Curriculum-based Measures (CBM):
The Cornerstone of the RTI Pyramid
Long Island Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development
Friday October 17, 2008
Lindenhurst Public Schools –
The Team
Joseph LaMelza – Assistant Superintendent
Donna Smawley – Principal, Bower School
Roni Loud – Psychologist, Bower School
Maria Bohrer – Reading Teacher, Bower School
Carol Grasso – Kindergarten Teacher, Bower School
Debra Mauro – Reading Teacher, Bower School
Presentation Objectives





Understanding curriculum-based measures
Recognizing the importance of early literacy
skill development
Identify factors that contribute to the effective
implementation of RTI
Understanding the necessity of managing data
Sharing ideas and insights
Essentials of Reading Instruction
 Reading
instruction MUST focus on
instructional strategies that help
overall reading ability, NOT only on
isolated skills (Goodman;Pearson,
2006)
What is CBM?

CBM is an approach to measuring the growth of
student proficiency in the core educational skills that
contribute to success in school. It is a fast,
inexpensive, and easy-to-use system that allows
teachers to continually measure their students’ growth
in performance, determine if their students’ are growing
at the expected rate, and provide data for teachers to
evaluate their instructional strategies if students are not
demonstrating adequate growth.
Deno, Lembke, and Anderson
CBM as General Outcome
Measures - GOM

Relevant Features
–
–
–
–
Measure Big Ideas
Efficient
Standardized
Sensitive to growth and change over time and to the
effects of intervention
CBM Levels of Performance
1.
2.
3.
Accuracy – barely able to do something
without error, if you go slowly and concentrate
Fluency – can do something quickly without
errors (no more than 5%). Fluency comes
after accuracy and only with practice
Automaticity – can do something quickly
without error and in the presence of
distracters. Automaticity comes after fluency
and with considerable practice.
CBM = Improvement in RATE
Fluency and automaticity are measured by rate
(how fast it can be performed). Rate increases
gradually as proficiency develops - which
means it is measured over time.
Improvement in rate is a measure of
progress.
READING RATE = COMPREHENSION

Reading connected text rapidly and accurately
plays a crucial role in a student’s ability to
comprehend.
Rapid word recognition frees up cognitive
resources for higher-level comprehension
processes (Fuchs et al., 2001)
ORAL READING FLUENCY IS
RELATED TO OUTCOMES



Oral reading fluency predicted satisfactory
comprehension skills with 80% accuracy for
Grade 1 students and with 70% accuracy for
Grade 2 students
Students with satisfactory oral reading fluency
but low comprehension may have poor
vocabulary skills
Students with good reading speed and
accuracy but poor comprehension are the
exception rather than the rule (Riedel, 2007)
FLUENCY IS MORE THAN SPEED!
The most legitimate use of oral reading speed is
as Deno (1985) brilliantly conceptualized it; a
way to monitor student progress.
The danger of using speed as the measure is
that some students and teachers focus on
speed at the expense of understanding.
Students need to simultaneously decode and
comprehend using texts that increase in
difficulty (Samuels, 2007)
R-CBM as a Predictor

Oral reading fluency correlates highly with
comprehension
– .67 (Good et al., 2001) and .70 (Buck and Torgesen,
2003) with state reading assessment scores for
Grade 3
– .73 with Stanford Achievement for Grade 1 (Cook,
2003)
– .76 with Woodcock-Johnson Broad Reading Cluster
(Roberts, 2005) for Grade 1
What Makes a Big Idea a BIG IDEA?



Predictive of reading acquisition and later
reading achievement
Something we can do something about, i.e.,
something we can teach
Something that improves outcomes for children
if/when we teach it
Graney, 2006
BIG IDEAS





Phonemic Awareness
Alphabetic Principle
Accuracy and Fluency with connected text
Vocabulary
Comprehension
National Reading Panel, 2000
Early Literacy Probs / DIBELS




Most research is based on the body of knowledge
regarding R-CBM
Early literacy probs were designed to be a downward
extension of CBM before reading
Early literacy probs are short-term measures
Early literacy probs are in the CBM family, but are preskills
*Don’t test on pre-skills when you can test the skill
Shinn, 2008
How can we use CBM to change
Reading Outcomes?



Begin Early
Focus Instruction on the BIG IDEAS of Early
Literacy
Focus Assessment on Outcomes for Students
CBM in Practice



The Big Ideas for Preventing Reading Failure
Increase the quality, consistency, and reach of
instruction
Universal screening with timely and valid
assessments of reading growth as progress
monitoring – formative vs. summative assessment
Provide more intensive interventions to ‘catch up” the
struggling reader
Adapted from: Torgesen/Shinn, 2008
REMEMBER . . .




CBM are indicators
CBM is a specific set of procedures
CBM is for evaluation of instruction. It does not
require a specific instructional technique
Use of CBM formative evaluation increases
student achievement.
Graney, 2006
Definition of RTI

High-quality instruction/intervention that is matched to students’
needs and has been demonstrated through scientific research and
practice to produce high learning rates for most students

Learning rate and level of performance are the primary sources of
information used in ongoing decision-making

Important educational decisions about intensity and duration of
interventions are based on individual student’s response to
instruction across multiple tiers of intervention.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005
Multi-Tiered Response
Tier III
CSE
Referral
FEW
Tier II
Small Group Intervention
More intensive duration
SOME
Tier I
Whole group classroom instruction
ALL
CORE Concepts of RTI



