Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Technical Features of Curriculum-

Based Measures for Beginning
Writers
Anna-Lind Pétursdóttir

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

T ECHNICAL REPORT #7: Technical Feat ures of New and Exist ing CBM Writ ing Measures Wit hi…
Krist en McMast er

T ECHNICAL REPORT #25: Monit oring Progress of Beginning Writ ers: Technical Feat ures of t he Slope
Seungsoo Yeo

Det ermining an Inst ruct ional Level for Early Writ ing Skills
Mat t hew Burns
 Journal of Learning Disabilities
http://ldx.sagepub.com

Technical Features of Curriculum-Based Measures for Beginning Writers

Kristen L. McMaster, Xiaoqing Du and Anna-Lind Pétursdóttir
J Learn Disabil 2009; 42; 41
DOI: 10.1177/0022219408326212

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/1/41

Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Learning Disabilities can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010

 Journal of Learning Disabilities
Volume 42 Number 1
January/February 2009 41-60

Technical Features of Curriculum-Based © 2009 Hammill Institute

on Disabilities
10.1177/0022219408326212

Measures for Beginning Writers http://journaloflearningdisabilities

.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Kristen L. McMaster
Xiaoqing Du
University of Minnesota
Anna-Lind Pétursdóttir
University of Iceland

The purpose of the two studies reported in this article was to examine technical features of curriculum-based measures for
beginning writers. In Study 1, 50 first graders responded to word copying, sentence copying, and story prompts. In Study
2, 50 additional first graders responded to letter, picture-word, picture-theme, and photo prompts. In both studies, 3- to
5-minute prompts were administered in winter and spring and scored using a variety of quantitative procedures. Students
were also administered the Test of Written Language–Third Edition, and teacher ratings and scores on a district rubric for
writing were collected. Test-retest (Study 1 only) and alternate-form reliability, criterion validity, and winter-to-spring
growth were examined for each measure. Sentence-copying, story, picture-word, and photo prompts emerged as promising
beginning-writing measures. Findings have implications for monitoring student progress within a seamless and flexible sys-
tem across ages and skill levels.

Keywords: curriculum-based measures; written language; elementary age

W hen the National Assessment of Educational

Progress writing results were reported in 2002,
72% of 4th graders, 69% of 8th graders, and 77% of 12th
graders were performing below a proficient level
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). These
results were followed by the release of a report by the
National Commission on Writing (2003): The Neglected
“R”: The Need for a Writing Revolution. This report set
a national agenda that called for every state to develop
comprehensive writing standards, to teach writing in all
subjects at all grades, and to align writing standards and
instruction with best practices in writing assessment.
This national agenda is consistent with current policies
that emphasize standards and accountability (No Child
Left Behind Act, 2002). In response, many states have
included written composition on high-stakes tests
(Berninger et al., 2006).
In addition, schools are becoming increasingly sensi-
tive to the consequences of “wait-to-fail” models of iden-
tification of students with learning disabilities (LD).
Since the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, which allows local education
agencies to use response to intervention (RTI) to identify
students with LD (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act, 2004), many schools and
districts have been searching for ways to identify stu-
dents at risk of academic failure, to provide early inter-
vention to increase those students’ likelihood of meeting
state standards, and to identify those most in need of spe-
cial education services. Whereas much of the focus thus
far has been on reading, schools are increasingly turning
their attention toward writing (Berninger, Vaughan, et al.,
2002; Graham & Perin, 2007).
The increased attention on writing not only reflects the
national writing agenda described above but also is evi-
dence of the persistence of writing difficulties that go
untreated. Writing is one of the most common difficulties
experienced by students with LD (Graham & Harris, 2005;
Graham, Harris, & Larsen, 2001), but these difficulties
Authors’ Note: This research was supported in part by Grant #
H324H030003 to the Institute on Community Integration and
Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education and
Human Development, University of Minnesota, by the Office of
Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The
article does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the fund-
ing agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The
authors thank Stan Deno for his contributions to the development of
the measures reported in this article, as well as Troy Ellis, Becca
Pierce, Beth Zukowski, and Seungsoo Yeo for their assistance with
scoring and data entry.

Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010 41

42 Journal of Learning Disabilities
often go undetected until late elementary or intermediate
grades. Early identification and intervention of students at
risk of writing difficulties could prevent long-term prob-
lems for many of these students (Berninger, Nielsen,
Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008; Berninger et al.,
2006). For others, ongoing intervention will also be
required to address serious writing difficulties throughout
school (Berninger et al., 2008).
To document student progress toward rigorous stan-
dards and inform instruction aimed at improving students’
writing proficiency, a technically sound progress-monitoring
system is needed. Such a system should be useful for iden-
tifying students at risk for writing-related LD, as well as
for monitoring the progress of students receiving early or
ongoing writing intervention. Furthermore, if writing is
to be required “in every curriculum area and at all grade
levels . . . from the earliest years through secondary school”
(National Commission on Writing, 2003, p. 5), an ideal
progress-monitoring system would have the capacity to be
used with students across ages and skill levels, as well as
across settings and curricula. Wallace, Espin, McMaster,
Deno, and Foegen (2007) have described such a system as
seamless and flexible.
Curriculum-based measurement (CBM; Deno, 1985) is
one approach that provides a useful framework for moni-
toring progress in a seamless and flexible system (Wallace
et al., 2007). CBM has the capacity to provide reliable and
valid indicators of student performance in core content
areas across a wide range of grade levels (Marston, 1989;
for reviews, see also Foegen, Jiban, & Deno, 2007;
McMaster & Espin, 2007; Wayman, Wallace, Wiley, Ticha,
& Espin, 2007). In the area of writing, researchers have
developed and tested CBM at upper elementary and sec-
ondary levels; however, few have examined the extent to
which CBM in writing (CBM-W) can be used in the early
elementary grades. We briefly review this research below.
Research on CBM-W
CBM-W was first developed at the Institute for
Research on Learning Disabilities (IRLD) at the
University of Minnesota. Researchers demonstrated that
simple, countable indices obtained from brief writing
samples were reliable (rs = .50–.96; Marston & Deno,
1981; Tindal, Marston, & Deno, 1983) and valid (rs =
.67–.88; Deno, Mirkin, & Marston, 1982; Videen, Deno,
& Marston, 1982) indicators of writing proficiency for
third to fifth graders. Indices included number of words
written (WW), words spelled correctly (WSC), and cor-
rect word sequences (CWS) when students responded to
writing prompts for 3 to 5 minutes. The measures were
also sensitive to growth (Marston, Deno, & Tindal, 1983).
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
Since the IRLD, researchers have continued to examine
CBM-W (see McMaster & Espin, 2007, for a review).
For elementary students, criterion-validity coefficients
have ranged from rs = –.02 to .63 (Gansle, Noell,
VanDerHeyden, Naquin, & Slider, 2002; Jewell & Malecki,
2005; Parker, Tindal, & Hasbrouk, 1991; Tindal & Parker,
1991) and alternate-form reliability from rs = .006 to .62
(Gansle et al., 2004). At the secondary level, researchers
have found correct minus incorrect word sequences (CIWS;
Espin et al., 2000) to be more appropriate indices than WW
or WSC, and 7- to 10-minute samples to produce more reli-
able and valid scores than 3- to 5-minute samples (Espin,
De La Paz, Scierka, & Roelofs, 2005).
Researchers have also examined the extent to which
CBM-W measures can be used across elementary and
secondary grades. For example, Malecki and Jewell
(2003) collected writing samples of first through eighth
graders in fall and spring. Samples were scored using
WW, WSC, CWS, CIWS, %WSC, and %CWS. Across
grades, girls outperformed boys on all scoring indices,
and students at higher grades outperformed students at
lower grades. WW, WSC, CWS, and CIWS showed stu-
dent growth from fall to spring. In another cross-grade
study, McMaster and Campbell (in press) compared nar-
rative, expository, and passage-copying prompts for third,
fifth, and seventh graders. Five-minute narrative prompts
scored for CWS or CIWS yielded reliability coefficients
of r = .71 to .90 and validity coefficients of r = .56 to .71
at each grade, suggesting that narrative prompts could be
used across grade levels. However, different measures
had stronger technical characteristics within each grade:
Photo prompts appeared more appropriate for third
graders, and narrative and expository prompts appeared
more appropriate for fifth and seventh graders.
Whereas the above studies provide evidence of which
types of CBM-W measures may be used across grades,
few researchers have examined whether these measures
are appropriate for beginning writers. Those who have
included young writers found relatively weak stability
coefficients for first graders (rs = .20–.47; Deno,
Marston, et al., 1982), found weak to moderate criterion
validity for second graders (rs = .34–.60; Jewell &
Malecki, 2005; Parker et al., 1991), or did not include
reliability and validity data for beginning writers
(Malecki & Jewell, 2003). Because it is not clear
whether the types of CBM-W measures used with upper
elementary and secondary students are appropriate for
beginning writers, several researchers have begun to
examine other types of progress measures for this group.
VanDerHeyden, Witt, Naquin, and Noell (2001) used
a letter-copying task with 107 kindergartners. Alternate-
form reliability was r = .68. Correlations with the onset

