What Does the CBM-Maze Test Measure?

References

• Adlof, S. M., Perfetti, C. A., & Catts, H. W. (2011). Developmental changes in reading comprehension: Implications for assessment and instruction. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 186–214). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Afflerbach, P., Cho, B. Y., & Kim, J. Y. (2015). Conceptualizing and assessing higher-order thinking in reading. Theory Into Practice, 54(3), 203–212. doi:10.1080/00405841.2015.1044367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 263–283. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01413.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Catts, H., Adolf, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Weismer, S. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 48, 1378–1396. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/096)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong, P. F. (1999). Hierarchical regression analysis in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 198–211. doi:10.1080/10705519909540128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and listening comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 51–77. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0601_03
   Google Scholar
• Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 16, 99–104. doi:10.1177/001440298505200303
   Google Scholar
• Diakidoy, I. N., Stylianou, P., Karefillidou, C., & Papageorgiou, P. (2005). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of text at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26, 55–80. doi:10.1080/02702710590910584
   Google Scholar
• Eason, S. H., Sabatini, J., Goldberg, L., Bruce, K., & Cutting, L. E. (2013). Examining the relationship between word reading efficiency and oral reading rate in predicting comprehension among different types of readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 199–223. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.652722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espin, C. A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497–514. doi:10.1177/001440299606200602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espin, C. A., McMaster, K., Rose, S., & Wayman, M. (Eds.). (2012). A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Espin, C. A., Wallace, T., Lembke, E., Campbell, H., & Long, J. D. (2010). Creating a progress measurement system in reading for middle-school students: Monitoring progress towards meeting high stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25, 60–75. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00304.x
   Google Scholar
• FastBridge Learning. (2015). Formative assessment system for teachers (FAST): Technical manual. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 553–576. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 45–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1207/S15327930PJE7702_6
   Google Scholar
• García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84, 74–111. doi:10.3102/0034654313499616
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gellert, A. S., & Elbro, C. (2013). Cloze tests may be quick, but are they dirty? Development and preliminary validation of a cloze test of reading comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 16–28. doi:10.1177/0734282912451971
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R. (2012). Literacy: Learning and understanding content. The Future of Children, 22(2), 89–116. doi:10.1353/foc.2012.0011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2015). Research on learning and instruction: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Education, 2, 33–41. doi:10.1177/2372732215601866
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C. (2015). Deeper learning with advances in discourse science and technology. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 42–50. doi:10.1177/2372732215600888
   Google Scholar
• Hayduck, L. A. (1996). LISREL issues, debates, and strategies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM an high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 372–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, T. P., Adlof, S. M., & Alonzo, C. N. (2014). On the importance of listening comprehension. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 199–207. doi:10.3109/17549507.2014.904441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoover, H. D., Heironymus, A. N., Frisbie, D. A., & Dunbar, S. B. (1996). Iowa test of basic skills. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
   Google Scholar
• Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. doi:10.1007/BF00401799
   Web of Science ®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(1), 9–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300. doi:10.1080/10888430802132279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keenan, J. M., Hua, A. N., Meenan, C. E., Pennington, B. F., Willcutt, E., & Olson, R. K. (2014). Issues in identifying poor comprehenders. L’Année Psychologique, 114, 753–777. doi:10.4074/S0003503314004072
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keenan, J. M., & Meenan, C. E. (2014). Test differences in diagnosing reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 125–135. doi:10.1177/0022219412439326
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., & Papadopoulos, T. (2012). The use of CBM-Maze in Greek: A closer look at what it measures. In C. Espin, K. McMaster, & S. Rose (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., Papadopoulos, T. C., & Spanoudis, G. (2012). Processing demands of reading comprehension tests in young readers. Learning and Instruction, 22, 354–367. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, A. K. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 29, 10–16. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. G. (2016). Direct and mediated effects of language and cognitive skills on comprehension of oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 101–120. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(1), 363–394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
   Google Scholar
• Kirby, J. R., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42(2), 75–82. doi:10.1111/read.2008.42.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things simple? Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 151–169. doi:10.1002/rrq.99
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lembke, E., Conoyer, S., Hosp, J., Espin, C. A., Hosp, M., & Poch, A. (2016). Getting more from your maze: Examining differences in distractors. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1142913
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates–MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
   Google Scholar
• Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 1–23. doi:10.1521/scpq.17.1.1.19902
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcotte, A. M., & Hintze, J. M. (2009). Incremental and predictive utility of formative assessment methods of reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 315–335. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical manual. Woodcock–Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359–370. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01250.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos, T. C., Kendeou, P., & Shiakalli, M. (2014). Reading comprehension tests and poor readers: How test processing demands result in different profiles. L’Année Psychologique, 114, 726–752. doi:10.4074/S0003503314004060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, R. L., McMaster, K. L., & Deno, S. L. (2010). The effects of using different procedures to score maze measures. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25, 151–160. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00313.x
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, C., van den Boer, M., Jiménez, J. E., & de Jong, P. F. (2015). Developmental changes in the relations between RAN, phonological awareness, and reading in Spanish children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 273–288. doi:10.1080/10888438.2015.1025271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J. P., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L. K., & Bruce, K. (2014). Integrating scenario-based and component reading skill measures to understand the reading behavior of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 29, 36–43. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (Vol. I, pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 164–172. doi:10.1177/002246690003400305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn, M. R., & Shinn, M. M. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Tichá, R., Espin, C. A., & Wayman, M. M. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading aloud and maze selection measures. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 132–142. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00287.x
   Google Scholar
• Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 383–401. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01401.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Boer, M., van Bergen, E., & de Jong, P. F. (2014). Underlying skills of oral and silent reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 128, 138–151. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.07.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & White, M. J. (2009). Cognitive processes during reading: Implications for the use of multimedia to foster reading comprehension. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 57–73). New York, NY: Rutledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. S. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32. doi:10.1080/10888430709336632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. (2008). Advances in text comprehension: Model, process and development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 293–301. doi:10.1002/acp.1417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar