Universal Screening of Reading in Late Elementary School

TLDR

Two curriculum‑based measurement tools, R‑CBM and CBM maze, are commonly used to assess reading progress in elementary school; R‑CBM is used more frequently, while CBM maze is more time‑efficient, yet a comparative analysis of their technical adequacy has not been published. The study aimed to evaluate the technical adequacy of R‑CBM and CBM maze to guide their use in a universal screening program for reading in fourth and fifth grades. Researchers compared the technical adequacy of the two measures by examining short‑ and long‑term alternate‑forms reliability, criterion validity, and predictive validity among fourth‑ and fifth‑grade students. Results demonstrated comparable short‑ and long‑term reliability, criterion validity, and predictive validity for both R‑CBM and CBM maze, indicating they can be used interchangeably for universal screening at those grade levels.

Abstract

Two curriculum-based measurement tools are commonly used to assess progress in reading in elementary school: R-CBM and CBM maze. R-CBM is used in practice more frequently than CBM maze is, although CBM maze is more time efficient to administer than R-CBM is. The technical adequacy of each of these measures has been reported in the literature; however, a comparative analysis of their technical adequacy has not been published. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical adequacy of R-CBM and CBM maze to inform their use in a universal screening program of reading in fourth and fifth grades. Results suggest evidence of short- and long-term alternate forms reliability, criterion validity, and predictive validity for both R-CBM and CBM maze, supporting the possibility that the two measures are comparable for use in universal screening at those grade levels.