Abstract
This review systematically identified and compared the technical adequacy (reliability and validity evidence) of reading curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tasks administered to students who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). This review included all available literature written in English. The nine studies identified used four CBM tasks: signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency, cloze (write in missing words given blank lines within a passage), and maze (circle the target word given multiple choice options within a passage). Data obtained from these measures were generally found to be internally consistent and stable with validity evidence varying across measures. Emerging evidence supports the utility of CBM for students who are DHH. Further empirical evidence is needed to continue to explore technical properties, identify if student scores are sensitive to growth over short periods of time, and examine whether CBM data can be used to inform instructional decision-making to improve student outcomes.
References
Nov 1, 1985·Exceptional Children·S L Deno
Feb 1, 1984·American Annals of the Deaf·L Kelly, C Ewoldt
Aug 1, 1980·American Annals of the Deaf·C LaSasso
Jan 18, 2007·American Annals of the Deaf·John L Luckner, Sandy Bowen
Jul 4, 2007·Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education·Susan R Easterbrooks, Sandra G Huston
Apr 28, 2012·Journal of Learning Disabilities·Lynn S Fuchs, Sharon Vaughn
Sep 18, 2012·American Annals of the Deaf·Karen I AppelmanDeborah S Stryker
Jul 19, 2013·American Annals of the Deaf·John L Luckner
Oct 27, 2015·American Annals of the Deaf·Stephanie Cawthon
Oct 19, 2017·Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education·Connie Mayer, Beverly J Trezek
Mar 8, 2018·Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education·Pamela Luft
Apr 10, 2019·Journal of School Psychology·Jaehyun Shin, Kristen McMaster
May 12, 2020·Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education·Elizabeth A LamKristen L McMaster