The present study examined the utility of two progress monitoring assessment schedules (bimonthly and monthly) as alternatives to monitoring once weekly with curriculum-based measurement in reading (CBM-R). General education students (N = 93) in Grades 2-4 who were at risk for reading difficulties but not yet receiving special education services had their progress monitored via three assessment schedules across 1 academic year. Four mixed-factorial analyses of variance tested the effect of progress monitoring schedule (weekly, bimonthly, monthly), grade (2, 3, and 4), and the interaction effect between schedule and grade on four progress monitoring outcomes: intercept, slope, standard error of the estimate, and standard error of the slope. Results indicated that (a) progress monitoring schedule significantly predicted each outcome, (b) grade predicted each progress monitoring outcome except the standard error of the slope, and (c) the effect of schedule on each outcome did not depend on students' grade levels. Overall, findings from this study reveal that collecting CBM-R data less frequently than weekly may be a viable option for educators monitoring the progress of students in Grades 2-4 who are at risk for reading difficulties.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
Author Note. The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324A090038 to the University of Minnesota. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. Correspondence regarding this article may be addressed to: Stacy-Ann A. January, Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina, 1512 Pendleton St., Columbia, SC, 29208. e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
© Copyright 2018 by the National Association of School Psychologists.