recognition subtest of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (Good & Kaminski, 1996) and the
Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills–Revised
(Brigance, 1999) ranged from r = .21 to .59. Lembke,
Deno, and Hall (2003) administered copying and dicta-
tion tasks to 15 at-risk second graders. Each measure
was scored for WW, WSC, CWS, and correct letter
sequences (CLS), then correlated with “atomistic” (aver-
age WW, WSC, CWS, and CIWS obtained from writing
samples) and “holistic” (teachers’ global ratings of writ-
ing samples) variables. Correlations between word-
copying and atomistic variables ranged from r = .10 to
.69. Correlations between word-dictation scores and
average CIWS ranged from r = .52 to .92. Correlations
between WSC and CWS on the sentence-copying task
and average WW and WSC ranged from r = .74 to .79.
Sentence-dictation scores had a wide range of correla-
tions with atomistic variables (rs = .39–.92).
Ritchey (2006) administered letter writing and sound
spelling (scored for number of legible letters) and real and
nonword spelling (scored for CLS) to 60 kindergartners.
Interrater, internal, and alternate-form reliabilities were
above r = .80. Criterion validity ranged from r = .50 to .70
with the Test of Early Reading Ability (Reid, Hresko, &
Hammill, 2001), Comprehensive Test of Phonological
Processing (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999), Letter
Name Fluency, Letter Sound Fluency, and Woodcock
Reading Mastery Test Word Identification (Woodcock,
1998). Of the students, 85% demonstrated growth on the
measures across 8 weeks.
Extending CBM-W Research for
Beginning Writers
The above research suggests that copying, dictation,
letter and sound writing, and spelling tasks are promis-
ing indices of beginning writing. This work needs to be
replicated and extended to larger samples of beginning
writers, including first graders. In addition, it is impor-
tant to examine how well these measures relate to other
measures of writing, including standardized tests, and
whether they are useful for monitoring growth over time.
Finally, to develop a seamless and flexible system of
progress monitoring that can be used with students
across ages and skill levels (Wallace et al., 2007),
researchers must determine to what extent measures that
are useful for upper elementary students can be extended
to early-elementary students and at what point (or for
what purposes) different measures are more appropriate.
The purpose of the studies reported in this article was
to examine technical features of CBM-W by (a) extending
existing measures that have shown promise for upper
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
McMaster et al. / Curriculum-Based Measures 43
elementary students downward to first grade, (b) examin-
ing a subset of measures that appeared promising based on
the work of researchers who have begun to develop begin-
ning-writing measures (e.g., Lembke et al., 2003), and (c)
developing new measures. We examined three primary
features of CBM-W: type of writing task, sample duration,
and scoring procedures.
Type of writing task. With the aim of contributing to a
seamless and flexible progress-monitoring system
(Wallace et al., 2007), we examined whether writing
tasks that have shown promise for older students (i.e.,
narrative and picture prompts) could be extended down-
ward to beginning writers. In addition, given that story
and picture prompts have yielded modest reliability and
validity coefficients compared with other types of CBM
measures (e.g., reading), especially for beginning writers
(e.g., Deno, Marston, et al., 1982), we wondered whether
there were other ways to obtain simple, efficient mea-
sures for monitoring first graders’ writing.
Our selection of new tasks was guided, in part, by a
theoretical model of developmental constraints on writ-
ing acquisition (Berninger et al., 1992; see also
Berninger, 2000; Berninger, Vaughan, et al., 2002).
According to this model, three levels of constraints (neu-
rodevelopmental, linguistic, and cognitive) must be con-
sidered to understand how writing skills develop. At the
first level, neurodevelopmental skills controlling the
speed and automaticity with which students integrate let-
ter forms in memory with motor production (e.g., hand-
writing) may influence their capacity for higher level
processing (Berninger et al., 1992). If lower order skills
involved in transcription have an impact on higher order
writing processes, perhaps a task involving such tran-
scription processes could serve as a general indicator of
beginning writers’ overall writing proficiency.
