Criterion validity evidence and alternate form reliability of curriculum-based measures of written expression for eighth grade students

IF 4.2 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2025-06-16 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2025.100958

John Elwood Romig , Amanda A. Olsen , Elizabeth Medina , Anna Tulloh

{"title":"Criterion validity evidence and alternate form reliability of curriculum-based measures of written expression for eighth grade students","authors":"John Elwood Romig , Amanda A. Olsen , Elizabeth Medina , Anna Tulloh","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2025.100958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Significant majorities of students in secondary grade levels struggle to meet grade level expectations for writing. Progress monitoring with curriculum-based measurement is one possible strategy for shaping instruction towards improved student outcomes. However, relatively little research has examined curriculum-based measures for writing with students in secondary grade levels. This study included 89 8th grade participants who completed one curriculum-based measurement writing task weekly for 11 weeks and completed the <em>Test of Written Language – 4</em> in the 12th week. Spearman’s rank correlations were calculated to determine the alternate form reliability and criterion validity evidence of the curriculum-based measurement tasks. We found alternate form reliability and criterion validity evidence to be weaker than established thresholds in the field but approaching what was found with other writing assessments. Educators should use caution when interpreting results of CBM in writing and consider alternative writing assessments for screening purposes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":"66 ","pages":"Article 100958"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293525000455","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Significant majorities of students in secondary grade levels struggle to meet grade level expectations for writing. Progress monitoring with curriculum-based measurement is one possible strategy for shaping instruction towards improved student outcomes. However, relatively little research has examined curriculum-based measures for writing with students in secondary grade levels. This study included 89 8th grade participants who completed one curriculum-based measurement writing task weekly for 11 weeks and completed the Test of Written Language – 4 in the 12th week. Spearman’s rank correlations were calculated to determine the alternate form reliability and criterion validity evidence of the curriculum-based measurement tasks. We found alternate form reliability and criterion validity evidence to be weaker than established thresholds in the field but approaching what was found with other writing assessments. Educators should use caution when interpreting results of CBM in writing and consider alternative writing assessments for screening purposes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

八年级学生书面表达课程测量的标准效度、证据和替代形式信度

绝大多数中学生在写作方面都很难达到年级的要求。以课程为基础的进度监测是一种可能的策略，可以使教学朝着提高学生成绩的方向发展。然而，相对而言，很少有研究针对中学学生的写作水平进行基于课程的测试。这项研究包括89名8年级的参与者，他们每周完成一项基于课程的写作测试，持续11周，并在第12周完成书面语言测试- 4。计算Spearman秩相关以确定课程测量任务的替代形式信度和标准效度证据。我们发现替代形式的信度和标准效度证据弱于该领域的既定阈值，但接近其他写作评估的结果。教育工作者在解释CBM的写作结果时应该谨慎，并考虑其他的写作评估来进行筛选。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Assessing Writing Multiple-

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

17.90%

发文量

期刊介绍： Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written language. Assessing Writing publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges concerning writing assessments of all kinds, including traditional (direct and standardised forms of) testing of writing, alternative performance assessments (such as portfolios), workplace sampling and classroom assessment. The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development.