Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading (CBM-R)

Area: Maze 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:
$25.00 for 30 probes per grade level, 30 word-count scoring sheets per grade level (grades 1-7), and manual.

$10.00 fee to make 1 copy 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 Maze Fluency, contact:

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

CBM-R Maze Fluency is a progress monitoring tool for individual or groups of students, based on Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM).

Students are presented with a grade-level passage from which every 7th word has been deleted, with three word-options for replacing each blank. Students have 2.5 minutes to read and restore meaning to the passage by replacing words. The primary score, which is graphed over time, represents the student’s overall reading competence at the relevant grade.

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.

30 alternate forms are available per grade level.

The raw score is the number of correct replacements. A ceiling of 3 consecutive errors is applied, and the score is corrected for guessing (correct-[incorrect/2]). Percentile scores and developmental benchmarks are also available.

This measure is recommended for use as an indicator of reading competence at grades 4-7.

 

Reliability of the Performance Level Score: Convincing Evidence

Type of Reliability

Grade

n (range)

Coefficient Range

Coefficient Median

SEM

Test-retest/alternate form

Grade 4

102

 

0.84

0.84

 

Test-retest/alternate form

Grade 5

 

  99

 

0.70

0.70

 

Test-retest/alternate form

Grade 6

 

126

 

0.89

 

0.89

 

 

Test-retest/alternate form

Grade 7

  54

0.82

 

0.82

 

 

Correlation between odd and even scores (internal consistency)

Grade 4

 

102

 

0.91

 

0.91

 

 

Correlation between odd and even scores (internal consistency)

Grade 5

 

  99

 

0.94

 

0.94

 

 

Correlation between odd and even scores (internal consistency)

Grade 6

126

0.92

0.92

 

Correlation between odd and even scores (internal consistency)

Grade 7

 

  54

0.97

0.97

 

Information (including normative data) / Subjects: 31% African American; 44% subsidized lunch; 6% learning disabilities 

Reliability of the Slope: Convincing Evidence

Type of Reliability

Age or Grade

n (range)

Coefficient Range

Coefficient Median

SEM

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

HLM

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

102

  99

126

  54

0.82

0.85

0.82

0.88

0.82

0.85

0.82

0.88

 

36% African American; 39% subsidized lunch; 8% learning disabilities

Weekly assessments over 6 months (15—20; mean=17)

 

Validity of the Performance Level Score: Convincing Evidence

 

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient Range

Coefficient Median

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

Criterion validity

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery: Word Read Correctly

102

  99

126

  54

0.84

0.71

0.88

0.91

0.84

0.71

0.88

0.91

36% African American; 39% subsidized lunch; primarily learning disabilities

Criterion validity

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery: Correct Questions

102

  99

126

  54

0.48

0.67

0.69

0.89

0.48

0.67

0.69

0.89

See above.

 

 

Predictive validity

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Stanford Achievement Test: Comprehension

102

  99

126

  54

0.63

0.81

0.69

0.91

0.63

0.81

0.69

0.91

See above.

 

Predictive Validity of the Slope of Improvement: Convincing Evidence

 

Type of Validity

Age or Grade

Test or Criterion

n (range)

Coefficient Range

Coefficient Median

Information (including normative data) / Subjects

Criterion validity

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Passage Comprehension, concurrent with end of progress monitoring

59

58

55

62

 

0.44

0.52

0.51

0.63

0.44

0.52

0.51

0.63

62% African American; 66% subsidized lunch; 5% leaning disabilities

Weekly assessments over 6 months (15—20; mean=17)

Criterion validity

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Profile, concurrent with end of progress monitoring

59

58

55

62

0.58

0.59

0.58

0.64

0.58

0.59

0.58

0.64

55% African American; 51% subsidized lunch; 7% leaning disabilities

Weekly assessments over 6 months (15—20; mean=17)

 

Disaggregated Reliability and Validity Data: Data Unavailable

Alternate Forms: Convincing Evidence

Provide evidence that alternate forms are of equal and controlled difficulty or, if IRT based, provide evidence of item or ability invariance (attach documentation of direct evidence).

At each grade level, each alternate form was designed to be of equivalent difficulty as follows.

Passage reading fluency and maze fluency rely on the same set of passages. Passages were written to ensure readability within 1 grade level of the designated grade level. To develop the mazes, every seventh word was deleted (proper nouns were not skipped). Two distractors for each blank were developed so that they were not semantically viable; they were either the same number of letters of the correct replacement or +/- 1 letter; and they were not acoustically or visually confusing with the correct replacement. A series of 3 proof readers ensured adherence to this scheme. The correct replacement and the 2 distractors for each blank were randomly ordered. For maze reading fluency, alternate-form/test-retest reliability is 0.94 for a sample of students with disabilities and 0.96 for a sample of students without disabilities. Respective coefficients are 0.94 and 0.90 at grade 4; 0.93 and 0.92 (grade 5); 0.96 and 0.89 (grade 6); and 0.84 and 0.91 at grade 7.

In addition, across published studies and available databases, Fuchs and colleagues, in their program of research, administered a larger set of 40 probes per grade level to more than 1,000 students every week. Using these databases, they eliminated passages for which scores exceeded the student’s standard error of estimate for more than > 25% of students to derive a final set of 30 passages at each grade level. This was done separately at each grade level.

What is the number of alternate forms of equal and controlled difficulty? 30

Sensitive to Student Improvement: Convincing Evidence

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. Also, slopes are significantly greater than zero at grades 4, 5, 6, and 7. Please note that this evidence is direct, based on Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading: Maze Fluency. The pertinent references are: (1) 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; (2) Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to student diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174-206; and (3) Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45-58.

Also, please note that we have direct evidence from a randomized control trial that performance on these probes is sensitive to treatment effects (i.e., student learning), which are also revealed on other technically sound measures. RCT results hold separately by grade (4, 5, 6, and 7). The pertinent reference is: Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Ferguson, C. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436-450.

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 Maze Fluency Data for RTI Decision Making

Sample size Designating Risk Determining Response
Level 5-8 Week Slope Projected End-Year Benchmark Slope of Improvement
Grade 1: not recommended for RTI at first grade
Grade 2: not recommended for RTI at second grade
Grade 3: not recommended for RTI at third grade
Grade 4: 326 <10 <0.25 25 0.25
Grade 5: 179 <15 <0.25 25 0.25
Grade 6: 247 <20 <0.25 25 0.25
Grade 7: 136 <25 <0.25 25 0.25

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

Norm-referenced

c. Specify the benchmarks:

Normative Maze Fluency Data for RTI Decision Making

Sample size Designating Risk Determining Response
Level 5-8 Week Slope Projected End-Year Benchmark Slope of Improvement
Grade 1: not recommended for RTI at first grade
Grade 2: not recommended for RTI at second grade
Grade 3: not recommended for RTI at third grade
Grade 4: 326 <10 <0.25 25 0.25
Grade 5: 179 <15 <0.25 25 0.25
Grade 6: 247 <20 <0.25 25 0.25
Grade 7: 136 <25 <0.25 25 0.25

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 Maze Fluency Data for RTI Decision Making

Sample size Designating Risk Determining Response
Level 5-8 Week Slope Projected End-Year Benchmark Slope of Improvement
Grade 1: not recommended for RTI at first grade
Grade 2: not recommended for RTI at second grade
Grade 3: not recommended for RTI at third grade
Grade 4: 326 <10 <0.25 25 0.25
Grade 5: 179 <15 <0.25 25 0.25
Grade 6: 247 <20 <0.25 25 0.25
Grade 7: 136 <25 <0.25 25 0.25

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