2

Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (2015), Vol. 6

© 2015 Philippine Educational Measurement and Evaluation Association

Development and Validation of Curriculum-Based

Measurement (CBM) for Identifying Students with
Reading Difficulties
Violeta C. Valladolid
De La Salle University

Abstract

The role of classroom teachers in the early detection of learning difficulty/disability in school
children cannot be ignored. When it comes to young children's literacy learning, there is
substantial consensus that the teacher is the primary assessment agent (Johnston & Rogers,
2002). But classroom teachers also have a lot of responsibilities in school. As such, they need
an assessment and identification approach that they can easily employ. Progress monitoring is
one of the feasible and practicable methods in identifying students at-risk. Progress monitoring
is a set of assessment procedures for determining the extent to which students are benefiting
from classroom instruction and for monitoring effectiveness of curriculum (Johnson, Mellard,
Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006). It makes use of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM), which
has been demonstrated by research to effectively gather student performance data to support a
wide range of educational decisions, such as screening to identify students with learning
disability, evaluating referral interventions, and determining eligibility for and placement in
remedial and special education programs (Deno, 2003). This study aimed to develop and
validate a set of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tools to identify students at-risk of
reading difficulty in public schools. This study is relevant since the Philippine public school
system is in dire need for an alternative method to identify and help students who are at-risk of
reading difficulty that is not only valid and relevant, but also cost-effective, teacher-driven, and
easily-implemented. The development and validation of CBMs for this study followed the
following stages: (1) definition of criterion and performance standards (i.e., “what to
measure?”), (2) development of CBM-ORF passages (i.e., “how to measure?”), and (3)
assessment of the reliability and validity of the CBM (i.e., how technically adequate are the
measures?).

Keywords: curriculum-based measurement, reading disability, test development

Introduction

Early intervention has been shown to help students overcome their reading
difficulties and catch up with their peers faster. Citing research studies by the National
Institute of Child Health & Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Lyon (2003)
stressed that children, particularly kindergarten and elementary school students who have
reading problems “can overcome their difficulties and can learn to read at average or above
levels, but only if they are identified early and provided with systematic, explicit, and intensive
instruction” (p.18).

ISSN 2094-5876  Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (EMEReview), July 2015
 3

The role of classroom teachers in the early detection of learning difficulty/disability

in school children cannot be ignored. When it comes to young children’s literacy learning,
there is substantial consensus that the teacher is the primary assessment agent (Johnston &
Rogers, 2002). But classroom teachers also have a lot of responsibilities in school. As such,
they need an assessment and identification approach that they can easily employ. Progress
monitoring is one of the feasible and practicable methods in identifying students at-risk. It
makes use of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM), which has been demonstrated by
research to effectively gather student performance data to support a wide range of educational
decisions, such as screening to identify students with learning disability, evaluating referral
interventions, and determining eligibility for and placement in remedial and special education
programs (Deno, 2003).
This study aimed to develop and validate a set of curriculum-based measurements
(CBM) that can be used by public school teachers in identifying students at-risk of reading
difficulty.

The Concept of Curriculum-Based Measurement

Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is a set of methods for indexing academic

competence and progress that teachers could use efficiently and would produce accurate,
meaningful information with which to index standing and growth of students (Deno, Fuchs,
Marston, & Shin, 2001, p.508; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1997, p.3). It can be used to screen and identify
at-risk students, evaluate pre-referral interventions, determine eligibility for and placement in
remedial and special education programs, evaluate instruction, and evaluate reintegration and
inclusion of students in mainstream programs (Deno, 2003).
According to Deno (2003), CBM is technically adequate, time efficient, and easy to
use. It includes standard measurement tasks, set specifications for the selection of materials to
be included in the assessment, and standardized sample duration, administration, student
directions, and scoring procedures. In CBM, performance is repeatedly sampled across time,
such that students respond to different but equivalent stimulus materials. On the other hand,
Shinn (2002) characterized CBM as a set of DIBS or dynamic indicators of basic skills. It is
dynamic since its measures are sensitive to the short-term effects of instructional interventions,
designed as indicators of overall performance in an academic area, and intended to quantify
student performance only in the basic skills areas of reading, spelling, mathematics, and writing,
and not in other content area courses.
A CBM score can be viewed as a performance indicator since it produces a broad
dispersion of scores across individuals of the same age (inter-individual differences) as well as
across different time periods and different interventions for a given student (intra-individual
improvement). As such, CBM simultaneously yields information about relative standing as
well as change (Deno, Fuchs, Marston, & Shin, 2001).
In the area of reading difficulty, the most common components in the CBM-
Reading include word identification fluency (WIF), phonological awareness, and letter
knowledge for Grade 1 and WIF and oral reading fluency (ORF) for Grades 2 and 3 (Johnson,
Pool, & Carter, n.d.). CBM-ORF focuses on two of the three components of fluency: rate and
accuracy. Fluency rate is based on the number of correct words per minute (WCPM) and
computed by subtracting the number of errors from the total number of words read. Errors
include skipped words, mispronounced words, word substitutions, words in the wrong order,
and struggling that lasts for 3-5 seconds. On the other hand, accuracy is computed by dividing
CWPM by the total number of words read and multiplying the result by 100.

