Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading (CBM-R)

Area: Letter Sound Fluency

Cost Technology, Human Resources, and Accommodations for Special Needs Service and Support Purpose and Other Implementation Information Usage and Reporting

Cost for 1 school:
$20.00 for 5 probes, 5 word-count scoring sheets, and manual.

$35.00 fee to make copies of the materials.

There are no other costs. There are no continuing costs.

Testers will require 1-4 hours of training.

Paraprofessionals can administer the test.

Testing accommodations should be consistent with those specified on the student’s IEP for high-stakes testing and implemented consistently for every progress monitoring occasion across the school year.

Vanderbilt University
PMB # 228
110 Magnolia Circle, Suite 418
Nashville, TN 37203

Field-tested training manuals are available and provide all necessary implementation information.

For questions and to order CBM-R Letter Sound Fluency, contact:

Lynn Davies
Phone: 615-343-4782
Lynn.a.davies@vanderbilt.edu
 

CBM-R Letter Sound Fluency is a progress monitoring tool for individual students, based on Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM).

Students are presented with a random string of letters, half of which are capitalized. Students have 1 minute to generate a sound for each letter. The score is the number of correct letters.

The tool provides information on student performance in English.

Administration of the test takes 1 - 2.5 minutes per individual student, depending on the type of progress monitoring measure. Scoring takes an additional 2 – 5 minutes.

5 alternate forms are available (only 5 are necessary because these are just random strings of letters).

The raw score is the number correct. Percentile scores and developmental benchmarks are also available.
This measure is used as an indicator of reading competence at kindergarten. 

 

Reliability of the Performance Level Score: Convincing Evidence

Type of Reliability Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient SEM Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range median
Alternate Form K 48 - 52 0.82 - 0.89 0.85 3.39 – 3.58 We conducted the reliability study in a mid-sized K-8 school in the Pacific Northwest in the spring of 2009. With 50% of the student body eligible for free or reduced-price meals, the school is comprised of 50% white, 16% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 2% Black, and 2% Native American students. In 2007, students at the participating school outperformed their peers in both the district and the state on the statewide reading assessment. 90% of third-grade students at the participating school tested proficient on the state reading test, compared to 84% for the district overall and 82% for the state. In fifth grade, 83% of students at the participating school scored proficient, compared to 63% for the district and 71% for the state. In eighth grade, 70% of students at the participating school tested proficient, compared to 66% for the district and 68% for the state (demographic information retrieved from www.schoolmatters.com on May 4, 2009).

Test
Re-test

K 48 - 52 0.64 - 0.68 0.66  

 

Reliability of the Slope: Convincing Evidence

Type of Reliability Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range median
HLM K 442 0.82 - 0.89 Reliability of slope for Total sample = 0.87 37% African American; 53% subsidized lunch; 9% learning disabilities; 7% ESL; Weekly assessments over 6 months (1117; mean=14)

 

Validity of the Performance Level Score: Convincing Evidence

Type of Validity Age or Grade n (range) Coefficient Test or Criterion Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range
Concurrent validity K 442 0.71 Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Word Identification 37% African American; 53% subsidized lunch; 9% learning disabilities; 7% ESL
Concurrent validity K 442 0.66 Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Word Attack See above.
Concurrent validity K 442 0.71 Weschler Individual Achievement Test- Spelling See above.
Predictive Validity K 442 0.61 Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Word Identification See above.
Predictive Validity K 442 0.69 Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Word Attack See above.
Predictive Validity K 442 0.61 Weschler Individual Achievement Test- Spelling See above.
Predictive Validity K 442 0.68 CBM-spring of K (0.54 spring of grade 1) See above.

 

Predictive Validity of the Slope of Improvement: Convincing Evidence

Type of Validity Age or Grade Test or Criterion n (range) Coefficient Information (including normative data)/Subjects
range median
Predictive validity K Iowa Test of Basic Skills, administered 1 year after progress monitoring ended 148 0.45-0.62 0.58 56% African American; 62% subsidized lunch; 11% learning disabilities Weekly assessments over 6 months (1117; mean=14)
Predictive validity K Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Profile, administered 3 years after progress monitoring ended 256 0.28-0.57 0.45 48% African American; 54% subsidized lunch; 8% learning disabilities. Based on weekly progress monitoring over 6 months (number of assessments: 9-16; mean=11)

 

Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data: Data Unavailable

Alternate Forms: Convincing Evidence

1. Evidence that alternate forms are of equal and controlled difficulty or, if IRT based, evidence of item or ability invariance:

For letter-sound fluency, each alternate form samples all 26 letters, displayed in random order with half the letters randomly selected to be capitalized. Alternate form reliability is 0.94.

