder & Eccarius (1999) </td><td rowspan="2">Inter-rater </td><td>Words read correctly </td><td>40 to 100% (<italic>M</italic> = 78.69%) </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Idea units retold </td><td>0 to 100% (<italic>M</italic> = 78.76%) </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Internal consistency </td><td>1- & 3-min passages </td><td>.89 to.97 </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Alternate form </td><td>1-min passages </td><td>.85 </td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>3-min passages </td><td>.94 </td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Easterbrooks and Huston (2008) </td><td rowspan="2">Inter-rater </td><td>Fluency envelope </td><td>.98 </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Visual grammar </td><td>.75 </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Internal consistency </td><td /><td>.86 </td><td /></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Silent reading fluency </td></tr><tr><td>Rose, (2008) </td><td>Inter-rater </td><td>Correct words identified </td><td>92% </td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Alternate form </td><td>Correct words identified </td><td>.92 </td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Lam (2020) </td><td rowspan="3">Alternate form: paper–pencil </td><td>Correct words identified </td><td>.50 to.69 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Correct boundaries </td><td>.51 to.70 </td><td><.0 l </td></tr><tr><td>Percent correct </td><td>.39 to.59 </td><td><.01 to.02 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Alternate form: e-based </td><td>Correct boundaries </td><td>.68 to.75 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Percent correct </td><td>.49 to.71 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Cloze </td></tr><tr><td>LaSasso (1980) </td><td>Internal consistency </td><td>Fifth grade passages (six forms) </td><td>.67 to.82 </td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Kelly & Ewoldt (1984) </td><td rowspan="4">Inter-rater (sample of 100 responses) </td><td>Meaningful to passage </td><td>82% </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Meaningful in sentence </td><td>81% </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Related to English form </td><td>79% </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Sign form classification </td><td>82% </td><td /></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Maze </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Chen (2002) </td><td>Inter-rater </td><td>Maze </td><td>100% </td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Alternate form </td><td>Correct </td><td>.86 &.77 </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Corrected </td><td>.85 &.79 </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Scan </td><td>.78 &.62 </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Incorrect </td><td>.55 &. 30 </td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Test–retest </td><td>Correct </td><td>.83 </td><td><. 01 </td></tr><tr><td>Corrected </td><td>.85 </td><td><. 01 </td></tr><tr><td>Scan </td><td>.82 </td><td><. 01 </td></tr><tr><td>Accuracy </td><td>.39 </td><td><. 01 </td></tr><tr><td>Incorrect </td><td>.11 </td><td><italic>Ns</italic></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Devenow (2003) </td><td rowspan="3">Alternate form </td><td>Correct (Phase 2) </td><td>.60 to.80 </td><td><. 001 </td></tr><tr><td>Corrected (Phase 2) </td><td>.64 to.82 </td><td><. 001 </td></tr><tr><td>Scan (Phase 2) </td><td>.45 to.70 </td><td><. 001 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Barkmeier (2009) </td><td rowspan="4">Alternate Form </td><td>Form A </td><td>.42 to.75 </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Form D </td><td>.80 to.86 </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Form A & Form D </td><td>.41 to.90 </td><td /></tr><tr><td>Form E </td><td>−.21to.85 </td><td /></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Lam (2020) </td><td rowspan="3">Alternate form: paper–pencil </td><td>CMC </td><td>.76 to.84 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC </td><td>.66 to.84 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC/2 </td><td>.71 to.84 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Alternate form: e-based </td><td>CMC </td><td>.66 to.80 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC </td><td>.61 to.72 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC – IMC/2 </td><td>.64 to.73 </td><td><.01 </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: CMC, correct maze choices; IMC, incorrect maze choices; CMC-IMC, correct maze choices minus incorrect maze choices; CMC-IMC/2, correct maze choices minus the value of incorrect maze choices divided by a value of 2.</p> <p>For validity, articles were coded on the following dimensions: type of measure, name of measure, CBM metrics, relation between measures (most often correlations), and significance. For type of measure, the article was coded based on the criterion measure to which the CBM tools were compared. Across studies, measures included achievement tests, fluency tests, informal measures, and CBM. Often times, an author used more than one comparison type. The name of the measure used as the criterion was also documented. In most cases, the criterion measure was a standardized achievement test, in other cases the measure was a teacher rating or fluency test. Similar to reliability, the data reported by the authors on the CBM metrics used, the relations between measures, and any significance testing (when available) were reported; see Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2 Validity of CBM for students who are deaf or hard of hearing</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Citation. </th><th>Type of measure. </th><th>Name of measure. </th><th>CBM metrics. </th><th>Relationship between measures. </th><th>Significance. </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6">Signed reading fluency </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Allinder & Eccarius (1999) </td><td rowspan="6">Achievement test </td><td rowspan="6">TERA-DHH </td><td><italic>M</italic> no. of words read 1 min </td><td>.30 </td><td><italic>ns</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic> no. of words read 3 min </td><td>.21 </td><td><italic>ns</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic> no. of idea units retold </td><td>.36 </td><td><italic>ns</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic> no. of words retold </td><td>.46 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic> no. of unique words retold </td><td>.47 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>% of content words retold </td><td>.46 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Easterbrooks and Huston (2008) </td><td rowspan="3">Achievement test </td><td rowspan="3">WRMT-R </td><td>Word comprehension </td><td>.38 to.46 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>Passage comprehension </td><td>.55 to.64 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Total comprehension </td><td>.43 to.50 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 or <italic>p</italic> <.01 </td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Silent reading fluency </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Rose, (2008) </td><td>Fluency test </td><td>TOSCRF </td><td>Correct words identified </td><td>.84 &.90 </td><td>Not reported </td></tr><tr><td>Achievement test </td><td>MAP </td><td>Correct words identified </td><td>.58 to.75 </td><td>Not reported </td></tr><tr><td>Informal </td><td>Teacher ratings </td><td>Correct words identified </td><td>.54 to.85 </td><td>Not reported </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="14">Lam (2020) </td><td rowspan="8">Achievement (paper–pencil CBM) </td><td rowspan="4">WJ-III Passage Comprehension </td><td>Correct words identified </td><td>.33 to.48 </td><td><.01 to.05 </td></tr><tr><td>Correct boundaries </td><td>.30 to.45 </td><td><.01 to.07 </td></tr><tr><td>Total wrong </td><td>−.51 to −.26 </td><td><.01 to.12 </td></tr><tr><td>Percent correct </td><td>.27 to.49 </td><td><.01 to.10 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">MAP </td><td>Correct words identified </td><td>.55 to.71 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Correct