ISSN 2094-5876  Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (EMEReview), July 2015
 4

Stages in the Development of CBM-Reading

In the course of conducting their CBM research program, the University of

Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities (IRLD) addressed three key
questions in developing CBM procedures: 1) “What are the outcome tasks on which
performance should be measured? (What to measure”), 2) “How must the measurement
activities be structured to produce technically adequate data?” (“How to measure”), and 3) Can
the data be used to improve educational programs?” (How to use”). The questions were
answered through systematic examination of three key issues relevant to each - the technical
adequacy of the measures, the treatment validity or utility of the measures, and the logistical
feasibility of the measures (Deno, 2003, p.4).
Given the above requirements, the development of CBMs may follow the following
stages: (1) definition of criterion and performance standards (i.e., “what to measure?”), (2)
development of CBM-ORF passages (i.e., “how to measure?”), and (3) assessment of the
reliability and validity of the CBM (i.e., how technically adequate are the measures?).

Definition of Criterion and Performance Standards. According to Jenkins

(2003), inasmuch as the immediate goal of screening is identifying students at risk for
unsatisfactory outcomes, screening hinges on the selection of criterion measures and
performance levels on those measures. Two decisions go into establishing a criterion. The
first is deciding on a suitable measure (i.e., content standard); the second is deciding the
performance level (i.e., performance standard) that distinguishes between adequate and
inadequate skill. The choice of criterion measures and performance standard is critical because
students performing satisfactory on one criterion may perform unsatisfactorily on a different
criterion measure. Furthermore, for screening instruments to be useful, they must be sensitive
to the skills that pertain at successive stages and grade-levels. They cannot adequately mark
individual differences unless they are sensitive to the different skills and performance standards
emphasized and required at different grade levels.
With regard to Philippine school setting, it is important to review the curriculum
contents and the expected competencies per grade level to identify the standards set by the
Department of Education. In 2010, the education department has outlined the expected
competencies in all academic subjects in elementary education. The Basic Education
Curriculum: Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) for English is a listing of
expectations in the four phases of Communication Arts – listening, speaking, reading, and
writing (Department of Education, 2010). The expected outcomes for each phase are stated in
behavioral terms. Reading involves skills in getting meaning from the printed page and
includes skills for vocabulary development and levels of comprehension. In PELC-Reading ,
grade 2 students are expected to “read critically and fluently in correct thought units, texts for
information and entertainment and respond properly to environmental prints like signs,
posters, commands, and requests” (Department of Education, 2010, p.2). On the other hand,
the content standards for Grade 2 competencies in English in the K-12 Basic Education
Curriculum include oral language, grammar, vocabulary development, listening
comprehension, attitude towards language, literature and literacy, and study skills (Department
of Education, 2012).
Furthermore, to get a more comprehensive view of the expected reading skills and
competencies per grade level, a review of research conducted abroad is worth considering,
such as those carried out by the National Reading Panel. The National Reading Panel
identified five critical areas for effective reading instruction. These include phonemic
awareness (i.e., the ability to hear and manipulate individual sounds in spoken words), phonics
(i.e. knowledge of the relationship between letters and sounds in spoken language), fluency
(i.e., the ability to read text accurately, quickly, with expression, and with correct phrasing),
vocabulary (i.e., knowledge of words required to communicate and comprehend spoken and

ISSN 2094-5876  Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (EMEReview), July 2015
 5

written language), and text comprehension (i.e., the ability to obtain and construct meaning
from written language (RAND Reading Study Group, as cited in Waterford Institute, n.d.).

Development of CBM-ORF Passages. According to Jenkins (2003), for screening

measures to be useful, they must be sensitive to the skills that pertain to successive stages and
grade-levels. Measures or tests cannot adequately mark individual differences unless they are
sensitive to the different skills emphasized at different grade levels.
Two types of performance have been used in CBM-Reading: some emphasizing
accuracy while others, emphasizing fluency. Accuracy measures distinguish students according
to the number or percent of correct responses on tasks (i.e., knowledge) while fluency
measures distinguish students according to the number of correct responses per minute (i.e.,
knowledge and speed of processing) (Jenkins, 2003). The number of correct word choices per
minute is the primary metric (Shinn, 2002).
Fuchs and Fuchs (2011) identified the correct CBM task for students who are
developing at a typical rate in reading: Letter Sound Fluency (or Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency) for Kindergarten, Word identification Fluency for Grade 1, Passage Reading Fluency
for Grades 2-3, and Maze Fluency for Grades 4-6. DIBELS also make use of oral reading
fluency (ORF) passages for Grade 2 students. Speece and Case (2001) in their study on the
identification and classification of Grade 2 students with reading disability also made use of
ORFs.
Establishment of the Technical Adequacy of the CBM-ORF and CBM-WIF.
Different forms of reliability and validity indices have been used to establish the technical
adequacy of curriculum-based measurement. Reliability measures included test-retest and
alternate form while the criterion validity was measured by correlating the scores on the CBM
measures with teacher ratings and norm-referenced tests of reading and mathematics ability
(Foegen, Lembke, Klein, Lind, & Jiban, 2008; Jiban, Deno, & Foegen, 2009; Lembke &
Foegen, 2005; Lembke, Foegen, Whittaker, Hampton, & Jiban, 2008).

Objectives of the Study

The study sought to develop and validate Curriculum-Based Measures (CBM)-

Reading that are fitted to the context of the Philippine public school system and based on the
Philippine Basic Education Curriculum (2010), K-12 Curriculum Guide (2012), and the
National Reading Panel standards.

Method

The development of CBMs for this study followed the following stages: (1)
definition of criterion and performance standards, (2) development of CBM-ORF passages,
and (3) assessment of the reliability and validity of the CBM.
Table 1 presents the activities conducted in the CBM development and validation.
Sources of data, sampling design, data gathering procedures, and data analysis are described
specific to each stage.

Table 1
Activities Conducted During Phase I: Development of CBM-Reading
Stages Activities
Definition of Review of the following:
Criterion and  Basic Education Curriculum: Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies
Performance (PELC) for English
Standards  K-12 Curriculum Guide – English (Grades 1 to 3 and Grades 7-10)
 Five Critical Components of the National Reading Panel

ISSN 2094-5876  Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (EMEReview), July 2015
 6

Cont. Table 1 Content validation of curriculum map by US-based reading expert

Use of the following performance standards:
 Actual performance level and growth rate after 8 weeks of progress monitoring
 Expected performance levels (i.e., performance goal and DIBELS’ criteria of ≥26
CWPM) and expected growth rates (i.e., 1.1 growth rate and 2.0 ambitious growth
rate) after 8 weeks of progress monitoring
Development Development of 30 ORF passages based on following sources:
of CBM-ORF  textbooks used by Grades 1 and 2 students
Passages  commercially-available storybooks, and
 grade level-appropriate reading passages available on websites
Content analysis of 30 ORFs by 60 Grades 1-3 public school teachers
Pretesting of ORF passages to 10 Grades 1-4 public and private students
Subjecting of 30 passages to Spache Readabililty Test
Selection of appropriate ORF passages, i.e., only those rated highly by teachers, can be
read accurately and fluently by students, and with appropriate readability level
Addition of six more ORF passages
Revision and finalization of ORF passages
Development of two sets of Word Identification Fluency (WIF) List based on Dolch
Basic Sight Word List
Establishment Conduct of the following reliability tests:
of Technical  test-retest reliability
Adequacy of  alternate-form reliability
ORF and WIF Subjecting ORFs and WIFs to criterion validity test by:
 correlating students’ CBM scores with teacher ratings

Results

The following presents the development of the CBM Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)
and Word Identification Fluency (WIF) tests as well as the establishment of their reliability and
validity.

Development of Curriculum-Based Measurement

Definition of Criterion and Performance Standards. The criteria or standards

used were primarily based on two sources: (1) Basic Education Curriculum: Philippine
Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) for English (Department of Education, 2010),
and (2) K-12 Curriculum Guide – English (Grades 1 to 3 and Grades 7-10) (Department of
Education, 2012). The national guidelines (i.e., National Reading Panel’s 5 components) and
key state standards for reading instruction in the US that were adopted by the Waterford Early
Reading Program were also reviewed to guide in the identification of reading standards for
Grade 2 students. Based on these three sources, a curriculum map for Grade 2-ORF that
spells out the expected skills and competencies was developed. A US-based reading expert
then content-validated the curriculum map to determine its applicability and appropriateness
to Grade 2 students’ expected reading skills.
With regard to performance standards, two criteria were used as benchmarks: (1)
actual performance level and growth rate, and (2) expected performance level (i.e.,
performance goal and DIBELS criteria of ≥26 CWPM) and expected growth rate (i.e., growth
rate of 1.1 and ambitious growth rate of 2.0) after 8 weeks of progress monitoring (Table 2).

Development of CBM-ORF Passages and CBM-WIF Lists. A total of 30 ORF

passages, which were appropriate over the first grading period, were developed. The passages
were drawn from multiple sources: textbooks used by Grades 1 and 2 students both in
Philippine private and public schools, commercially-available storybooks, and grade level-
appropriate reading passages available on websites. Reading materials that were not

ISSN 2094-5876  Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (EMEReview), July 2015
 7

curriculum-related were also included since most current CBMs, such as the DIBELS, are
generic and cover contents that were drawn from sources other than any specific school’s
curriculum.
The 30 prototype ORF passages were subjected for review by 60 Grades 1-3 public
school teachers from Luzon who had a summer training program for multi-grade teachers.
The teachers were asked to validate the reading passages based on five criteria: efficiency,
accuracy, specificity, effectiveness, and sensitivity, using a 3-point rating scale.

Table 2
Criteria and Measures Used for Performance Standards
Performance Criteria Measures
Standards
Actual Performance level at the end of Correct words per minute (CWPM) on ORF or
Performance Level 8-week progress monitoring WIF

Actual growth rate CWPM on Week8 – CWPM on Week1

7 (weeks)

Expected Performance goal at the end of ambitious growth rate (i.e., 2.0) X number of
Performance Level 8-week progress monitoring weeks (e.g., 8 weeks) + original performance
level

Expected growth rate 1.1 words per week growth

Ambitious growth rate 2.0 words per week growth

Furthermore, the same passages were pre-tested to 10 Grades 1-4 public and private
students to determine the readability and appropriateness of the reading passages and were
tested for readability using the Spache Readability Formula. Only those that were rated highly
and endorsed by the teachers, those that can be read accurately and fluently by the students,
and those with appropriate readability level were selected. Furthermore, six more ORFs were
drawn from the textbooks and reading program websites. Since it was observed that public
school students had difficulty in reading some of the prototype ORF passages as compared
with those from private schools, the prototype ORF passages were revised. A readability test,
using the Spache Readability Formula, was again run on all the revised ORFs. ORF passages
with 1.5 to 2.4 reading level (i.e., equivalent to Grade 2 level) were chosen.
Another type of CBM, namely the Word Identification Fluency (WIF) list was
developed for Grade 2 students who do not have reading fluency skills. While WIF is
normally used to monitor students’ overall progress in reading at first grade, Fuchs and Fuchs
(2011) suggested that “if the student reads fewer than 10 correct words in 1 minute, use the
CBM word identification fluency measure instead of CBM PRF or CBM Maze Fluency for
progress monitoring” (p.11). A total of 150 words were randomly chosen from the Dolch
Basic Sight Word List (Shanker & Ekwall, 1998), from which two (2) sets of CBM-WIF with
50 words each were developed.

