This study examined technical characteristics of slopes produced from two general outcome measures (GOMs)—the Naming Spelling and the Dictating Spelling tests. A total of 305 first-graders in Taiwan participated in the study and underwent weekly assessments for 6 weeks. Six alternate forms were developed for each of the two measures to monitor young students’ learning progress of Zhu Yin Fu Hao (ZYFH). Technical characteristics of the two measures were examined in terms of reliability, sensitivity, and criterion validity for assessing student growth. Results showed that the alternate-form reliability coefficients ranged from .88 to .94 (mean = .92) for the Naming Spelling test, and from .77 to .83 (mean = .80) for the Dictating Spelling test. Both tests demonstrated to be sensitive for monitoring students` learning progress by revealing a quadratic growth pattern and inter-individual differences in growth rates. The growth rates estimated from repeated Naming and Dictating Spelling tests were found to correlate with students’ performance on the final exam of ZYFH for lower-performing students. Results support the use of these two GOMs tests as reliable, sensitive, and valid measures for monitoring first-graders’ learning progress of ZYFH.
Keywords: General outcome measures Zhu Yin Fu Hao Progress monitoring Hierarchical linear modelingCheng, S. F. (2011). The technical adequacy of CBM in Zhu Yin Fu Hao (NSC Research Report). Taipei: Taiwan, National Science Council.
Christ, T. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimating standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133.
Christ, T. J., & Coolong-Chaffin, M. (2007). Interpretations of curriculum-based measurement outcomes: Standard error and confidence intervals. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 1(2), 75–86.
Committee of the teaching materials on Mandarin Chinese Phonetics. (2008). Mandarin Chinese Phonetics. Taipei: Taiwan, Cheng Chung Book Co. Ltd.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192.
Espin, C., Wallace, T., Campbell, H., Lembke, E. S., Long, J. D., & Ticha, R. (2008). Curriculum-based measurement in writing: Predicting the success of high-school students on state standard tests. Exceptional Children, 74, 174–193.
Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum? Exceptional Children, 61, 15–24.
Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Curriculum-based measurement: Describing competence, enhancing outcomes, evaluating treatment effects, and identifying treatment nonresponders. Peabody Journal of Education, 77, 64–84.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Ferguson, C. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436–450.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1990). The role of skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psychology Review, 19, 6–22.
Ho, C.J. (2011). A longitudinal study of predicting Chinese phonetic symbol learning and home literacy activity to the elementary school students’ academic achievement (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22099NTNT5096011%22.&searchmode=basic.
Hu, Y. C. (2001). The related variables in Chinese phonetics symbols learning and the effectiveness of elaborated instruction of Chinese phonetics symbols on first grade elementary students with reading disabilities. Journal of Pingtung Teachers College, 15, 101–140.
Huang, H. S. (1997). The long-term correlation between earlier phonological awareness and the later Chinese reading ability. Journal of Tainan Teachers College, 30, 263–288.
Huang, H. S., & Cheng, M.-C. (2007). ZYFH Diagnostic Test. Taipei: Taiwan, Psychological Publishing Co., Ltd.
Huang, R. J., & Huang, Y. F. (2001). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency of CBM for school-aged students. Bulletin of Eastern-Taiwan Special Education, 3, 225–260.
Hunag, H. S., & Hanley, R. J. (1994). Phonological awareness and visual skills in learning to read Chinese and English. Cognition, 54, 73–98.
Ko, H. W., & Lee, J. R. (1996). Chinese children phonological awareness ability and later reading ability: A longitudinal study. Journal of National Chung Cheng University, 7(1), 49–66.
Lee, J. R., & Ko, H. W. (2007). The cognitive deficit in Chinese dyslexia: Visual processing or phonological awareness? Bulletin of Special Education, 32(4), 1–18.
Lin, C. M. (2004a). The study of the Chinese phonetic symbol ability of elementary school students with reading difficulties (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22092NPTT1576033%22.&searchmode=basic.
Lin, S. J. (2004b). The study of CBM reading tests in the first graders. Journal of Special Education in Taiwan, 20, 1–24.
Lin, Y. Y. (2009). The study of the influence of the Chinese phonetic symbol ability on reading comprehension of the first graders (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22097NTCTC461006%22.&searchmode=basic.
Lin, W. J. (2013). Discrimination between high and low groups in Chinese character recognition from phonological awareness, phonetics decoding, and visual perception in Chinese (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22101NTCTC096004%22.&searchmode=basic.
McMaster, K. L., Du, X., Yeo, S., Deno, S. L., Parker, D., & Ellis, T. (2011). Curriculum-based measures of beginning writing: Technical features of the slope. Exceptional Children, 77, 185–206.
O’Conner, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005a). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–445.
O’Conner, R. E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005b). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532–538.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Shin, J., Deno, S. L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 164–172.
Shin, J., Espin, C. A., Deno, S. L., & McConnell, S. (2004). Use of hierarchical linear modeling and curriculum-based measurement for assessing academic growth and instructional factors for students with learning difficulties. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 136–148.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
Sloat, E. A., Beswick, J. F., & Willms, D. J. (2007). Using early literacy monitoring to prevent reading failure. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(7), 523–529.
Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 128–134.
Tseng, C. C. (2011). The case study on improving the word-recognition learning of an elementary student with word-recognition difficulties. Journal of Research on Elementary Education, 8, 183–200.
Tsuei, M. P. (2008). A web-based curriculum-based measurement system for class-wide ongoing assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 24, 47–60.
VanDer Heyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., Naquin, G., & Noell, G. (2001). The reliability and validity of curriculum-based measurement readiness probes for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 363–382.
Wang, M. H., & Huang, R. J. (2005). The reliability and validity of curriculum-based reading measures on elementary school students. Bulletin of Special Education, 29, 73–94.
Yeh, J. Y. (1996). The validity of three types of curriculum-based assessments in math. Journal of Special Education in Taiwan, 11, 35–77.
Yeh, J. Y. (1998). The validity of curriculum-based measurement in reading. Bulletin of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 8, 273–323.