boundaries </td><td>.53 to.72 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Total wrong </td><td>−.42 to −.71 </td><td><.01 to.04 </td></tr><tr><td>Percent correct </td><td>.44 to.73 </td><td><.01 to.03 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Achievement (e-based CBM) </td><td rowspan="3">WJ-III Passage Comprehension </td><td>Correct boundaries </td><td>.25 to.34 </td><td>.04 to.14 </td></tr><tr><td>Total wrong </td><td>−.53 to.05 </td><td>01 to.76 </td></tr><tr><td>Percent correct </td><td>.08 to.50 </td><td><.01 to.62 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">MAP </td><td>Correct boundaries </td><td>.37 to.51 </td><td><.01 to.07 </td></tr><tr><td>Total wrong </td><td>−.59 to −.21 </td><td><.01 to.32 </td></tr><tr><td>Percent correct </td><td>.28 to.58 </td><td><.01 to.18 </td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Cloze </td></tr><tr><td>LaSasso (1980) </td><td>CBM </td><td>Reading for concepts series </td><td>Passages (third, fifth, & seventh) </td><td>Ranking (easy to difficult): fifth, seventh, third grade </td><td>NA </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Kelly & Ewoldt, (1984) </td><td rowspan="3">Achievement test </td><td rowspan="3">SAT-HI </td><td>Verbatim </td><td>|${\chi}^2$|=8.94 </td><td><italic>p</italic> =.003 </td></tr><tr><td>Meaningful in passage </td><td>|${\chi}^2$|=10.02 </td><td><italic>p</italic> =.003 </td></tr><tr><td>Acceptable English form </td><td>|${\chi}^2$|=17.54 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.001 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Story retell </td><td rowspan="3">Story retell </td><td>Verbatim </td><td>|${\chi}^2$|=.036 </td><td><italic>p</italic> =.849 </td></tr><tr><td>Meaningful in passage </td><td>|${\chi}^2$|=3.76 </td><td><italic>p</italic> =.05 </td></tr><tr><td>Acceptable English form </td><td>|${\chi}^2$|=.000 </td><td><italic>p</italic> = 1.0 </td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Maze </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Chen (2002) </td><td rowspan="5">Achievement test </td><td rowspan="5">TOWL-3 (winter, spring) </td><td>Correct </td><td>.76 &.88 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Corrected </td><td>.77 &.89 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Scan </td><td>.82 &.83 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Accuracy </td><td>.52 &.62 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 & <italic>p</italic> <.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Incorrect </td><td>.26 & -.17 </td><td><italic>ns</italic></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Informal measure </td><td rowspan="5">Teacher ratings (winter, spring) </td><td>Correct </td><td>.79 &.76 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Corrected </td><td>.82 &.74 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Scan </td><td>.80 &.74 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Accuracy </td><td>.48 &.50 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 & <italic>p</italic> <.01 </td></tr><tr><td>Incorrect </td><td>.19 &.01 </td><td><italic>ns</italic></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12">Devenow (2003) </td><td rowspan="12">Achievement test </td><td rowspan="12">SAT </td><td>P1-2M correct </td><td>.72 &.74 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>P1-2M corrected </td><td>.74 &.75 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>P1-2M scan </td><td>.56 &.71 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>P1-4M correct </td><td>.64 &.64 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>P1-4M corrected </td><td>.64 &.66 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>P1-4M scan </td><td>.46 &.56 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>P1-untimed correct </td><td>.62 &.57 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>P1-untimed corrected </td><td>.60 &.60 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>P1-untimed scan </td><td>.02 &.49 </td><td><italic>ns</italic> & <italic>p</italic> <.05 </td></tr><tr><td>P2 correct </td><td>.87 &.88 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.001 </td></tr><tr><td>P2 corrected </td><td>.89 &.89 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.001 </td></tr><tr><td>P2 scan </td><td>.77 &.83 </td><td><italic>p</italic> <.001 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Barkmeier (2009) </td><td rowspan="3">Achievement test </td><td rowspan="3">MAP </td><td>Elementary </td><td>.80 &.91 </td><td>Not Reported </td></tr><tr><td>Middle school </td><td>.59 to.91 </td><td>Not Reported </td></tr><tr><td>High school </td><td>−.10 to.85 </td><td>Not Reported </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Informal measure </td><td rowspan="3">Teacher ratings </td><td>Elementary </td><td>.86 & 81 </td><td>Not Reported </td></tr><tr><td>Middle school </td><td>.86 &.85 </td><td>Not Reported </td></tr><tr><td>High school </td><td>−.20 & -.28 </td><td>Not Reported </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="16">Lam (2020) </td><td rowspan="8">Achievement (paper–pencil CBM) </td><td rowspan="4">WJ-III Passage Comprehension </td><td>CMC </td><td>.33 to.57 </td><td><.01 to.05 </td></tr><tr><td>IMC </td><td>−.27 to −.43 </td><td><.01 to.10 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC </td><td>.50 to.58 </td><td><.01 to.02 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC/2 </td><td>.36 to.58 </td><td><.01 to.03 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">MAP </td><td>CMC </td><td>.49 to.65 </td><td><.01 to.01 </td></tr><tr><td>IMC </td><td>−.50 to −.20 </td><td>.01 to.33 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC </td><td>.50 to.67 </td><td><.01 to.01 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC/2 </td><td>.50 to.67 </td><td><.01 to.01 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">Achievement (e-based CBM) </td><td rowspan="4">WJ-III Passage Comprehension </td><td>CMC </td><td>.43 to.50 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>IMC </td><td>−.50 to −.33 </td><td><.01 to.05 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC </td><td>.49 to.52 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC/2 </td><td>.46 to.51 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">MAP </td><td>CMC </td><td>.56 to.60 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>IMC </td><td>−.18 to −.04 </td><td>.40 to.84 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC </td><td>.51 to.61 </td><td><.01 </td></tr><tr><td>CMC-IMC/2 </td><td>.54 to.61 </td><td>.01 </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: TERA-DHH, Test of Early Reading Ability—Deaf or Hard of Hearing; WRMT-R, Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—Revised; TOSCRF, Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency; MAP, measures of academic progress; CBM, curriculum-based measurement; WJ-III, Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement—Third Edition; SAT-HI, Stanford Achievement Test—Hearing Impaired; TOWL-3, Test of Written Language—Third Edition; SAT, Stanford Achievement Test; P1-2M, Phase 1—2 min; P1-4M, Phase 1—4 min; P1, Phase; P2, Phase 2; CMC, correct maze choices; IMC, incorrect maze choices; CMC-IMC, correct maze choices minus incorrect maze choices; CMC-IMC/2, correct maze choices minus the value of incorrect maze choices divided by a value of 2.</p> <p>IRA was conducted with a trained researcher with 20% of the studies selected for review. In some cases, the first author reported ranges where the rater reported the summary or composite value, though both representations of the data were correct. Inter-rater agreement was 96%; two disagreements were identified and resolved.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-9">Results</hd> <p>The literature search yielded nine studies that fell into four categories (signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency, cloze, and maze) described in more depth below. For each study, the reliability and validity findings were reviewed. See Table 1 for the reliability and Table 2 for the validity findings for each study.