在使用基于课程的测量方法监测进度时,评估进度的频率和密度。

Stacy-Ann A January, Ethan R Van Norman, Theodore J Christ, Scott P Ardoin, Tanya L Eckert, Mary Jane White
{"title":"在使用基于课程的测量方法监测进度时,评估进度的频率和密度。","authors":"Stacy-Ann A January,&nbsp;Ethan R Van Norman,&nbsp;Theodore J Christ,&nbsp;Scott P Ardoin,&nbsp;Tanya L Eckert,&nbsp;Mary Jane White","doi":"10.1037/spq0000274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>School-based professionals often use curriculum-based measurement of reading (CBM-R) to monitor the progress of students with reading difficulties. Much of the extant CBM-R progress monitoring research has focused on its use for making group-level decisions, and less is known about using CBM-R to make decisions at the individual level. To inform the administration and use of CBM-R progress monitoring data, the current study evaluated the utility of 4 progress monitoring schedules that differed in frequency (once or twice weekly) and density (1 or 3 probes). Participants included 79 students (43% female; 51% White, 25% Hispanic or Latino, 11% Black or African American, 1% other, 12% unknown) in Grades 2 (<i>n</i> = 45) and 4 (<i>n</i> = 34) who were monitored across 10 weeks (February to May). Consistent with a focus on individual-level decision making, we used regression and mixed-factorial analysis of variances (ANOVAs) to evaluate the effect of progress monitoring schedule frequency, schedule density, grade level, and their interaction effects on CBM-R intercept, slope, <i>SE</i> of the slope <i>(SEb),</i> and <i>SE</i> of the estimate <i>(SEE).</i> Results revealed that (a) progress monitoring schedule frequency and density influenced the magnitude of <i>SEb,</i> (b) density had a significant but negligible impact on <i>SEE,</i> and (c) grade level had a significant effect on slope and intercept. None of the interaction effects were statistically significant. Findings from this study have implications for practitioners and researchers aiming to monitor students' progress with CBM-R. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":88124,"journal":{"name":"School psychology quarterly : the official journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association","volume":"34 1","pages":"119-127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of schedule frequency and density when monitoring progress with curriculum-based measurement.\",\"authors\":\"Stacy-Ann A January,&nbsp;Ethan R Van Norman,&nbsp;Theodore J Christ,&nbsp;Scott P Ardoin,&nbsp;Tanya L Eckert,&nbsp;Mary Jane White\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/spq0000274\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>School-based professionals often use curriculum-based measurement of reading (CBM-R) to monitor the progress of students with reading difficulties. Much of the extant CBM-R progress monitoring research has focused on its use for making group-level decisions, and less is known about using CBM-R to make decisions at the individual level. To inform the administration and use of CBM-R progress monitoring data, the current study evaluated the utility of 4 progress monitoring schedules that differed in frequency (once or twice weekly) and density (1 or 3 probes). Participants included 79 students (43% female; 51% White, 25% Hispanic or Latino, 11% Black or African American, 1% other, 12% unknown) in Grades 2 (<i>n</i> = 45) and 4 (<i>n</i> = 34) who were monitored across 10 weeks (February to May). Consistent with a focus on individual-level decision making, we used regression and mixed-factorial analysis of variances (ANOVAs) to evaluate the effect of progress monitoring schedule frequency, schedule density, grade level, and their interaction effects on CBM-R intercept, slope, <i>SE</i> of the slope <i>(SEb),</i> and <i>SE</i> of the estimate <i>(SEE).</i> Results revealed that (a) progress monitoring schedule frequency and density influenced the magnitude of <i>SEb,</i> (b) density had a significant but negligible impact on <i>SEE,</i> and (c) grade level had a significant effect on slope and intercept. None of the interaction effects were statistically significant. Findings from this study have implications for practitioners and researchers aiming to monitor students' progress with CBM-R. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88124,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"School psychology quarterly : the official journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"119-127\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"School psychology quarterly : the official journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000274\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/10/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"School psychology quarterly : the official journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/10/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

校本专业人员经常使用基于课程的阅读测量(CBM-R)来监测阅读困难学生的进步。现有的大多数信任- r进展监测研究都集中在使用信任- r来制定群体层面的决策,而对使用信任- r来制定个人层面的决策知之甚少。为了给CBM-R进展监测数据的管理和使用提供信息,本研究评估了频率(每周一次或两次)和密度(1次或3次)不同的4种进展监测计划的效用。参与者包括79名学生(43%为女性;在2年级(n = 45)和4年级(n = 34)进行为期10周(2月至5月)的监测,51%为白人,25%为西班牙裔或拉丁裔,11%为黑人或非裔美国人,1%为其他,12%为未知。与关注个人层面的决策一致,我们使用回归和混合因子方差分析(ANOVAs)来评估进度监测进度频率、进度密度、年级水平及其相互作用对CBM-R截距、斜率、斜率的SE (SEb)和估计的SE (SEE)的影响。结果表明:(a)进度监测时间表频率和密度影响SEb的大小,(b)密度对SEE的影响显著但可以忽略不计,(c)坡度对坡度和截距的影响显著。相互作用的影响均无统计学意义。本研究的发现对旨在监测学生CBM-R进展的从业者和研究人员具有启示意义。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c) 2019 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of schedule frequency and density when monitoring progress with curriculum-based measurement.

School-based professionals often use curriculum-based measurement of reading (CBM-R) to monitor the progress of students with reading difficulties. Much of the extant CBM-R progress monitoring research has focused on its use for making group-level decisions, and less is known about using CBM-R to make decisions at the individual level. To inform the administration and use of CBM-R progress monitoring data, the current study evaluated the utility of 4 progress monitoring schedules that differed in frequency (once or twice weekly) and density (1 or 3 probes). Participants included 79 students (43% female; 51% White, 25% Hispanic or Latino, 11% Black or African American, 1% other, 12% unknown) in Grades 2 (n = 45) and 4 (n = 34) who were monitored across 10 weeks (February to May). Consistent with a focus on individual-level decision making, we used regression and mixed-factorial analysis of variances (ANOVAs) to evaluate the effect of progress monitoring schedule frequency, schedule density, grade level, and their interaction effects on CBM-R intercept, slope, SE of the slope (SEb), and SE of the estimate (SEE). Results revealed that (a) progress monitoring schedule frequency and density influenced the magnitude of SEb, (b) density had a significant but negligible impact on SEE, and (c) grade level had a significant effect on slope and intercept. None of the interaction effects were statistically significant. Findings from this study have implications for practitioners and researchers aiming to monitor students' progress with CBM-R. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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