Research-based instruction – core programs are
taught with fidelity as intended to maximize
effectiveness. Instruction is focused on achieving state
standards
Use of data to inform instruction – universal
screening of all students to measure and to monitor the
development of skills – provide program accountability
Measurement of response – progress monitoring is
used to determine the effectiveness of interventions – it
is systematic, documented, and shared with staff
Interventions are NOT







Shortened assignments
Preferential seating
Parent contacts
Classroom observations
Suspensions
Doing more of the same assignments
Retention
McCook, J., 2005
Intervention Organized in Tiers
• Layers of intervention responding to
students’ needs
• Each tier provides more intensive and
supportive intervention
• Aimed at preventing reading
disabilities
Torgeson, 2004
Multi-Tiered Response
Literacy
Tier III
Strategic Monitor
Tier II
Progress Monitor
Benchmarks
Tier I
CBM
3 Tier Model for RTI
Tier 3
More Differentiated Intense Interventions
*Increase frequency and duration of intervention
*Referral to Special Education
Strategic Monitoring
Tier 2
Implementing Supplementary Instruction
*General Ed Teacher, AIS Teacher, Related Service Providers,
Special Ed Teachers
*Fundations, Wilson, Small Group Instruction through AIS Reading, ERSS Speech
Progress Monitoring
Tier 1
Implementing Classroom Instruction – General Ed Teacher
* Researched Based Curriculum – Harcourt Reading Program, Differentiated
Instruction, Focus instruction on Big Ideas of Literacy.
Benchmark Assessments
Kindergarten
Fall – Initial Sound Fluency (ISF), Letter Naming Fluency
(LNF), Letter Sound Fluency (LSF)
Winter – Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Letter Sound
Fluency (LSF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF),
Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)
Spring – Same as Winter
Benchmark Assessments
Grade 1
Fall – Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Letter Sound Fluency (LSF),
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense Word
Fluency (NWF)
Winter – Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense
Word Fluency (NWF), Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), Maze
Spring – Same as Winter
Benchmark Assessment – Cont’d
Grade 2 – 5
• Oral Reading Fluency
• Maze (Comprehension)
Problem-solving Model – IST
Process, not interventions, are standardized
Individualized plan for each child that involves different
levels of consultation:
•Description of student’s problem
•Data collection and problem analysis
•Intervention design and implementation –
differentiated instruction determined by data
•Progress monitoring
•Evaluation of intervention effectiveness
•Flexible groupings throughout the year
Wilson, 2007
Three Levels of Assessment

Benchmark Assessment – 3 times a year
–
–
–
-

Are there children who need additional support?
How many?
Which children?
What to do? Evaluate benchmark assessment data
Progress Monitoring –
- Assess at-risk children more frequently – every two weeks
- Are current programs sufficient to keep progress on track or are
additional supports / interventions needed?

Strategic Monitoring - weekly monitoring
What decisions do we make with
data?

Plan for support with focus on BIG IDEAS.
–
–
–
Grouping – small group instruction, homogenous
groups, differentiated instruction, flexible grouping.
Time – How much? How Frequently? When?
Teacher / Student Interactions – modeling, direct
explanation, increase student engagement, increase
guided practice with immediate feedback,
scaffolding to support learning, review
Getting Started…..

Select a team –
–
–
–
Classroom teachers, reading specialists, psychologist, building
principal, special education teacher(s), speech teacher, other.
People that have a vested interest in reading and literacy
outcomes.
Attend training sessions
Plan for data collection –



Who will collect data?
When will you collect data?
How will you collect data?
Collecting Data





Plan and Schedule Data Collection
Organize Resources
Collect Data
Enter the Data
Use Data for Educational Decision Making
Scheduling Data Collection

Classroom Approach – Obtain coverage for classroom teacher.
Approximately 1-2 minutes per benchmark per student. Teacher works in
hallway / room.
Advantages – Teachers assess own students, less disruptive to entire
school.
Disadvantages – Loss of instructional time, coverage, requires more
days.

Building-wide Approach – Multiple specialists / trained members of
team will assess students. Teacher brings class to library, cafeteria, gym,
or other location with tables. Entire class can be assessed in 30 minutes.
Advantages – can be completed in one day, minimal classroom
disruptions and loss of instructional time.
Disadvantages – space, trained staff, teachers not assessing.
Data Management System
AIMS Web – Achievement Improvement
Monitoring System
www.aimsweb.com
Instructional Recommendations
Improvement Report
Student Record
Progress Monitoring Chart
School Readiness for RTI



Assessment: screening measures, progress
monitoring practices and procedures
Curriculum: high-quality, research-based core
curricula
Instruction: focus on effective instruction and
interventions
School Readiness - Continued



Positive School Climate: school-wide
processes and structures, individual student
interventions, and a professional learning
community
Professional Development: outcome focused
content and ongoing assistance
Leadership: problem solving and individual
characteristics of strong leaders
Closing the Achievement Gap: School Readiness for RtI, Sopris
West Educational Services, 2007
See. . .
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2006) Best practice in progress monitoring
reading and mathematics at the elementary level. In A. Thomas &
J. Grimes (Eds). Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 2147 2164). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Hosp, M.K., Hosp, J.L. & Howell, K.W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A
practical guide to Curriculum-based Measurement. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Miura, Wayman,M., Wallace, T., Ives Wiley, H., Ticha, R., & Espin, C.
(2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in
reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85-120.
Shinn, M.R. (2008). Best practices in Curriculum-based
Measurement and its use in a Problem-solving model. In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology V
(pp.243-262). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Shinn, 2008
Thank You for
Your Attention
and
Participation