</p> <p>For the purpose of this review, descriptive classifications are used to denote the strength of the correlations. What constitutes strong, moderate, and weak correlations is context dependent; thus, previous narrative reviews of the technical adequacy of CBM measures with students with typical levels of hearing (Marston, 1989; Wayman et al. 2007) and recommendations from the field of measurement were considered (Cohen, 1988; Thorndike & Thorndike-Christ, 2010). For reliability, a correlation above.80 is considered strong, between.60 and.79 as moderate, and.59 and below as weak. For validity, correlations above.50 are considered strong, between.30 to.49 as moderate, and.29 and below weak. These descriptive classifications should be interpreted with the understanding that standardized ranges have not been established for this population.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-10">Signed Reading Fluency</hd> <p>Two research teams (Allinder & Eccarius, 1999; Easterbrooks & Huston, 2008) examined the technical properties of signed reading fluency measures (students read the presented passage to the examiner using sign language). Allinder and Eccarius (1999) assessed students who were prelingually deaf with moderate to profound hearing loss and attended general education elementary schools. As reported by the authors, students use variants of an English-based sign system, Signing Exact English. The participants (<emph>n</emph> = 36, ages 6 to 13) were administered CBM tasks derived from the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB; Fuchs et al. 1989) and the Test of Early Reading Ability—Deaf or Hard of Hearing (TERA-DHH; Toubanos, 1995) (norm-referenced test).</p> <p>Study results yielded statistically significantly poorer performance (<emph>p</emph> <.001) for both the 1 and 3 min time lengths when morphological endings were required for signed responses. For reliability, inter-rater agreement varied (40% to 100%, <emph>M</emph> = 79%), and internal consistency and alternate form were strong. For criterion validity evidence, the correlation between the CBM and the TERA-DHH (Toubanos, 1995) fell in the moderate range.</p> <p>Allinder and Eccarius (1999) required one-on-one correspondence between the printed word and the signed word; in contrast, Easterbrooks and Huston (2008) measured the quality of the rendered sign interpretation. Easterbrooks and Huston (2008) assessed students with severe to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who attended a school for the deaf (<emph>n</emph> = 29, age 9 to 16). One student communicated receptively through sign language and expressively through spoken English. The remaining students varied in their sign communication ranging from a more English-based signing approach to American Sign Language (ASL) or a combination of features within this range. Students' performance was scored using the Signed Reading Fluency Rubric for Deaf Children (Easterbrooks & Huston, 2008). Study participants were first administered the Signed Reading Fluency Rubric for Deaf Children and then, 0 to 4 months later, were administered two subtests (Word Comprehension and Passage Comprehension) from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—Revised (WRMT-R; Woodcock, 1987).</p> <p>Inter-rater agreement was strong for the fluency envelope metric (overall visual appearance of the signed interpretation—with or without voice) and moderate for the visual grammar metric (elements that demonstrate the reader is deriving meaning from the text—in an English-like mode or ASL). Internal consistency fell in the strong range. Criterion validity evidence for the Signed Reading Fluency Rubric for Deaf Children with the WRMT-R (Woodcock, 1987) spanned the moderate to strong ranges.</p> <p>In summary, two studies (Allinder & Eccarius, 1999; Easterbrooks & Huston, 2008) explored the reliability and validity of student performance when students were presented with a passage and prompted to read the passage in sign language. Participants within the studies varied in the features of their expressive sign language communication, which may impact how the students processed the task, the degree of difficulty of the task, and the type of student response generated. The authors varied in their approaches of scoring student responses which included requiring word-by-word translation or assessing the quality of the signed interpretation of the text. Since the task demands and scoring methods varied widely for signed reading fluency, it is questionable if the authors were measuring the same construct. As such, these findings suggest a complexity in administering, scoring, and interpreting the performance of sign reading fluency with students who are DHH who use a sign-based system.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-11">Silent Reading Fluency</hd> <p>Two research teams explored silent reading fluency (Rose, 2008; Lam, 2020). Rose (2008) conducted research at a school for the deaf within the context of a school-wide progress monitoring program. Participants (<emph>n</emph> = 101, grades 3 to 12) attended a residential school for the deaf with six students attending the community public school part-time. All students qualified for special education services due to their hearing loss status (<emph>n</emph> = 36 mild to moderate, <emph>n</emph> = 61 severe to profound, <emph>n</emph> = 4 range unknown). Twenty-three percent (<emph>n</emph> = 23) of the sample had additional disabilities. Within the school-wide program, Rose (2008) analyzed student performance on the measures of academic progress (MAP; NWEA, 2003), silent reading fluency test (APPROACH 1: (SRFT); Rose and McAnally, 2008), test of silent contextual reading fluency (TOSCRF; Hammill et al. 2006), and teacher ratings. See Maze section for further details on the findings from Barkmeier (2009), who analyzed student data from the CBM maze, MAP (NWEA, 2003), and teacher ratings.</p> <p>Rose (2008) presented the SRFT (in which students read modified passages in which the story was presented in all upper case letters with no spaces or punctuation and students put a slash between the boundaries of words). This measure used the formatting structure of the TOSCRF (Hammill et al. 2006) with content derived from <emph>Reading Milestones (</emph>Quigley et al. 2001) and <emph>Reading Bridge</emph> (Quigley et al. 2003). For the SRFT and TOSCRF tasks, the participant's score was calculated by summing the correct number of words identified. The SRFT and the TOSCRF, presented as 3-min timed tasks, were administered within a 3-day time frame and presented four times in the year. MAP (NWEA, 2003) was administered twice a year, within 10 days of the progress monitoring measures. In the fall, teachers rated the student's reading ability (1 = low reading ability to 5 = average reading ability). Inter-rater agreement was high with strong alternate form reliability. For criterion validity, strong correlations were present between the SRFT, TOSCRF (Hammill et al. 2006), MAP (NWEA, 2003), and teacher ratings. SRFT and TOSCRF were sensitive to growth (<emph>p</emph> <.001) for students in elementary and high school, but not middle school.</p> <p>Lam (2020) explored the technical adequacy of silent reading fluency in a traditional paper–pencil and electronic-based delivery formats. Additionally, Lam (2020) also explored the technical adequacy of maze in both delivery formats. See Maze section below for student performance on the maze portion of the Lam (2020) study. Students were included if they met the following four criteria: (a) a documented hearing loss, (b) a reading level between the second and fourth grade according to teacher report, (c) placement in grades 2 to 12, and (d) no known motor of uncorrected vision impairment. Students (<emph>n</emph> = 40) were generally in elementary school (<emph>n</emph> = 33, 83%), were White (<emph>n</emph> = 20, 50%), used Spoken English as their primary communication mode (<emph>n</emph> = 26, 65%), and used amplification (<emph>n</emph> = 36, 90%).</p> <p>Students were presented with CBM materials with the order of conditions (paper–pencil versus e-based) and measures (maze versus silent reading fluency) counterbalanced. Within each measure the forms were randomized. For silent reading fluency, students were presented with six passages (two repeating passages across the paper–pencil and e-based conditions, one non-repeating passage in the paper–pencil condition and one non-repeating passage in the e-based condition). Silent reading fluency passages at the third grade reading level were selected. For the task, students marked the boundaries between words by drawing a vertical line (paper–pencil) or by clicking on the space between the words with a computer mouse (e-based).