Using Curriculum-Based Measures for Identifying Gifted Learners

REFERENCES

• Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Ardoin, S. P., & Christ, T. J. (2008). Evaluating curriculum-based measurement slope estimates using data from triannual universal screenings. School Psychology Review, 37, 109–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Fien, H., Seeley, J. R., Kame’enui, E. J., & Beck, C. T. (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high-poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betts, J. (2010, June). Applications of growth models to making decisions about states, schools, programs, and students. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers, National Conference on Student Assessment, Detroit, MI.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. W., Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C.-H. (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 68–79. doi:10.1177/001698620504900107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, M. D., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2007). Concurrent criterion-related validity of early literacy indicators for middle of first grade. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 66–77. doi:10.1177/15345084070320020401
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christ, T. J., Silberglitt, B., Yeo, S., & Cormier, D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: An evaluation of growth rates and seasonal effects among students served in general and special education. School Psychology Review, 39, 447–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochran, W. G., & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental designs. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, M. R. (2003). The identification of students who are gifted. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 480431). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED480431.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030801
   Web of Science ®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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehri, L. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading, a handbook (pp. 135–154). London, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Fewster, S., & MacMillan, P. D. (2002). School-based evidence for the validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading and writing. Remedial Special Education, 23, 149–156. doi:10.1177/07419325020230030301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, D. Y., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Recruiting and retaining underrepresented gifted students. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research and best practices (pp. 293–308). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Frasier, M. M. (1997). Multiple criteria: The mandate and the challenge. Roeper Review, 20, 2–4. doi:10.1080/02783199709553868
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45. doi:10.2307/1511189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to intervention: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36, 526–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002a). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development of Educational Achievement.
   Google Scholar
• Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002b). DIBELS oral reading fluency passages for first through third grades (Technical Report No. 10). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
   Google Scholar
• Graney, S. B., Missall, K., Martínez, R. S., & Bergstrom, M. (2009). A preliminary investigation of within-year growth patterns in reading and mathematics curriculum-based measures. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 121–142. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.12.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer, T., Dunlap, W. P., Hunter, S. T., & Berman, M. E. (2006). Skew and internal consistency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1351–1358. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimes, J. (2002). Responsiveness to interventions: The next step in special education identification, service, and exiting decision making. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 531–547). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   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. doi:10.1598/RT.59.7.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hintze, J. M. (2009). Curriculum-based assessment. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 397–409). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Hintze, J. M., Callahan, J., Matthews, W., Williams, S., & Tobin, K. (2002). Oral reading fluency and prediction of reading comprehension in African American and Caucasian elementary school children. School Psychology Review, 31, 540–554.
   Web of Science ®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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hintze, J. M., Shapiro, E., Conte, K., & Basile, I. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Criterion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level assessment. School Psychology Review, 26, 535–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hixson, M. D., Christ, T. J., & Bruni, T. (2014). Best practices in the analysis of progress monitoring data and decision making. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Foundations (pp. 343–354). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikeda, M. J., Neesen, E., & Witt, J. C. (2008). Best practice in universal screening. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 103–114). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
   Google Scholar
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL108–446, 20 USC §§ 1400 et sq.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnsen, S. K., Coleman, M. R., & Hughes, C. E. (2013). Overview of response to intervention and its application to students with gifts and talents. In M. R. Coleman & S. K. Johnsen (Eds.), Implementing RtI with gifted students: Service models, trends, and issues (pp. 3–22). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnsen, S. K., & Sulak, T. N. (2013). Screening, assessment and progress monitoring. In M. R. Coleman & S. K. Johnsen (Eds.), Implementing RtI with gifted students: Service models, trends, and issues (pp. 23–46). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, J. R., & Jimerson, S. R. (2005). Examining ethnic, gender, language, and socioeconomic bias in oral reading fluency scores among Caucasian and Hispanic students. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 23–50. doi:10.1521/scpq.20.1.23.64196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovaleski, J. F., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (2013). The RtI approach to evaluating learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kranzler, J. H., Brownell, M. T., & Miller, M. D. (1998). The construct validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading: An empirical test of a plausible rival hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 399–415. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(98)00018-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Limbrick, L., Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2011). Gender differences in oral reading fluency: Are there implications for identifying low-progress readers? Special Education Perspectives, 20, 5–23.
   Google Scholar
• McClain, M., & Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 59–88. doi:10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh, D., & Dixon, F. (2005). Use of intelligence tests in the identification of giftedness. In D. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual theories, tests and issues (2nd ed., pp. 504–520). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Association for Gifted Children. (2010a). NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Retrieved from. http://www.nagc.org.442elmp01.blackmesh.com/sites/default/files/standards/K12%20standards%20booklet.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Association for Gifted Children. (2010b). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Redefining%20Giftedness%20fo%20a%20New%20Century.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Association for Gifted Children. (2011a). Response to intervention for gifted children. Retrieved from. http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=6266
   Google Scholar
• National Association for Gifted Children. (2011b). 2010–2011 State of the nation in gifted education: A lack of commitment to talent development. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2016). Academic intervention. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools/
   Google Scholar
• National Society for the Gifted and Talented. (2013). Giftedness defined. Retrieved from http://www.nsgt.org/giftedness-defined/
   Google Scholar
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. ( West 2003)
   Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer, S. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 31–50. doi:10.1300/J008v19n01_03
   Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Current perspectives on the identification and assessment of gifted students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 3–9. doi:10.1177/0734282911428192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reschly, A., Busch, T., Betts, J., Deno, S., & Long, J. (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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richert, E. S. (2003). Excellent with justice in identification and programming. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 146–158). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Riedel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary in urban first-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 546–567. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.4.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, G., Good, R., & Corcoran, S. (2005). Story retell: A fluency-based indicator of reading comprehension. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 304–317. doi:10.1521/scpq.2005.20.3.304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesen, J. K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343–366. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rollins, K., Mursky, C. V., Shah-Coltrane, S., & Johnsen, S. K. (2009). RtI models for gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 32, 20–30. doi:10.1177/107621750903200308
   Google Scholar
• Runge, T. J., & McGowan, M. R. (2012). Identifying giftedness in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Psychologist, 72(8), 20, 22.
   Google Scholar
• Ryser, G. R. (2011). Fairness in testing and nonbiased assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide (2nd ed., pp. 63–74). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
   Google Scholar
• Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin, 2, 110–114. doi:10.2307/3002019
   Google Scholar
• Schilling, S. G., Carlisle, J. F., Scott, S. E., & Zeng, J. (2007). Are fluency measures accurate predictors of reading achievement? The Elementary School Journal, 107, 429–448. doi:10.1086/518622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 6–8.
   Google Scholar
• Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J. M. (2007). How much growth can we expect? A conditional analysis of R-CBM growth rates by level of performance. Exceptional Children, 74, 71–84. doi:10.1177/001440290707400104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, L. H. (2014). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Foundations (pp. 301–314). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
   Google Scholar
• Tilly, W. D., III. (2008). The evolution of school psychology to science-based practice: Problem solving and the three-tiered model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 17–36). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
   Google Scholar
• Zirkel, P. A. (2005). State laws for gifted education: An overview of the legislation and regulations. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 27, 228–232. doi:10.1080/02783190509554323
   Google Scholar