The Utility of CBM Written Language Indices: An Investigation of Production-Dependent, Production-Independent, and Accurate-Production Scores

References

• 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
• Deno, S. L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Marston, D. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of written expression and performance on standardized achievement tests (Rep. No. 22). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, S. N., & Fuchs, L. S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessment as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espin, C., Shin, J., Deno, S.L., Skare, S., Robinson, S., & Benner, B. (2000). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency for middle school students. Journal of Special Education, 34, 140–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1997). Use of curriculum-based measurement in identifying students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(3), 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1990). Curriculum-based measurement: A standardized, long-term goal approach to monitoring student progress. Academic Therapy, 25, 615–632.
   Google Scholar
• Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1978). The Test of Written Language. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
   Google Scholar
• Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (1997). Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement.
   Google Scholar
• Knoff, H. M., & Dean, K. R. (1994). Curriculum-based measurement of at-risk students' reading skills: A preliminary investigation of bias. Psychological Reports, 75, 1355–1360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kranzler, J. H., Miller, M. D., & Jordan, L. (1999). An examination of racial/ethnic and gender bias on curriculum-based measurement of reading. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 327–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden, R., Gardner, E. F., Rudman, H. C., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J. C. (1978). Stanford Achievement Test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Malecki, C. K., & Jewell, J. (2003). Developmental, gender, and practical considerations in scoring curriculum-based measurement writing probes. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 379–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-Based Measurement: Assessing Special Children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marston, D., & Deno, S. (1981). The reliability of simple, direct measures of written expression (Rep. No. 50). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
   Google Scholar
• Marston, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1986). Measuring pupil progress: A comparison of standardized achievement tests and curriculum-related measures. Diagnostique, 11, 77–90.
   Google Scholar
• Moran, M. R. (1987). Options for written language assessment. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19, 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, R., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991). Countable indices of writing quality: Their suitability for screening-eligibility decisions. Exceptionality, 2, 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Shinn, M. R. (1995). 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—III (pp. 547—567). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
   Google Scholar
• Shinn, M. R., Ysseldyke, J., Deno, S., & Tindal, G. (1982). A comparison of psychometric and functional differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving (Rep. No. 71). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
   Google Scholar
• Stiggins, R. J. (1982). A comparison of direct and indirect writing assessment methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 101–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991). Analyzing student writing to develop instructional strategies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 237–245.
   Google Scholar
• Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1989). Assessment of written expression for students in compensatory and special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 169–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating written expression. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 211–218.
   Google Scholar
• Videen, J., Deno, S., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Rep. No. 84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
   Google Scholar
• Watkinson, J. T., & Lee, S. W. (1992). Curriculum-based measures of written expression for learning-disabled and nondisabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 184–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, E. J. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 21, 396–399.
   Google Scholar