</p> <p>Scoring metrics included: correct words identified (CWI, number of words after boundary lines are drawn) a metric only for paper–pencil condition, correct boundaries (number of boundary lines selected that correctly separated words), and percent correct (correct boundaries/(correct + incorrect boundaries)). In addition to the silent reading fluency task, students completed the Woodcock Johnson III Test of Achievement Third Edition Passage Comprehension subtest (Woodcock et al. 2001). Spring 2015 MAP data (NWEA, 2003) were available for 67% of the sample.</p> <p>For alternate form reliability, Pearson product–moment correlations for the passages delivered in the paper–pencil and the e-based conditions correlations fell within the weak to moderate ranges. For criterion validity in the paper–pencil conditions, WJ-III Passage Comprehension (Woodcock et al. 2001) correlations fell in the weak to moderate range and MAP (NWEA, 2003) correlations in the moderate to strong ranges. For e-based, the correlations ranged from weak to strong for passage comprehension subtests and weak to strong for MAP.</p> <p>In summary, Rose (2008) and Lam (2020) explored the reliability and criterion-related validity of silent reading fluency. The results across the studies varied with the results of Rose (2008) generally reporting higher correlations for reliability and validity as compared to Lam (2020). Even when comparing the studies using only the paper–pencil condition and the same metrics, the differences remained. It appears as if sample differences in size, demographics, measures selected, and length of the tasks presented may have impacted differences in scores. Due to these differences, further research is needed to examine the technical properties and utility of silent reading fluency with students who are DHH.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-12">Cloze</hd> <p>Two studies (LaSasso, 1980; Kelly & Ewoldt, 1984) explored the technical adequacy of the cloze procedure (students read passages in which every fifth word was removed and replaced with a blank, and students wrote in the missing word for each blank). LaSasso (1980) assessed students who were prelingually and profoundly deaf who attended residential schools for the deaf (<emph>n</emph> = 95, ages 14 to 18). For this study, four passages were selected from the <emph>Reading for Concepts</emph> reading series (McGraw-Hill, 1970). The passages were selected at third, fifth, and seventh grade levels. Participants were administered three passages: third grade (selected from one of three forms), fifth grade (one of six forms), and seventh grade (one of three forms).</p> <p>Internal consistency spanned the moderate to strong range. For criterion validity, the cloze procedure did not accurately rank the readability of passages. LaSasso (1980) proposed three possible interpretations: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>) the readability formulas used not predict reading difficulty, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>) the cloze scores are non-predictive, or (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>) neither approaches predict passage difficulty. Further research was needed to explore these findings.</p> <p>Kelly and Ewoldt (1984) examined the technical adequacy of the cloze procedure when both verbatim and responses that were not verbatim but maintained text coherence were considered correct. Students who were DHH and attended the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School (<emph>n</emph> = 96, age 7 to 15) participated. Prior to administration, teacher judgment was used to identify the cloze passage that matched each student's approximate reading level. For the task, each student was administered one cloze passage. Some students also completed a story retell task in which students provided a signed (or spoken) retelling of the text.</p> <p>Using a borderline group technique, performance standards were established, with the student performance on each of the three cloze metrics classified as "acceptable" or "unacceptable." Additional data from a story retell (<emph>n</emph> = 57) and performance on the reading comprehension subtest of the Stanford Achievement Test—Hearing Impaired (SAT-HI; as cited by Kelly & Ewoldt, 1984) (<emph>n</emph> = 74) were analyzed using this same technique. Inter-rater reliability was generally high. The criterion validity of cloze passages with story retell and the SAT-HI (as cited by Kelly & Ewoldt, 1984) yielded significant agreement between all three cloze metrics and the SAT-HI, but only one metric was significant for story retell.</p> <p>In summary, two studies (LaSasso, 1980; Kelly & Ewoldt, 1984) explored the reliability and criterion validity of Cloze. Overall, reliability was moderate to strong (LaSasso, 1980) and relativity high (Kelly & Ewoldt, 1984). To evaluate validity, both authors selected a different method of analysis. For LaSasso (1980) the passages did not rank from easy to hard based on student performance, and for Kelly and Ewoldt (1984), there was higher agreement in the consistency of decisions for the SAT-HI than the story retell.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-13">Maze</hd> <p>Four studies (Chen, 2002; Devenow, 2003; Barkmeier, 2009; Lam, 2020) explored the technical adequacy of the maze, which is a modified-cloze technique (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992), in which students read passages in which every seventh word in the passages is replaced with multiple-choice options. Students circle the word that best completes the sentence.</p> <p>Chen (2002) explored the technical adequacy of CBM reading and writing passages with elementary students who are DHH (age 6 to 12, <emph>M</emph> = 10.12). All students attended the same school and received instruction either in a self-contained classroom (<emph>n</emph> = 37) or in the mainstream (<emph>n</emph> = 14). Participants completed three 1-min maze passages each in the winter and spring. Measures included the maze, CBM written language probes, a subtest from the Test of Written Language—Third Edition (TOWL-3; Hammill & Larsen, 1996), and teacher ratings. Maze metrics included correct (number of correct selections), corrected (number of correct selections adjusted for incorrect selections), scan (total number of words read), and accuracy (percent of correct selections out of the total number of choices).</p> <p>Inter-rater reliability was high. For alternate form reliability and test–retest, correlations ranged from weak to strong, with the highest correlations present for the metrics of correct and corrected. All correlations between the maze and the achievement test fell in the strong range except for the metric of incorrect that fell in the weak range. For teacher ratings, the metrics of correct, corrected, and scan fell in the strong range, accuracy spanned the moderate to strong ranges, and incorrect choices fell in the weak range.</p> <p>Devenow (2003) assessed the technical adequacy of the maze but used a two-phase approach. Thirty-four students (ages 11 to 17, <emph>M</emph> = 13.37) participated in Phase 1 and 31 students (ages 9 to 15, <emph>M =</emph> 12.25) participated in Phase 2. All participants attended a residential school for the deaf either in the geographic Midwest (Phase 1) or Southwest (Phase 2). American Sign Language was the primary mode of communication for the majority of participants with spoken English, or a combination of both modes (spoken language and sign) also reported.</p> <p>For Phase 1, each participant was administered six maze passages with two probes administered at each of the three testing conditions (untimed procedure, 2-min procedure, 4-min procedure). The six CBM metrics in each of the three conditions were correlated with the participants' performance on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT; Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement, 1995). For Phase 2, the technical adequacy of the 2-min condition was explored further with each participant administered four maze passages under the 2-min condition.