2 of 27

Going Rate of CBM

Time= 45 minutes or less

3 Oral Reading Probes
1 Reading Comprehension
1 Math- Numbers and Operations
1 Written Expression

3 of 27

Overview

Widely used Curriculum Based Measures
Why are CBM useful?
How can CBM be used for more than SLD evaluations?
Data Based Decision Making and CBM

Goal setting and monitoring

Decision Rules with CBM- What does the research say? or not say…��

Click here to access handout.

4 of 27

CBM Pretest- kahoot

Click for link.

5 of 27

4 Purposes of Assessment

Program Evaluation- how is the system working?
WI-Forward, MAP
Screening- which students are not making grade level expectations given universal instruction?
MAP, STAR, aimsweb, easyCBM, Fast Bridge
Diagnostic- What are the specific skill needs of students who are struggling in reading or math?
Measures of specific skills, CBM, TC-running records, phonics survey
Progress Monitoring- What does a student’s growth look like?
CBM- aimsweb, easyCBM, FastBridge, STAR

6 of 27

CBM can be used for...

Monitoring Progress
Screening
Program Evaluation (benchmark)
Diagnostic Assessment

Strong psychometric data�Good reliability, correlation, and predictive validity

7 of 27

Relation to CCSS

CCSS are a set of outcomes, not a map

CBM measure SKILLS

Progress toward destination or standard

CBM- predict performance on high stakes tests

From: The Relation of aimsweb, Curriculum-Based Measurement, and the Common Core Standards: All Part of Meaningful School Improvement- Mark Shinn, Ph.D.

8 of 27

Advantages of CBM (click for resources)

Efficiency- measures take from 1-10 minutes to administer
Alignment to basic skills and high stakes tests
Reliability- similar scores result from different assessors
Validity- accurately predicts and measures what it says it does
Versatility- Ability to screen and monitor skills�Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2006). The ABCs of CBM: a practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (1st ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.

9 of 27

What is being used?

Go here:

10 of 27

Problem Analysis using CBM (Haring, Eaton, & Lovitt, 1978)

11 of 27

PST Process- Individual Student Focus

Problem ID: Broad Skill (reading, math, writing, behavior)

Use CBM to narrow focus from screening data

Problem Analysis: Discrete Skill (i.e. decoding, computation, fluency)

Strand, CBM data- rate/accuracy

Plan Development: Intervention/instructional selection

Baseline and ROI to set goal

Plan Implementation and monitoring

Fidelity of delivery and assessment

Plan Evaluation: Stay, change, exit?

Is the student on track? What needs to change?

12 of 27

Setting Data Based Goals

Problem ID- screening data and baseline

Screening Strands, CBM baseline- median
Narrow in on discrete skill to monitor

Establish intervention and schedule
Look at Rate and Accuracy
Multiply ROI by 1.5 to 2.0 (150% to 200% increase)
Examine if ROI is realistic and gets student near closing gap

From: Shapiro, E. S., & Guard, K. B., (2014). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skills improvement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology VI (pp. 51-66). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. �

13 of 27

Jill :

3rd Grade Student- Reading

14 of 27

Normative Goal Setting

Norm Based

Need to focus on improving accuracy too

Formula for Setting a Goal	Reality
Moderate: (Norm Group ROI X 1.5 X number of weeks) + Baseline= Ambitious Goal	(1.11 X 1.5 X 36) + 16= 76 76 is realistic, but just above 10th %ile
Ambitious: (Norm Group ROI X 2.0 X number of weeks) + Baseline= Aggressive Goal	(1.11 X 2.0 X 36) + 16= 96 96 is a steep goal but gets to the 25th %ile

15 of 27

What Really Happened?

Team used 25th %ile and cross referenced ROI

Set goal at 98- 25th %ile

Intentionally cut off to build

16 of 27

Jim: 4th grade

Math Computation

17 of 27

Math (M-COMP)

Formula for Setting a Goal	Reality
Moderate: (Norm Group ROI X 1.5 X number of weeks) + Baseline= Moderate Goal	(.72 X 1.5 X 36) + 8= 47 47 is above the 25th and closing the gap.

18 of 27

What Really Happened?

Goal= 41

Team used 125% (1.25)
(.72 X 1.25 X 36) + 8= 41
41 is just below the 25^th and closing the gap

19 of 27

Feedback and Formative Evaluation- CBM

Formative Evaluation= 0.9 (high)

Feedback: Effect Size= 0.7 (high)

Visible Learning, Hattie (2007)

20 of 27

Data Based Decision Making

Using Baseline and Screening Data, how often to monitor?

Every other Week most often
Weekly if screening data below 15th %ile and CBM below 25th %ile (SDE recommendation)

When looking at pattern of data?

Dosage, intensity?
That one probe! (some kids struggle with 1-2 in a set)
Motivation of student? Is it March?

When to change, stay, or exit?

3 scores above goal line? (SEM?)
3 scores below goal line?
Use CBM with screening data to determine exit- Near or approaching 50th %ile

21 of 27

Research to Practice

Monitor for 2 months before making strong judgements

4-6 data points
BUT… If no change or decrease, DON’T wait!!

Need 10-12 data points to make higher stakes decisions
Look at your data, does it make sense? Do you need more?

Are you collecting frequently enough?
Extremes? Sick, Bored, Anxious (the student, not you)

Is the intervention delivered adequately?
Are you measuring the right skills? CBM is good, not perfect

22 of 27

Jill- How’s it going?

23 of 27

Jim: How’s it going?

Last couple CBM

Both 48- well above goal

24 of 27

Find More Information- clickable links

Elmbrook Schools MTSS- main site�- Progress Monitoring�- Data Based Decision Making- decision rules�- Guidelines for Progress Monitoring- Elmbrook �- Hierarchy of Learning Handout�- Questions to Consider when Analyzing Data � (synthesized by Jamie Ghere, Elmbrook School Psychologist)�National Center for Intensive Intervention Tools Chart (NCII)

�

25 of 27

References and Supporting Resources

Burns, M. K. and Parker, D. C. (2014) Curriculum-based assessment for instructional design: Using data to individualize instruction. New York: Guilford Publications.

Cummings, K. D. and Petscher, Y. (eds.) (2015) The fluency construct: Curriculum-based measurement concepts and applications: 2016. United States: Springer-Verlag New York.

�Ardoin, S. P., Christ, T. J., Morena*, L. S., Cormier*, D. C., & Klingbeil*, D. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of recommendations and research surrounding Curriculum Based Measurement of Oral Reading Fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.04

Haring, N. G., Loviitt, T. C., Eaton, M. D., & Hansen, C. L. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. The fourth R: Research in the classroom, 23-40.

Hattie, J. A. C. (2008) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

26 of 27

References and Supporting Resources

Hosp, J. L., Hosp, M. K., Howell, K. W. and Allison, R. (2013) The ABCs of curriculum-based evaluation: A practical guide to effective decision making. New York: Guilford Publications.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2014). Data Rich, Information Poor? Making Sense of Progress Monitoring Data to Guide Intervention Decisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Intensive Intervention.

Shapiro, E. S., & Guard, K. B., (2014). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skills improvement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology VI (pp. 51-66). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. �

Shinn, M. R. (2012). The relation of aimsweb, curriculum based measurement and the common core standards: All parts of meaningful school improvement. White Paper for Pearson aimsweb.

�Thornblad, S.C., & Christ, T.J. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Is 6 weeks of daily progress monitoring enough? School Psychology Review, 19-29.

27 of 27

Questions?

Chris Birr

birrc@elmbrookschools.org

Twitter for updates:

@elmbrookrti