Predicting Interim Assessment Outcomes Among Elementary-Aged English Learners Using Mathematics Computation, Oral Reading Fluency, and English Proficiency Levels

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q1 Social Sciences
G. J. Hall, Mitchell A. Markham, Meghan McMackin, Elizabeth C. Moore, Craig A Albers
{"title":"Predicting Interim Assessment Outcomes Among Elementary-Aged English Learners Using Mathematics Computation, Oral Reading Fluency, and English Proficiency Levels","authors":"G. J. Hall, Mitchell A. Markham, Meghan McMackin, Elizabeth C. Moore, Craig A Albers","doi":"10.1080/2372966X.2022.2041211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The current study examined the validity of curriculum-based measures (CBM) in mathematics computation (M-COMP) and oral reading fluency (R-CBM) in predicting spring mathematics and reading performance level and performance risk (>1 SD below the national mean) among students classified as English Learners (ELs). Additionally, the current study assessed the incremental predictive value of English language proficiency (ELP) beyond CBM performance. The results indicated that ELP explains a significant portion of variability above M-COMP and R-CBM and increases the accuracy of predicting at-risk performance status on spring measures of mathematics and reading. The findings highlight the challenges of assessing the predictive accuracy of M-COMP and R-CBM among students classified as ELs, as well as the extent to which comprehensive measures of ELP account for variance in both performance level and at-risk status beyond CBMs. The implications for school data-based decision-making for language-minoritized students and directions for future research are discussed. Impact Statement Equity in Response-to-Intervention (RTI) is predicated on accurate measurement of skills within universal screening. The current study’s findings suggest that CBMs alone explain less variance and are less predictive of academic performance than when combined with English language proficiency scores. The predictive accuracy of R-CBM and M-COMP varied between students classified as ELs and non-ELs but in only very limited circumstances were these measurable differences. These results indicated that although CBMs are an efficient system of screening among non-ELs, it is also necessary to consider students’ ELP levels when making decisions within RTI models.","PeriodicalId":21555,"journal":{"name":"School Psychology Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"498 - 516"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"School Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2022.2041211","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The current study examined the validity of curriculum-based measures (CBM) in mathematics computation (M-COMP) and oral reading fluency (R-CBM) in predicting spring mathematics and reading performance level and performance risk (>1 SD below the national mean) among students classified as English Learners (ELs). Additionally, the current study assessed the incremental predictive value of English language proficiency (ELP) beyond CBM performance. The results indicated that ELP explains a significant portion of variability above M-COMP and R-CBM and increases the accuracy of predicting at-risk performance status on spring measures of mathematics and reading. The findings highlight the challenges of assessing the predictive accuracy of M-COMP and R-CBM among students classified as ELs, as well as the extent to which comprehensive measures of ELP account for variance in both performance level and at-risk status beyond CBMs. The implications for school data-based decision-making for language-minoritized students and directions for future research are discussed. Impact Statement Equity in Response-to-Intervention (RTI) is predicated on accurate measurement of skills within universal screening. The current study’s findings suggest that CBMs alone explain less variance and are less predictive of academic performance than when combined with English language proficiency scores. The predictive accuracy of R-CBM and M-COMP varied between students classified as ELs and non-ELs but in only very limited circumstances were these measurable differences. These results indicated that although CBMs are an efficient system of screening among non-ELs, it is also necessary to consider students’ ELP levels when making decisions within RTI models.
用数学计算、口语阅读流畅性和英语熟练程度预测小学英语学习者中期评估结果
摘要本研究考察了基于课程的数学计算测量(M-COMP)和口语阅读流畅性测量(R-CBM)在预测英语学习者春季数学和阅读成绩水平和成绩风险(低于全国平均水平1标准差)方面的有效性。此外,本研究评估了英语语言能力(ELP)在CBM表现之外的增量预测价值。结果表明,相对于M-COMP和R-CBM, ELP解释了很大一部分变异,并提高了数学和阅读春季测试中预测风险表现状态的准确性。研究结果强调了评估M-COMP和R-CBM在被归类为ELs的学生中的预测准确性的挑战,以及ELP的综合测量在多大程度上解释了表现水平和风险状态在cbm之外的差异。讨论了基于数据的学校决策对语言少数学生的影响以及未来的研究方向。干预反应公平性(RTI)的影响陈述是基于普遍筛查中技能的准确测量。目前的研究结果表明,与英语语言能力分数相结合相比,CBMs单独解释的差异较小,对学业成绩的预测也较差。R-CBM和M-COMP的预测准确性在ei和非ei学生之间存在差异,但仅在非常有限的情况下存在这些可测量的差异。这些结果表明,尽管建立信任机制是一种有效的筛选非语言能力的系统,但在RTI模型中做出决策时,也有必要考虑学生的语言能力水平。
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
School Psychology Review
School Psychology Review Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: School Psychology Review (SPR) is a refereed journal published quarterly by NASP. Its primary purpose is to provide a means for communicating scholarly advances in research, training, and practice related to psychology and education, and specifically to school psychology. Of particular interest are articles presenting original, data-based research that can contribute to the development of innovative intervention and prevention strategies and the evaluation of these approaches. SPR presents important conceptual developments and empirical findings from a wide range of disciplines (e.g., educational, child clinical, pediatric, community.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信