</p> <p>Alternate form reliability, calculated only in Phase 2, spanned the moderate to strong range for correct and corrected and spanned the weak to moderate range for incorrect. Correlations between the maze and the SAT (Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement, 1995) yielded the strongest correlations when administered in the 2-min time condition.</p> <p>As noted earlier, Rose (2008) and Barkmeier (2009) shared the same sample of participants but Rose (2008) analyzed silent reading fluency results, whereas Barkmeier (2009) explored maze. Maze passages, derived from the basic academic skill sample (Espin et al. 1989), were administered three times during the school year. The score was the number of incorrect words subtracted from the total number of words correct. Performance was compared to the MAP (NWEA, 2003) and teacher ratings.</p> <p>For reliability, student performance varied across forms and grade levels, with the highest correlations noted for elementary aged students using testing form D. For criterion-related validity, strong correlations were present for both MAP (NWEA, 2003) and teacher ratings in the elementary and middle school grades, with lower correlations noted for high school students.</p> <p>Lam (2020) analyzed student performance using silent reading fluency (described earlier in the text) and maze (described below) under two delivery formats (e-based versus paper–pencil). Three scores were used in this study: correct maze choices (CMC, total number of correctly identified selections within one min), correct maze choices minus incorrect maze choices (CMC-IMC, total number of correctly identified selections minus incorrect selections in one 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 two).</p> <p>For alternate form reliability, Pearson product–moment correlations for the passages delivered in the paper–pencil and the e-based conditions correlations fell within the weak to moderate ranges. For criterion validity in the paper pencil conditions, WJ-III Passage Comprehension (Woodcock et al. 2001) and MAP (NWEA, 2003) correlations fell in the moderate to strong range. For e-based, the correlations across CBM probes ranged from moderate to strong for passage comprehension subtest in the strong range for MAP.</p> <p>In summary, the maze was assessed in four of the nine studies. Reliability evidence was generally strong across measures. Validity evidence supported the use of the maze with students who are DHH especially for elementary and middle school students, when the task was 1–2 min in length, and the metrics of correct choices and corrected choices were employed. The maze results suggest that educators could use this tool, in conjunction with additional data sources, as an indicator of students' reading proficiency.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-14">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this systematic literature review was to explore the reliability and validity of CBM with students who are DHH as a first step in determining the utility of CBM for instructional planning and data-based decision-making. Nine studies were identified and included the CBM tasks of signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency, cloze, and maze.</p> <p>The technical adequacy (reliability and validity) for each study was analyzed. Reliability was assessed using a range of techniques including inter-rater, internal consistency, stability, and equivalence analysis. Validity evidence included the degree to which the scores obtained could be interpreted for the intended uses. In the context of CBM, can an educator interpret the student's score on a CBM task to have meaning beyond the given CBM task; can the score be interpreted as an indicator of the student's overall reading ability? Would a student's performance on a CBM task be similar to their performance on an achievement task (e.g. high CBM performance and high achievement performance, would the inverse be true)? Below we describe the reliability and validity evidence for each of the four measures.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-15">Signed Reading Fluency</hd> <p>For signed reading fluency variation was present in how the authors approached viewed, interpreted, and scored student signed responses (Allinder & Eccarius, 1999; Easterbrooks & Huston, 2008). Across studies correlations were strong for internal consistency with more notable variation for other reliability types. Validity evidence between signed reading fluency and an achievement test yielded correlations in the moderate (Allinder & Eccarius, 1999) or moderate to strong ranges (Easterbrooks & Huston, 2008).</p> <p>It is critical to note a few factors that present challenges during the scoring and interpretation of signed reading fluency—factors that are not present when native English speakers with typical levels of hearing complete the task. First, students who are DHH vary not only in their expressive language ability but also in the way they present information in a signed form (e.g. Signed Exact English, Signed English, Total Communication, American Sign Language). As such, the scoring of signed reading fluency with students who use signed English with an emphasis on word-by-word replication of the written text (Allinder & Eccarius, 1999) is different from assessing the quality of the language interpreted text into a sign-based system or American Sign Language (Easterbrooks & Huston, 2008). Both methods are renderings of the text but may require different cognitive processes and engagement with the task.</p> <p>Second, students with typical hearing who live in native English speaking environments may have full access to spoken English, a language in which the passage is presented. In contrast, students who are DHH, even in a native English speaking home, may have limited or no functional access to English. Limited access to English may create challenges as students are then required to translate the written English text (the student's second language) into their first language (signed-based system) and then generate a response for an examiner in a signed form.</p> <p>Of further note, correlations between ORF and criterion measures with students with typical levels of hearing generally range from.60 to.90 (Marston, 1989; Wayman et al. 2007), which is notably above the correlations presented in this review. These findings suggest that signed reading fluency with students who are DHH do not function similarly as ORF with students with typical levels of hearing. ORF is the most common CBM tool, and due to its popularity and availability, it is feasible that an accommodation to promote test access would be to have the student who is DHH read the passage "aloud" using sign language rather than orally.</p> <p>The findings from this review are consistent with prior research in cognitive science suggesting that students who are DHH may interact with text differently (Marschark, 2006; Marschark et al. 2011) and accommodations alone do not create equivalency (Cawthon, 2015). These results suggest that student performance data from a signed passage (signed reading fluency) cannot be interpreted to have the same meaning as an orally read passage (oral reading fluency). Further research is needed to empirically explore the relation between sign and oral reading fluency, and evidence is needed to establish the role of oral reading fluency when used with students who are DHH who use oral communication.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-16">Silent Reading Fluency</hd> <p>Silent reading fluency was measured in two of the nine studies (Rose, 2008; Lam, 2020) in this review. In Rose (2008) reliability was high. Additionally, for students with typical levels of hearing, correlations between the TOSCRF (the measure to which the SRFT was based) and criterion measures ranged from.57 to.80 (Hammill et al. 2006), which is generally similar to the findings of Rose (2008) using the SRFT with students who are DHH. In contrast, Lam (2020) reported lower reliability coefficients for test retest and validity coefficients that were rarely sufficient. There were notable differences in the sample size, demographics, length, and construction of the silent reading passages, task demands (paper–pencil and e-based), and scoring protocol, which limit direct comparison across the Rose (2008) and Lam (2020) studies.