Article Correctness Is Author's Responsibility: Evaluation of schedule frequency and density when monitoring progress with curriculum-based measurement.

The article below may contain offensive and/or incorrect content.

School-based professionals often use curriculum-based measurement of reading (CBM-R) to monitor the progress of students with reading difficulties. Much of the extant CBM-R progress monitoring research has focused on its use for making group-level decisions, and less is known about using CBM-R to make decisions at the individual level. To inform the administration and use of CBM-R progress monitoring data, the current study evaluated the utility of 4 progress monitoring schedules that differed in frequency (once or twice weekly) and density (1 or 3 probes). Participants included 79 students (43% female; 51% White, 25% Hispanic or Latino, 11% Black or African American, 1% other, 12% unknown) in Grades 2 (n = 45) and 4 (n = 34) who were monitored across 10 weeks (February to May). Consistent with a focus on individual-level decision making, we used regression and mixed-factorial analysis of variances (ANOVAs) to evaluate the effect of progress monitoring schedule frequency, schedule density, grade level, and their interaction effects on CBM-R intercept, slope, SE of the slope (SEb), and SE of the estimate (SEE). Results revealed that (a) progress monitoring schedule frequency and density influenced the magnitude of SEb, (b) density had a significant but negligible impact on SEE, and (c) grade level had a significant effect on slope and intercept. None of the interaction effects were statistically significant. Findings from this study have implications for practitioners and researchers aiming to monitor students' progress with CBM-R. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)