teaching reliability and validity fun with classroom applications

For these reasons, CBM demonstrates strong reliability and validity. For example, students who score high (or low) on CBM are the same students who score high (or low) on the annual state tests. The rank ordering of students on CBM corresponds with rank orderings on other important criteria of student competence. By relying on standardized methods and by sampling the annual curriculum on every test, CBM produces a broad range of scores across individuals of the same age. According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2006), CBM and mastery measurement have another significant difference:ĬBM also differs from mastery measurement because it is standardized that is, the progress monitoring procedures for creating tests, for administering and scoring those tests, and for summarizing and interpreting the resulting database are prescribed. CBM combats these problems by making no assumptions about instructional hierarchy for measurement, so it fits with any instructional approach and by incorporating automatic tests of retention and generalization. According to Fuchs and Stecker, problems with mastery measurement include: 1) the hierarchy of skills is logical, not empirical 2) assessment does not reflect maintenance or generalization 3) measurement methods are designed by teachers, with unknown reliability and validity and 4) the measurement framework is highly associated with a set of instructional methods. The current recommended time period for measuring response to Tier 1 instruction is 8–10 weeks (McMaster & Wagner, 2007 Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005 Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003) and nonresponsiveness is typically determined by a percentile cut on norm-referenced tests (e.g., < 20 th percentile) or cut score on a curriculum based measurement (CBM).įuchs and Stecker (2003) warn that most classroom assessment is based on mastery of a series of short-term instructional objectives or 'mastery measurement.' To implement this type of assessment the teacher determines the educational sequence for the school year and designs criterion-referenced tests to match each step in that educational sequence. A student who is not responding adequately to Tier 1 instruction moves on to Tier 2 and increasingly intensive levels of intervention and instruction. A teacher can use these measurements to gauge the effectiveness of teaching and to adjust instructional techniques to meet the needs of the individual student. A student's progress is measured by comparing his or her expected rate of learning (e.g., local or national norms) and actual rate of learning (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008). Progress should be monitored frequently, at least monthly, but ideally weekly or biweekly (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

As soon as a student is identified as at risk for achievement deficits by the universal screening measure, his or her progress should be monitored in relation to Tier 1 instruction (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007).

Teaching reliability and validity fun with classroom applications