</p> <p>However, when completing the silent reading fluency task, students who are DHH and students with typical levels of hearing respond to the prompt in the same way (drawing vertical lines to indicate boundaries between words), which may promote some commonalities in performance. Also since the task is read silently, it is possible that a sequential word-by-word encoding of the text may not be required, and students could more flexibly work through the task. Future research is needed to explore the utility of silent reading fluency with students who are DHH, as silent reading fluency may provide additional means to assess students reading performance that does not require interpretation of signed responses.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-17">Cloze</hd> <p>The cloze procedure was assessed in two of the nine studies. For LaSasso (1980) and Kelly and Ewoldt (1984), results suggest generally consistent student performance but variation in validity evidence for these measures. Both cloze and maze procedures have students read a passage with missing words presented at set intervals, and the students insert the missing word by either writing in the word (cloze) or circling the correct word when given three choices (maze). As described below, the evidence supporting the validity of the scores obtained in maze appear stronger than cloze. It may be possible that differences in a student's language exposure, levels of communication access, and cognitive organization of linguistic information may create greater difficulty in self-generating and writing a missing word as compared to recognizing the correct word when given a set of choices. Further research is needed to test this hypothesis.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-18">Maze</hd> <p>The maze was assessed in four of the nine studies within this review. For reliability, Chen (2002), Devenow (2003), and Lam (2020) reported generally high reliability correlations when using the metrics of correct and corrected; lower correlations were present in alternative scoring methods of scan, accuracy, and incorrect responses. Barkmeier (2009) analyzed correlations across forms rather than by metric. Results yielded that student performance on some forms as highly reliable, whereas on other form student performance varied especially in the upper grades. These findings suggest that form selection and grade level may be a critical factor to screen when selecting Maze probes for students. This pattern of more modest correlations in the upper grades is consistent with the pattern of correlations for students with typical levels of hearing (Marston, 1989; Wayman et al. 2007).</p> <p>These findings provided preliminary validity evidence that student data on the maze may serve as a general outcome measure of students' overall reading competency. In general, when students performed well on maze, their overall performance on achievement tests was also high, with the inverse finding present as well. In addition to the empirical evidence, theoretically maze may be a promising option as it does not require oral or signed production and may allow for variation in cognitive processing (Marschark, 2006; Marschark et al. 2011). Since only four studies explored maze, additional evidence are needed to confirm these findings.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-19">Limitations</hd> <p>Findings of this review should be considered in light of a few limitations. First, following the systematic search, only nine studies were identified which is a limited number of studies. Although inclusion criteria included articles and unpublished works from a variety of data sources to include the full population of studies, it is notable that three of the maze studies were dissertations or master's theses originating from the same university. Conclusions would have been stronger if additional studies from a variety of generating institutions and authors were present.</p> <p>Second, studies varied in the administration, scoring, and interpretation of the tasks, even within the same CBM task. For example, with signed reading fluency, Allinder and Eccarius (1999) required a one-to-one correspondence of word-to-sign, whereas Easterbrooks and Huston (2008) assessed the quality of the interpreted signed response. For silent reading fluency, cloze, and maze, there were variations in task difficulty, length of passage presented, and scoring techniques used. Last, in most cases there were a limited number of study participants per study, which is often a challenge with students in a low incidence disability area. Across studies, the students were heterogeneous, which limits inferences as to how these measures function with subsets of students who are DHH but may provide a broad understanding of the performance of students who are DHH across the population.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-20">Future Research</hd> <p>Future research is needed to explore the utility of CBM with students who are DHH. We recommend that future researchers include larger sample sizes, systematically assess subgroups of students who are DHH, and clearly describe the demographic characteristics of the sample. Future research is recommended in the areas of administration procedures including accommodations and longitudinal datasets. When determining the most promising CBM tools, Deno's (1985) criteria (reliable and valid, simple and efficient, easy to understand, and cost-effective) should also be considered.</p> <p>More specifically, students who are DHH may have varying levels of auditory access to spoken English and different levels of language fluency in one or more languages and may vary in how they engage these language(s) when processing written English text. As such, it seems important for future researchers to assess and clearly describe the language experiences of student participants, as this information may shed light on a student's reading fluency, comprehension across language modes, and the relation between fluency and comprehension.</p> <p>Additionally, students who are DHH who use spoken English to communicate were underrepresented in this review. Since ORF is the most common measure for students with typical hearing, the consideration of appropriateness of students who are DHH who use spoken English is likely. Available research suggests that students who are DHH are diverse in how they acquire reading skills and the cognitive processes they use when engaging in the reading process (Herman et al. 2019). Reading tasks, including ORF, provides limited information as to how the student is cognitively processing the text and assumes auditory and phonological fluency in English (Luft, 2019). Understanding of these factors is needed when administrating and interpreting the findings of student performance using ORF and may limit comparison of performance to students with typical levels of hearing.</p> <p>The legislative call emphasizes the importance of using data-based instruction and evidenced-based educational strategies to efficiently and effectively provide high-quality instruction to all students (IDEIA, 2004; ESSA, 2015). According to Fuchs (2004), a three-phased approach is needed to establish a body of evidence to support CBM measures within the instructional planning process. Based on this systematic review, the field is currently in phase 1 of this process exploring reliability and validity. To move through the phases of generating evidence, we need to build strong relationships between researchers and practitioners. From a research perspective, it is within these relationships that empirical studies can be conceptualized and applied with students in real-word contexts and results examined to build the evidence base. From a practitioner perspective, these partnerships can create an avenue to meet the legislative call by using CBM data—and other data forms—to inform instructional planning, in which additional guidance and resources are provided through a research partnership.