Validation of the CBM-ORF Passage and WIF List

To determine the technical adequacy of the CBMs, their reliability and validity indices
were determined. Test-retest and alternate- form reliability were conducted for only three of
the ORF passages and one WIF. Test-retest was based on the scores (i.e., CWPM) of 54
Grade 2 students. On the other hand, the alternate-form reliability was determined by
correlating the three ORFS and WIF that were administered during the first day or the next
testing session. This was done since according to Daniel (2010), “for a speeded measure such
as oral reading fluency, which is scored on the number of words read correctly in 1 minute,
ISSN 2094-5876  Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (EMEReview), July 2015
 8

reliability must be based on scores from independent administrations… The ideal type of
reliability study … is one in which scores on parallel (alternate) forms are obtained on the same
day or within a span of no more than 2 weeks.” (p. 1). Results in Table 3 present the reliability
and validity coefficients of ORF and WIF as well as the criterion validity coefficient of the
CBM-Reading.

Table 3
Test-Retest and Alternate Form Reliability and Criterion Validity of the CBM-Reading
Reliability/Validity CBM Reliability Coefficients
Test-Retest ORF 1 (N=53) 0.98
ORF 2 (N=44) 0.96
ORF 3 (N=38) 0.98
WIF (N=30) 0.92
Alternate-Form ORF1 vs. ORF 2 0.98
ORF1 vs. ORF 3 0.98
ORF2 vs. ORF3 0.99
ORF1 vs. WIF 0.64
ORF2 vs. WIF 0.62
ORF3 vs. WIF 0.59
Criterion Validity CBM-Reading vs. Teacher Rating 0.58

The three ORF passages and the WIF list exhibited very high test-retest reliability, as
shown by reliability coefficients of more than .90. This indicates that these CBM measures
exceeded the acceptable reliability coefficient, indicating their ability to produce consistent
results over time. Likewise, the correlations among the three ORF passages were very high,
also surpassing the .90 mark. This indicates that the three passages were very similar. On the
other hand, correlations between ORF passages and WIF list were moderate, ranging from .59
to .64.
The results were consistent with those found in the literature. Since the 1980’s,
studies conducted have “concluded that test-retest reliability coefficients of CBM reading
ranged from .82 to .97 with most estimates being above .90… (and) parallel form reliability …
from .84 to .96, with most correlations above .90” (“Historical Background”, n.d., , p. 1).
The criterion validity CBM-Reading was measured by correlating the students’
CWPM on the CBM-Reading with their class advisers’ ratings of their reading proficiency
using the Teacher Rating Scale on Student Reading Competencies. Fifty (50) of the initial pool
of sample of 54 students who have complete data were included in the analysis. A correlation
coefficient computed was .58, indicating moderate correlation between teacher ratings and
CBM scores. This result was again consistent with those found in the literature. Hamilton
and Shinn (2003) indicated that previous studies reported “moderately strong correlations
between teacher judgment and the criterion reading measure – ranging from .41 to .86 (median
r =.73)” (p.2).

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Philippine public school system is in dire need of assessment method to identify
at-risk students, particularly students who are at-risk of reading difficulties/disabilities.
Coming up with an identification methods that is applicable and valid in the public school
setting is warranted since it was reported that in SY 2003-2004, only one-sixth to one-third of
pupils in the City Schools Division of Manila could read independently at the desired grade
level, with over one-third of the graduates identified as “frustrated” readers and another third
as “instructional readers” by the end of the elementary cycle, both of which were below the
desired reading level (Schools Division of Manila, as cited in Luz, 2007).
It is shown in this study that the use of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is
applicable to the Philippine public classrooms. It is a feasible/viable, reliable, and valid
ISSN 2094-5876  Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (EMEReview), July 2015
 9

assessment method to identify students at-risk of reading difficulty. CBM is feasible since it
can be used efficiently by the teachers, inexpensive, and administered many times in different
but parallel forms during the school year (Shinn, 1989). This approach also resembles the
classroom assessment and evaluation practices in Philippine classrooms. This also does not
make use of foreign-made standardized intelligence and achievement tests, which are very
expensive and believed to be inapplicable to the Filipino milieu. CBM is reliable since it can
produce consistent results over time as shown in the test-retest reliability coefficients. It also
showed high alternate-form reliability. CBM is a valid screening and identification tool since
the measures included in the CBM are based on sound theoretical framework, on the expected
competencies as defined by the Department of Education, and on the required developmental
tasks for each level. It also exhibited criterion-related validity as it showed moderate
correlation with teacher ratings.
While this study has shown the practical implications and the technical adequacy of
CBM for use in the Philippine public school, more research need to be conducted, involving
more schools, different grade levels, other subjects areas. Predictive validity of CBM also needs
to be established by using various criterion measures of achievement.

References

Deno, S. L. (2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives.

Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28 (3-4), 3-12. doi: 10.1177/073724770302800302
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special
Education, 37(3), 184-192. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801
Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based
measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities.
Social Psychology Review, 30(4), 507-524.
Department of Education. (2012). K to 12 curriculum guide: English (Grade 1 to 3 and Grade 7 to
10). Retrieved from http://eedncr.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/k-to-12-english-
competencies-grade-1-3.pdf
Department of Education. (2011). K to 12 basic education program [Primer]. Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20120522231741/http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/
uploads/issuanceImg/Kto12%20Primer%20as%20of%20Dec%202011.pdf
Department of Education. (2010, October 5). Discussion paper on the enhanced K+12 basic education
program: DepEd discussion paper. Retrieved from
http://ceap.org.ph/upload/download/201210/17115829500_1.pdf
Department of Education. (2010). Basic education curriculum: Philippine elementary learning
competencies. Retrieved from http://www.elementary.ph/sites/default/files/bec-
pelc_2010_-_english.pdf
Foegen, A., Lembke, E., Klein, K., Lind, L. & Jiban, C.L. (2008, August). Technical adequacy of
early numeracy indicators: Exploring growth at three points in time. Retrieved from
http://www.progressmonitoring.org/pdf/TR13EarlyNumIA.pdf
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1997). Use of curriculum-based measurement in identifying students
with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30, 1-16.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an
indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G.A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool
for reading teachers. International Reading Association, 636-644. doi :101598/RT.59.7.3
Jenkins, J. R. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at
the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-
Intervention symposium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/jenkins/index.html

ISSN 2094-5876  Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (EMEReview), July 2015
 10

Jiban, C. L., Deno, S. L., & Foegen, A. (2009, September). Developing measures for monitoring
progress in elementary grade mathematics: An investigation of desirable characteristics. Retrieved
from http://www.progressmonitoring.org/pdf/TR5MathDev.pdf
Johnson, E. S., Pool, J., & Carter, D. R. (n.d.). Screening for reading problems in Grades 1 through 3:
An overview of select measures. Retrieved from RTI Action Network website:
http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/assessment/screening/screening-for-reading-
problems-in-grades-1-through-3
Johnston, P. H., & Rogers, R. (2002). Early literacy development: The case of “informed
assessment”. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
research (pp. 377-389). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lembke, E., & Foegen, A. (2005, August). Identifying indicators of early mathematics proficiency in
kindergarten and grade 1. Retrieved from
http://www.progressmonitoring.org/pdf/TREarlymath6.pdf
Lembke, E., Foegen, A., Whittaker, T. A., Hampton, D., & Jiban, C. L. (2008). Establishing
technically adequate measures of progress in early mathematics. Retrieved from
http://www.progressmonitoring.org/pdf/TR14EarlyMathMO.pdf
Luz, J. M. (2007, June 7). A nation on nonreaders. Retrieved from the Philippine Center of
Investigative Journalism website: http://pcij.org/stories/a-nation-of-nonreaders/
Lyon, G. R. (2003). Reading disabilities: Why do some children have difficulty learning to read?
What can be done about it. Perspectives, 29(2), 17-19.
Pikulsi, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2003). Fluency: The bridge from decoding to reading comprehension.
Retrieved from http://www.eduplace.com/state/author/pik_chard_fluency.pdf
Shinn, M. R. (2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-
solving model. Best Practices in School Psychology IV, 1, 671-697.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.) (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Speece, D.L. & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to
identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 735-749. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.735
Waterford Institute. (n.d.). Waterford early learning: Early reading program. Overview guide version 5.
ISBN: 978-1-4256-0894-1. Retrieved from
http://help.waterfordearlylearning.org/wp-content/uploads/Waterford-Early-
Reading-Program-Overview.pdf

ISSN 2094-5876  Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review (EMEReview), July 2015