A Comparison of Decision Rule Accuracy From Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading and Nonsense Word Fluency

IF 2.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Remedial and Special Education Pub Date : 2023-08-23 DOI:10.1177/07419325231190812
Ethan R. Van Norman, David A. Klingbeil, Kirsten Truman, Peter M. Nelson, David C. Parker
{"title":"A Comparison of Decision Rule Accuracy From Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading and Nonsense Word Fluency","authors":"Ethan R. Van Norman, David A. Klingbeil, Kirsten Truman, Peter M. Nelson, David C. Parker","doi":"10.1177/07419325231190812","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The transition from sounding out unfamiliar words to effortlessly reading connected text does not occur all at once nor at the same rate for students. The purpose of this study was to explore the accuracy of three decision rules (data point, median, and trend line) applied to progress monitoring outcomes of alphabetic principle (nonsense word fluency [NWF]) and oral reading rate (curriculum-based measurement of reading [CBM-R]). Outcomes from students receiving Tier-2 supports in oral reading and decoding were analyzed to generate model parameters. Scores were simulated for NWF and CBM-R and decision rules were applied to schedules where one observation was collected per week. The trend-line rule was viable with NWF after 7 weeks and 9 to 10 weeks with CBM-R. Differences in base rates of non-proficiency between measures call into question the utility of NWF to capture student improvement in alphabetic principle as they encounter increasingly complex word types.","PeriodicalId":48042,"journal":{"name":"Remedial and Special Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Remedial and Special Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325231190812","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The transition from sounding out unfamiliar words to effortlessly reading connected text does not occur all at once nor at the same rate for students. The purpose of this study was to explore the accuracy of three decision rules (data point, median, and trend line) applied to progress monitoring outcomes of alphabetic principle (nonsense word fluency [NWF]) and oral reading rate (curriculum-based measurement of reading [CBM-R]). Outcomes from students receiving Tier-2 supports in oral reading and decoding were analyzed to generate model parameters. Scores were simulated for NWF and CBM-R and decision rules were applied to schedules where one observation was collected per week. The trend-line rule was viable with NWF after 7 weeks and 9 to 10 weeks with CBM-R. Differences in base rates of non-proficiency between measures call into question the utility of NWF to capture student improvement in alphabetic principle as they encounter increasingly complex word types.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于课程的阅读与非义词流利度测量的决策规则准确性比较
对学生来说,从读出不熟悉的单词到毫不费力地阅读相关文本的过渡不会一下子发生,也不会以同样的速度发生。本研究的目的是探讨三种决策规则(数据点、中位数和趋势线)应用于字母原则(无意义单词流畅性[NWF])和口语阅读率(基于课程的阅读测量[CBM-R])的进度监测结果的准确性。对接受二级支持的学生在口语阅读和解码方面的结果进行分析以生成模型参数。模拟NWF和CBM-R的得分,并将决策规则应用于每周收集一次观察的时间表。NWF在7周和CBM-R在9 ~ 10周后的趋势线规则是可行的。当学生遇到越来越复杂的字型时,不同测量方法的基本不熟练率的差异使NWF在捕捉学生在字母原则方面的进步方面的效用受到质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Remedial and Special Education
Remedial and Special Education EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Remedial and Special Education (RASE) is devoted to the discussion of issues involving the education of persons for whom typical instruction is not effective. Emphasis is on the interpretation of research literature and recommendations for the practice of remedial and special education. Appropriate topics include, but are not limited to, definition, identification, assessment, characteristics, management, and instruction of underachieving and exceptional children, youth, and adults; related services; family involvement; service delivery systems; legislation; litigation; and professional standards and training.
期刊最新文献
Racial and Gender Bias in School Psychologists’ Special Education Classification Considerations Life After High School: The Employment Experiences of Autistic Young Adults Implications of What Works Clearinghouse Guidelines on Single-Case Design: An Investigation of Empty Training Phases Grade Retention: The Role of Speech and Language Disorders, Race and Ethnicity, Sex, Socioeconomic Status, Special Education, and Bilingualism Do I Belong Yet? The Relationship Between Special Education, In-School Suspension, Belonging, and Engagement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1