</p> <p>Currently, practitioners are seeking ways to engage in data-based decision-making, with CBM appearing to be a viable tool. The results of this systematic review provide preliminary evidence that ORF used with students with typical levels of hearing may not be appropriate for students who are DHH. Findings suggest that silent reading fluency or maze may serve as viable alternatives, as the nature of these tasks reduces some challenges with spoken responses or signed interpretations, but further research is needed. When administering maze, the most robust results were present when it was administered to elementary and middle school students, when the task was 1–2 min in length, and when the metrics of correct choices and corrected choices were employed.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-21">Conclusion</hd> <p>Results from this systematic review of the literature suggest that student performance on CBM tasks is generally consistent and stable with emerging evidence that select CBM tasks that may have the capacity to serve as general outcome measures of students' general reading proficiency. These promising preliminary results suggest the need for continued research to grow the evidence base related to the technical characteristics of the most promising measures, identify how these measures demonstrate progress over time, and identify ways to integrate and interpret student-level data to inform day-to-day instructional planning to improve student outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0145718577-22">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>No conflicts of interest were reported.</p> <ref id="AN0145718577-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allinder, R. M., & Eccarius, M. A. (1999). Exploring the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement in reading for children who use manually coded English. Exceptional Children, 65 (2), 271 – 283. doi: 10.1177/001440299906500210 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Appelman, K. I., Callahan, J. O., Mayer, M. H., Luetke, B. S., & 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 (3), 264 – 275. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.1619 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington D.C: American Educational Research Association. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barkmeier, L.M., & Rose, S. (2009). Technical adequacy of the Maze with secondary deaf and hard of hearing students. [Unpublished masters thesis.] University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bruce, S. M., Luckner, J. L., & Ferrell, K. A. (2018). Assessment of students with sensory disabilities: Evidenced-based practices. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43 (2), 79 – 89. doi: 10.1177/1534508417708311 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</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 (4), 385 – 394. doi: 10.1353/aad.2015.0036 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, Y. (2002). Assessment of reading and writing samples of deaf and hard of hearing students by curriculum-based measurements [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Christ, T. J., Silberglitt, B., Yeo, S., & Cormier, D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: An evaluation of growth rates and seasonable effects among students served in general and special education. School Psychology Review, 39 (3), 447 – 462. https://<ulink href="http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/uspr20/39/3?nav=tocList">www.tandfonline.com/toc/uspr20/39/3?nav=tocList</ulink>. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <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> <bibtext> Devenow, P. (2003). A study of the CBM Maze procedure as a measure of reading with deaf and hard of hearing students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Easterbrooks, S. R., & Huston, S. G. (2008). The signed reading fluency of students who are deaf/hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13 (1), 37 – 54. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enm030 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Espin, C., Deno, S., Maruyama, G., & Cohen, C. (1989). The Basic Academic Skills Samples (BASS): An instrument for the screening and identification of children at risk for failure in regular education classrooms [Paper presentation]. San Francisco: CA : American Educational Research Association. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://<ulink href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177">www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33 (2), 188 – 193. https://naspjournals.org/loi/spsr. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21 (1), 45 – 59. https://<ulink href="http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/uspr20/21/1?nav=tocList">www.tandfonline.com/toc/uspr20/21/1?nav=tocList</ulink>. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 103 – 111. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1989.10885938 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45 (3), 195 – 203. doi: 10.1177/0022219412442150 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of Written Language (3rd Ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammill, D. D., Wiederholt, J. L., & Allen, E. A. (2006). TOSCRF: Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency, Examiner's manual. PRO-ED. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement (1995). Stanford Achievement Test (9th Ed. Ed. Form S (Stanford 9)). Pearson. 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 and hard of hearing [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Austin, TX: Teachers College, Colombia University. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herman, R., Kyle, F. E., & Roy, P. (2019). Literacy and phonological skills in oral deaf children and hearing children with a history of dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 5 (4), 553 – 575. doi: 10.1002/rrq.244 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hosp, J. L., Hensley, K., Huddle, S. M., & Ford, J. W. (2014). Using curriculum-based measures with postsecondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 35 (4), 247 – 257. doi: 10.1177/0741932514530572 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunley, S. A., Davies, S. C., & Miller, C. R. (2013). The relationship between curriculum-based measures in oral reading fluency and high-stakes tests for seventh grade students. RMLE Online: Research In Middle Level Education, 36 (5), 1 – 8. doi: 10.1080/19404476.2013.11462098 OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.. § 1400 (2004). <ulink href="http://www.ed.gov">www.ed.gov</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jung, P. G., McMaster, K. L., Kunkel, A. K., Shin, J., & Stecker, P. M. (2018). Effects of data-based individualization for students with intensive learning needs: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33 (3), 144 – 155. doi: 10.1111/ldrp.12172 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, L. P., & Ewoldt, C. (1984). Interpreting nonverbatim cloze responses to evaluate program success and diagnose student needs for reading instruction. American Annals of the Deaf, 129 (1), 45 – 51. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.0857 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam, E. A., Rose, S., & McMaster, K. L. (2020). Technical characteristics of curriculum-based measurement with students who are deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and deaf Education, 318 – 333. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enaa003. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enaa003.</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 (5), 559 – 563. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.1497 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luckner, J. L., & Urbach, J. (2012). Reading Fluency and Students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Synthesis of the Research. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33 (4), 230 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740111412582. Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</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 and Rehabilitation Association, 45 (3), 292 – 313. https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara/about.html. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luft, P. (2018). Reading comprehension and phonics research: Review of correlational analyses with deaf and hard of hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23 (2), 148 – 163. