Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Progress Monitoring for Students Receiving Intensive Academic Intervention

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Response to Intervention

Abstract

Progress monitoring is one of the four essential components for response to intervention (RTI) systems or multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). Monitoring student progress is essential because it allows instructors to determine the extent to which a student’s academic skills are improving, whether instruction or supplemental intervention support are effective for an individual, and whether instructional modifications are necessary, and consequently, lead to increased academic achievement for struggling learners. In this chapter, individual progress monitoring for students needing intensive interventions in academics is discussed. First, the general purposes of progress monitoring students receiving tier 3 interventions and highlight differences from progress monitoring within other tiers are described. Second, two types of data that are useful for academic progress monitoring in an RTI model are reviewed. Third, the practical and technical considerations necessary for progress monitoring within tier 3 are discussed. Fourth, case examples to illustrate the types of decisions made for students receiving tier 3 interventions are provided. Finally, the chapter concludes with a summary of recommendations for practice and a discussion on directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 269.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 349.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ardoin, S. P., & Christ, T. J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Standard errors associated with progress monitoring outcomes from Dibels, Aimsweb, and an Experimental passage set. School Psychology Review, 38, 266–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardoin, S. P., Christ, T. J., Moreno, L., Cormier, D. C., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of recommendations and research surrounding curriculum based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.9. 004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K. (2001). Measuring sight-word acquisition and retention rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 148–157. doi:10.1177/073428290101900204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–175. doi:10.1177/07419325040250030401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response-to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297–313. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.22.3.297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Response to intervention implementation in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2010). Assessment of academic skills in math within a problem-solving model. In G. G. Peacock, R. A. Ervin, K. W. Merrell, & E. J. Daly (Eds.), Practical handbook of school psychology: Effective practices for the 21st century (pp. 86–98). New York: Guildford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., & Mosack, J. L. (2005). Criterion-related validity of measuring sight-word acquisition with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 216–224. doi:10.1177/073428290502300302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., & Parker, D. C. (2014). Curriculum-based assessment for instructional design: Using data to individual instruction. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., Tucker, J. A., Frame, J., Foley, S., & Hauser, A. (2000). Interscorer, alternate-form, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of Gickling’s model of curriculum-based assessment for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 353–360. doi:10.1177/073428290001800405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. L. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., Scholin, S. E., Kosciolek, S., & Livingston, J. (2010). Reliability of decision-making frameworks for response to intervention for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 102–114. doi:10.1177/0734282909342374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christ, T. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimates of standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christ, T. J., & Vining, O. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement procedures to develop multiple-skill mathematics computation probes: Evaluation of random and stratified stimulus-set arrangements. School Psychology Review, 35, 387–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christ, T. J., Zopluoglu, C., Long, J. D., & Monaghen, B. D. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Quality of progress monitoring outcomes. Exceptional Children, 78, 356–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christ, T. J., Monaghen, B. D., Zopluoglu, C., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013a). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Evaluation of growth estimates derived with pre-post assessment methods. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 139–153. doi:10.1177/1534508412456417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christ, T. J., White, M. J., Ardoin, S., & Eckert, T. L. (2013b). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Consistency and validity across best, fastest, and question reading conditions. School Psychology Review, 42, 415–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christ, T. J., Zopluoglu, C., Monaghen, B. D., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013c). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Multi-study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset quality on progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 19–57. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colón, E. P., & Kranzler, J. H. (2006). Effect of instructions on curriculum-based measurement of reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 318–328. doi:10.1177/0734282906287830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J. K., Barquero, L. A., Cho, E., & Crouch, R. C (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–340. doi:10.1037/a0018448.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deno, S. L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics. A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, D. J., Santi, K. L., Barr, C., Fletcher, J. M., Varisco, A., & Foorman, B. R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students’ oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315–342.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum? Exceptional Children, 61, 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2011). Using CBM for progress monitoring in reading. Washington, DC: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi: 0.3102/00028312021002449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. The Journal of Educational Research, 103–110. doi:10.2307/1163151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Education Research Journal, 28, 617–641. doi:10.3102/00028312028003617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 559–566. doi:10.1177/002221947801100905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gickling, E. E., & Thompson, V. P. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205–218.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintze, J. M., & Christ, T. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintze, J. M., & Marcotte, A. M. (2010). Student assessment and data-based decision making. In T. A. Glover & S. Vaughn (Eds.), The promise of response to intervention (pp. 57–77). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintze, J. M., Shapiro, E. S., & Lutz, J. G. (1994). The effects of curriculum on the sensitivity of curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 188–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintze, J. M., Christ, T. J., & Keller, L. A. (2002). The generalizability of CBM survey-level mathematics assessments: Just how many samples do we need? School Psychology Review, 31, 514–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintze, J. M., Christ, T. J., & Methe, S. A. (2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 45–56. doi:10.1002/pits.20128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosp, M. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade. School Psychology Review, 34, 9–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2008). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosp, J. L., Hosp, M. K., Howell, K. W., & Allison, R. (2014). ABCs of curriculum-based evaluation: A practical guide to effective decision making. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J., & Terjeson, K. J. (2011). Monitoring reading growth: Goal setting, measurement frequency, and methods of evaluation. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 28–35. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00322.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. R., Graff, J. J., & Miglioretti, D. (2009). Estimating reading growth using intermittent CBM progress monitoring. Exceptional Children, 75, 151–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. (2013a). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73. doi:10.1111/jedm.12007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. (2013b). The argument-based approach to validation. School Psychology Review, 42, 448–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller-Margulis, M. A., Shapiro, E. S., & Hintze, J. M. (2008). Long-term diagnostic accuracy of curriculum-based measures in reading and mathematics. School Psychology Review, 37, 374–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why to do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–44). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68–84. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellard, D. F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 186–195. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00292.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18, 5–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X018002005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Data-based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI—A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.cfm. Accessed 1 July 2014.

  • Parker, D. C., McMaster, K. L., & Burns, M. K. (2011). Determining an instructional level for early writing skills. School Psychology Review, 40, 158–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson Inc. (2012). Aimsweb: Progress monitoring guide. Bloomington: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Axtell, P. K. (2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute using curriculum- based measurement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 326–338. doi:10.1177/073428290502300403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427–469. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riley-Tillman, T. C., Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2013). RTI applications, Volume 2: Assessment, analysis, and decision making. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, S. (2013). Assessment in special and inclusive education (12th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. S. (2008). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skills improvement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology (pp. 141–157). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skills problems (4th ed.). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. S. (2013). Commentary on progress monitoring with CBM-R and decision making: Problems found and looking for solutions. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. S., Keller, M. A., Lutz, J. L., Santoro, L. E., & Hintze, J. M. (2006). Curriculum-based measures and performance on state assessment and standardized tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 19–35. doi: 10.1177/0734282905285237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stage, S. A., & Jacobsen, M. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1503_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819. doi:10.1002/pits.20113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, P. M., Lembke, E. S., & Foegen, A. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision-making. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52, 48–58. doi:10.3200/PSFL.52.2.48-58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. D., Meisinger, E. B., & Floyd, R. G. (2013). Variations in directions and overt timing on oral reading accuracy, fluency, and prosody. School Psychology Review, 42, 437–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornblad, S. C., & Christ, T. J. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Is 6 weeks of daily progress monitoring enough? School Psychology Review, 43, 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students’ reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36, 159–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, J. A. (1985). Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction. Exceptional Children, 52, 199–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. (2012). DIBELS Next recommended benchmark goals. Eugene: University of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 15–31. doi:10.1177/073724770503000302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Norman, E. R., Christ, T. J., & Zopluoglu, C. (2013). The effects of baseline estimation on the precision of CBM-R growth estimates. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 239–255. doi:10.1037/spq0000023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203. doi:10.1177/0022219412442150.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measures in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, S., Kim, D., Branum-Martin, L., Wayman, M. M., & Espin, C. A. (2012). Assessing the reliability of curriculum-based measurement: An application of latent growth modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 275–292. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M. K., Scholin, S. E., & Parker, D. C. (2010). Instructionally valid assessment within response to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 54–61.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, USA

    David A. Klingbeil

  2. Boling Center for Developmental Disabilities, Memphis, USA

    Tera L. Bradley

  3. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

    Jennifer J. McComas

Authors
  1. David A. Klingbeil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tera L. Bradley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer J. McComas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Klingbeil .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Santa Barbara Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, Santa Barbara, California, USA

    Shane R. Jimerson

  2. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA

    Matthew K. Burns

  3. Education Research & Consulting, Inc., FAIRHOPE, Alabama, USA

    Amanda M. VanDerHeyden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Klingbeil, D., Bradley, T., McComas, J. (2016). Progress Monitoring for Students Receiving Intensive Academic Intervention. In: Jimerson, S., Burns, M., VanDerHeyden, A. (eds) Handbook of Response to Intervention. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation