Examining Variance in Reading Comprehension Among Developing Readers: Words in Context (Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading) Versus Words Out of Context (Word Lists)

Universal screening in grades K-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of early reading curriculum-based measures

In reading, several curriculum-based measures (CBM) are used for universal screening in Grades K-2. This study summarized the criterion-related validity of early reading CBM tools used in the context of universal screening. After the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 54 studies (53 documents across 34 articles, 16 dissertations, and 3 technical reports) were identified through a systematic review of the literature through December 2018. Forty-eight studies (47 documents across 31 articles, 15 dissertations, and 2 technical reports) were included in the meta-analysis, representing 47,168 students in the US who were enrolled in Grades K, 1, or 2 when they completed the screening measure. A random effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation was conducted separately for concurrent and predictive correlations to estimate the average effect size between each early reading CBM and the reading outcome measures. Aggregated concurrent Pearson correlation coefficients (r) ranged from 0.343 (phoneme segmenting CBM predicting more complex reading skills) to 0.750 (nonsense words CBM predicting oral reading skills). Aggregated correlations were similar in magnitude for predictive validity. For some measures, correlations were moderated by administration lag. Findings have implications for research and practice regarding the use of universal reading screeners in the early elementary grades.

Investigating the Diagnostic Consistency and Incremental Validity Evidence of Curriculum-based Measurements of Oral Reading Rate and Comprehension

Rate and comprehension are two components related to reading performance. The purpose of this study was to use diagnostic consistency and incremental validity to examine the unique contribution of three curriculum-based measures of reading comprehension (CBM-comprehension) compared to a curriculum-based measure of oral reading (CBM-R). An extant sample of fall 2016 screening data in a national assessment system were used for this investigation. The CBM-comprehension measures were related to oral recall, synthesis of main ideas, and free-response question-answering. Scores from the CBM-comprehension measures were associated with weak criterion-related validity to a measure of broad reading. In addition, diagnostic consistency analyses revealed poor overlap between CBM-comprehension and CBM-R score classifications based on at risk benchmarks. Incremental validity evidence replicated previous findings, demonstrating that the CBM-comprehension measures explain unique variation in broad reading scores even after controlling for performance on CBM-R. Implications for the usage of CBM-R and CBM-comprehension for screening are addressed.

Repeated versus wide reading: A randomized control design study examining the impact of fluency interventions on underlying reading behavior

Repeated readings (RR) has garnered much attention as an evidence based intervention designed to improve all components of reading fluency (rate, accuracy, prosody, and comprehension). Despite this attention, there is not an abundance of research comparing its effectiveness to other potential interventions. The current study presents the findings from a randomized control trial study involving the assignment of 168second grade students to a RR, wide reading (WR), or business as usual condition. Intervention students were provided with 9-10weeks of intervention with sessions occurring four times per week. Pre- and post-testing were conducted using Woodcock-Johnson III reading achievement measures (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001, curriculum-based measurement (CBM) probes, measures of prosody, and measures of students' eye movements when reading. Changes in fluency were also monitored using weekly CBM progress monitoring procedures. Data were collected on the amount of time students spent reading and the number of words read by students during each intervention session. Results indicate substantial gains made by students across conditions, with some measures indicating greater gains by students in the two intervention conditions. Analyses do not indicate that RR was superior to WR. In addition to expanding the RR literature, this study greatly expands research evaluating changes in reading behaviors that occur with improvements in reading fluency. Implications regarding whether schools should provide more opportunities to repeatedly practice the same text (i.e., RR) or practice a wide range of text (i.e., WR) are provided.