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enx057. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luft, P. (2019). Strengths-based reading assessment for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Psychology in the Schools, 57 (3), 375 – 393. doi: 10.1002/pits.22277. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</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 (1), 7 – 19. doi: 10.1353/aad.2013.0012. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luckner, J., & 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 (4), 410 – 417. doi: 10.1353/aad.2006.0046. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marschark, M. (2006). Intellectual functioning of deaf adults and children: Answers and questions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18 (1), 70 – 89. doi: 10.1080/09541440500216028. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marschark, M., Spencer, P., Adams, J., & 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 (1), 3 – 16. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2011.543540. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS 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 (pp. 18 – 78). New York: NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2018). Literacy outcomes in deaf students with cochlear implants: Current state of the knowledge. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23 (1), 1 – 16. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enx043. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGraw-Hill (1970). Reading for Concepts. Columbus, OH : Author. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</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> Quigley, S. P., McAnally, P., Rose, S., & King, C. (2001). Reading milestones. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quigley, S. P., McAnally, P., Rose, S., & Payne, J. (2003). Reading bridge. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. 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. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502455.pdf. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, S., McAnally, P., Barkmeier, L., Virnig, S., & 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, MN: University of Minnesota.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandberg, K. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2011). English learners: Challenges in assessment and the promise of curriculum-based measurement. Remedial and Special Education, 32 (2), 144 – 154. doi: 10.1177/0741932510361260. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, J., & McMaster, K. (2019). Relations between CBM (oral reading and maze) and reading comprehension on state achievement tests: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 73, 131 – 149. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.005. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Talbott, E., Maggin, D. M., Van Acker, E. Y., & Kumm, S. (2017). Quality indicators for reviews of research in special education. Exceptionality, 6 (4), 245 – 265. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2017.1283625. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, A. E., & Marvin, C. A. (2016). Program monitoring practices for teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing in early intervention. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 37 (3), 184 – 193. doi: 10.1177/1525740115597862. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorndike, R. M., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (2010). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education: Eighth edition. New York, NY: Pearson Education Inc. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ticha, R., Espin, C. A., & Wayman, M. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading-aloud and maze-selection measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24 (3), 132 – 142. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00287.x. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toubanos, E. S. (1995). Review of the Test of Early Reading Ability—Deaf or Hard of Hearing. In J. C. Connelly & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The twelve mental measurement yearbook (pp. 1051 – 1053). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wayman, M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41 (2), 85 – 120. doi: 10.1177/00224669070410020401. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test – Revised. Circle Pines, MN : American Guidance Service. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & 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; Kristen L McMaster and Susan Rose</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Correspondence should be sent to Elizabeth Lam, Educational Psychology Department, 250 Education Sciences Building, 56 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1273482
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Systematic Review 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="%22McMaster%2C+Kristen+L%2E%22">McMaster, Kristen L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rose%2C+Susan%22">Rose, Susan</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>. Oct 2020 25(4):398-410.
– 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: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– 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="%22Sign+Language%22">Sign Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Fluency%22">Reading Fluency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Silent+Reading%22">Silent Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cloze+Procedure%22">Cloze Procedure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Tests%22">Reading Tests</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1093/deafed/enaa020
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1081-4159
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This review systematically identified and compared the technical adequacy (reliability and validity evidence) of reading curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tasks administered to students who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). This review included all available literature written in English. The nine studies identified used four CBM tasks: signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency, cloze (write in missing words given blank lines within a passage), and maze (circle the target word given multiple choice options within a passage). Data obtained from these measures were generally found to be internally consistent and stable with validity evidence varying across measures. Emerging evidence supports the utility of CBM for students who are DHH. Further empirical evidence is needed to continue to explore technical properties, identify if student scores are sensitive to growth over short periods of time, and examine whether CBM data can be used to inform instructional decision-making to improve student outcomes.
– 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: EJ1273482
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1273482
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1093/deafed/enaa020
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 398
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Deafness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hearing Impairments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Based Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sign Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Fluency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Silent Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cloze Procedure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Tests
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Systematic Review of Curriculum-Based Measurement with Students Who Are Deaf
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lam, Elizabeth A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McMaster, Kristen L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rose, Susan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1081-4159
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 25
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1