The construct validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading: An empirical test of a plausible rival hypothesis

被引:18
|
作者
Kranzler, JH [1 ]
Brownell, MT [1 ]
Miller, MD [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
关键词
curriculum-based measurement; construct validity; information processing; intelligence;
D O I
10.1016/S0022-4405(98)00018-1
中图分类号
G44 [教育心理学];
学科分类号
0402 ; 040202 ;
摘要
Research has confirmed that curriculum-based measurement (CBM) of oral reading fluency and measures of reading comprehension are highly correlated, as predicted by developmental theories of reading. Research on CBM, however, has only begun to rule out plausible alternative explanations of this relationship-an important aspect of a strong program of construct validation (e.g., Messick, 1989). This study investigated one such rival hypothesis by examining the relative roles of general cognitive ability, speed and efficiency of elemental cognitive processing, and oral reading fluency in the prediction of reading comprehension. Results of simultaneous multiple regression analyses substantiate the construct validity of CBM oral reading fluency. These findings indicate that the significant relationship between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension cannot be explained by general cognitive ability or by processing speed and efficiency. CBM oral reading fluency also did not correlate significantly with any of the processing speed and efficiency tasks. Interestingly, however, CBM oral reading fluency accounted for less variance in reading comprehension (r(2) = .17) than expected based on the results of previous research and less than that explained by general cognitive ability (r(2) = .24). When controlling for psychometric g and processing speed in the regression analyses, CBM oral reading explained 11% of the variance in reading comprehension. Implications of these results for further research on the construct validity of CBM are discussed. (C) 1998 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:399 / 415
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] School-based evidence for the validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading and writing
    Fewster, S
    MacMillan, PD
    REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION, 2002, 23 (03) : 149 - 156
  • [2] Curriculum-based measurement for reading progress
    Scott, VG
    Weishaar, MK
    INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC, 2003, 38 (03) : 153 - 159
  • [3] Curriculum-based measurement and literature-based reading: Is curriculum-based measurement meeting the needs of changing reading curricula?
    Hintze, JM
    Shapiro, ES
    JOURNAL OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY, 1997, 35 (04) : 351 - 375
  • [4] THE EFFECTS OF CURRICULUM ON THE SENSITIVITY OF CURRICULUM-BASED MEASUREMENT IN READING
    HINTZE, JM
    SHAPIRO, ES
    LUTZ, JG
    JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, 1994, 28 (02): : 188 - 202
  • [5] Advanced (Measurement) Applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading
    Petscher, Yaacov
    Cummings, Kelli Dawn
    Biancarosa, Gina
    Fien, Hank
    ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION, 2013, 38 (02) : 71 - 75
  • [6] RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF CURRICULUM-BASED INFORMAL READING INVENTORIES
    FUCHS, LS
    FUCHS, D
    DENO, SL
    READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY, 1982, 18 (01) : 6 - 26
  • [7] Effect of instructions on curriculum-based measurement of reading
    Colon, Elayne Proesel
    Kranzler, John H.
    JOURNAL OF PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT, 2006, 24 (04) : 318 - 328
  • [8] Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading
    Wayman, Miya Miura
    Wallace, Teri
    Wiley, Hilda Ives
    Tichá, Renita
    Espin, Christine A.
    JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, 2007, 41 (02): : 85 - 120
  • [9] FORECASTING ACCURACY OF SLOPE ESTIMATES FOR READING CURRICULUM-BASED MEASUREMENT - EMPIRICAL-EVIDENCE
    GOOD, RH
    SHINN, MR
    BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT, 1990, 12 (02): : 179 - 193
  • [10] Reading Tutors' Interpretation of Curriculum-Based Measurement Graphs
    Hammerschmidt-Snidarich, Stephanie M.
    Wagner, Dana
    Parker, David C.
    Wagner, Kyle
    ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION, 2021, 47 (01) : 26 - 36