An Exploration of Alternative Scoring Methods Using Curriculum-Based Measurement in Early Writing

This manuscript describes two empirical studies of alternative scoring procedures used with curriculum-based measurement in writing (CBM-W). Study 1 explored the technical adequacy of a trait-based rubric in first grade. Study 2 explored the technical adequacy of a trait-based rubric, production-dep...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Learning disability quarterly 2018-05, Vol.41 (2), p.85-99
Main Authors: Allen, Abigail A., Poch, Apryl L., Lembke, Erica S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Achievement Gains
Achievement Tests
Alternative Assessment
Criterion Referenced Tests
Cues
Curricula
Curriculum Based Assessment
Early Childhood Education
Elementary education
Emergent Literacy
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Learning disabilities
Scoring
Scoring Rubrics
Statistical Analysis
Studies
Test Reliability
Writing
Writing ability
Writing Evaluation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This manuscript describes two empirical studies of alternative scoring procedures used with curriculum-based measurement in writing (CBM-W). Study 1 explored the technical adequacy of a trait-based rubric in first grade. Study 2 explored the technical adequacy of a trait-based rubric, production-dependent, and production-independent scores in third grade. Results of Study 1 suggest that the rubric holds promise as a valid measure of sentence writing ability in first grade and has utility as a supplemental scoring procedure when using CBM-W as a screening tool. Results of Study 2 show that correct word sequences maintained the highest correlation coefficients across time with the trait-based rubric, but the other scoring procedures might offer promise as reliable alternative scoring methods. However, high internal correlations among the text features of the rubric along with highly variable interrater reliability suggest that caution must be taken in interpreting results.
ISSN:0731-9487
2168-376X
DOI:10.1177/0731948717725490