2. Number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty:

For letter-sound fluency, there are 5 alternate forms (additional forms are not necessary because the test is just a random string of letters).

Sensitive to Student Improvement: Convincing Evidence

1. Describe evidence that the monitoring system produces data that are sensitive to student improvement (i.e., when student learning actually occurs, student performance on the monitoring tool increases on average).

Slopes on the progress-monitoring tool are significantly greater than zero; the slopes are significantly different for learning disabled vs. low-achieving vs. average-achieving vs. high-achieving students; and the slopes are greater when effective practices (e.g., peer-assisted learning strategies) are in place.

Please note that this evidence is direct, based on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading: Letter Sound Fluency. The pertinent references are: (1) Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., & O’Connor, R. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs?: A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251-267; (2) Fuchs, D., Saenz, L., McMaster, K., Yen, L., Taylor, K., Lemons, C., Fuchs, L., Compton, D.L., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Scaling-up Kindergarten Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: A Multi-Site Randomized Control Trial. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego; and (3) Stein, M.L., Berends, M., Fuchs, D., McMaster, K., Saenz, L., Yen, L., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2008). Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance across different sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyses, 30(4), 368-388.

Also, please note that we have direct evidence from randomized control trials that performance on these probes is sensitive to treatment effects (i.e., student learning), which are also revealed on other technically sound measures. The pertinent references are: (1) Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., & O’Connor, R. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs?: A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251-267; (2) Fuchs, D., Saenz, L., McMaster, K., Yen, L., Taylor, K., Lemons, C., Fuchs, L., Compton, D.L., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Scaling-up Kindergarten Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: A Multi-Site Randomized Control Trial. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego; and (3) Stein, M.L., Berends, M., Fuchs, D., McMaster, K., Saenz, L., Yen, L., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2008). Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance across different sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyses, 30(4), 368-388.

End-of-Year Benchmarks: Convincing Evidence

1. Are benchmarks for minimum acceptable end-of-year performance specified in your manual or published materials?

Yes (Note: These norms are based on academically representative samples).

a. Specify the end-of-year performance standards:

Normative Letter-Sound Fluency Data for RTI Decision Making at Kindergarten

Sample size Designating Risk Determining Response
Level 5-8 Week Slope Projected End-Year Benchmark Slope of Improvement
442 <10 <1.00 30 1.00

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable end-of-year performance:

Norm-referenced

c. Specify the benchmarks:

Normative Letter-Sound Fluency Data for RTI Decision Making at Kindergarten

Sample size Designating Risk Determining Response
Level 5-8 Week Slope Projected End-Year Benchmark Slope of Improvement
442 <10 <1.00 30 1.00

d. Basis for specifying these benchmarks?

Norm-referenced

Normative profile:

Representation: National
Date: 1990-2000
Number of States: 6
Size: 1,723
Gender: 49% Male, 51% Female
SES: 36% Low, 43% Middle, 21% High
Race/Ethnicity: 39% White, 36% Black, 25% Unknown
ELL: 12%
Disability classification: 7%

Rates of Improvement Specified: Convincing Evidence

1. Is minimum acceptable growth (slope of improvement or average weekly increase in score by grade level) specified in manual or published materials?

Yes (Note: These norms are based on academically representative samples). 

a. Specify the growth standards:

Normative Letter-Sound Fluency Data for RTI Decision Making at Kindergarten

Sample size Designating Risk Determining Response
Level 5-8 Week Slope Projected End-Year Benchmark Slope of Improvement
442 <10 <1.00 30 1.00

b. Basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth:

Norm-referenced

Normative profile:

Representation: National
Date: 1990-2000
Number of States: 6
Size: 1,723
Gender: 49% Male, 51% Female
SES: 36% Low, 43% Middle, 21% High
Race/Ethnicity: 39% White, 36% Black, 25% Unknown
ELL: 12%
Disability classification: 7%

Decision Rules for Changing Instruction: Data Unavailable

Decision Rules for Increasing Goals: Data Unavailable

Improved Student Achievement: Data Unavailable

Improved Teacher Planning Data Unavailable