Comparing Schedules of Progress Monitoring Using Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading: A Replication Study

Abstract

Using data to inform instructional decisions is a pillar of special education practice. Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a systematic, ongoing assessment framework that allows special educators to monitor the progress of their students to determine the need for instructional adaptations. CBM and data-based instructional decision-making have a strong evidence-base supporting their use with students in special education to improve academic outcomes. Despite this evidence, these data-based processes are infrequently used in practice. One hypothesized barrier to implementation is the amount of time it takes to administer and use CBM data to inform instruction. This study is a replication of Jenkins, Schulze, Marti, & Harbaugh (2017), in which the authors compared the decision-making accuracy and timeliness of six different schedules of CBM progress monitoring (PM). Results demonstrated that the accuracy and timeliness of the PM schedules for the sample of students in this study was poorer than the accuracy and timeliness reported by Jenkins and colleagues. In line with the results of the original study, however, these results indicate that, on the basis of accuracy and timeliness, intermittent PM schedules sufficiently predicted student true growth compared to weekly PM schedule. Implications for research and practice are discussed.