Technical Adequacy and Acceptability of Curriculum-Based Measurement and the Measures of Academic Progress

Authors

Stacy-Ann A. January, University of Nebraska–LincolnFollow
Scott P. Ardoin, University of GeorgiaFollow

Document Type

Article

Date of this Version

2015

Citation

Published in Assessment for Effective Intervention 41:1 (2015), pp. 3–15; doi: 10.1177/1534508415579095

Comments

Copyright © 2015 Hammill Institute on Disabilities. Published by SAGE Publications. Used by permission.

Abstract

Curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R) and the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) are assessment tools widely employed for universal screening in schools. Although a large body of research supports the validity of CBM-R, limited empirical evidence exists supporting the technical adequacy of MAP or the acceptability of either measure for universal screening. Purposes of the current study were to replicate and extend prior research by (a) examining the extent to which CBM-R performance measures more than word reading skills, (b) evaluating the concurrent validity of MAP with CBM-R, (c) determining the potential benefit of administering MAP with CBM-R for universal screening, and (d) examining teachers’ acceptability of MAP and CBM-R. Participants included 802 students in Grades 1 to 5 who were administered three CBM-R probes and the MAP during universal screening and 86 elementary teachers who completed a universal screening assessments survey. Results provide evidence of the concurrent validity of MAP with CBM-R and suggest both measures are acceptable to teachers. Implications for research and practice are discussed.