Indeed, researchers have found that transcription skills
are strongly related to writing composition (e.g., Berninger,
2000; Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, Graham, & Richards,
2002; Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, & Whitaker,
1997; Graham, Harris, & Fink, 2000; Graham, Harris, &
Chorzempa, 2002; Jones & Christenson, 1999). One way to
capture these skills is with copying tasks. Graham,
Berninger, Weintraub, and Schafer (1998) found that copy-
ing tasks discriminate across a wide age range (Grades 1–9)
in terms of handwriting speed and legibility. In terms of
overall writing skill, McMaster and Campbell (in press)
found that copying tasks designed for progress monitoring
can provide reliable and valid indices of third graders’ writ-
ing proficiency. Given evidence that transcription skills
involved in copying relate strongly to writing and that copy-
ing tasks may show promise for progress monitoring of
44 Journal of Learning Disabilities
older elementary students, we included copying as one pos-
sible approach for monitoring first graders’ writing.
In addition to copying, we developed several new tasks,
in part because we were concerned about the “face validity”
of the copying tasks. Teachers who collaborated with us on
this project inspected the copying tasks and considered
them to be pure handwriting measures and found it difficult
to accept the theoretical rationale described above. Yet the
teachers viewed story and picture prompts as too difficult
for many first graders who struggle to generate their own
stories. We reasoned that to be useful progress-monitoring
tools, teachers must be willing to use them. Also, both
Lembke et al. (2003) and Ritchey (2006) have demon-
strated that spelling tasks are promising for beginning writ-
ers; yet we wished to avoid problems with standardization
that might arise from requiring the examiner to dictate
sounds or words to students.
Thus, we developed new measures that required stu-
dents to generate their own words and sentences, but we
provided some scaffolding by creating more simple tasks
(e.g., writing words or sentences rather than entire pas-
sages) with additional prompts (including letters, words,
and pictures) intended to help young writers generate
words and ideas to include in their writing. New mea-
sures included letter prompts (to elicit word writing),
picture-word prompts (to elicit sentence writing), and
picture-theme prompts (to elicit story writing).
Sample duration. A second feature that we examined
was sample duration. To be consistent with previous
research with beginning writers (Lembke et al., 2003)
and older elementary students (e.g., Deno, Mirkin, et al.,
1982; McMaster & Campbell, in press), we examined
3- and 5-minute samples.
Scoring procedures. WW, WSC, and CWS are the most
commonly used scoring procedures for elementary stu-
dents. More complex scores, such as CIWS, appear to have
stronger reliability and validity for older elementary and
secondary students (Espin, Scierka, Skare, & Halverson,
1999; Espin et al., 2000; McMaster & Campbell, in press).
Researchers who have examined measures for beginning
writers have also included CLS (e.g., Lembke et al., 2003;
Ritchey, 2006), which might be more sensitive to small
changes in young students’ writing. In the present studies,
we applied each of the above scoring procedures to each
task for which they were appropriate (i.e., for word-writing
tasks, CWS and CIWS were not scored).
Research questions. In Study 1, we examined word- and
sentence-copying tasks previously developed for beginning
writers (Lembke et al., 2003). These were compared to
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
story prompts that have been used with older students
(McMaster & Campbell, in press). In Study 2, we exam-
ined new tasks including letter prompts, picture-word
prompts, and picture-theme prompts. These were com-
pared with photo prompts that have been used with older
students (McMaster & Campbell, 2007). Research ques-
tions included the following: (a) Which measures (in terms
of writing task, time, and scoring procedure) have suffi-
cient alternate-form reliability? (b) Which measures have
sufficient test-retest reliability (Study 1 only)? (c) Which
measures have sufficient criterion validity for assessing
student writing performance? (d) Which measures show
growth over time?
Method
Setting and Participants
The two studies took place in an elementary school
serving kindergartners through fourth graders in a large
Midwestern metropolitan school district. The school
served approximately 608 students. Of these students, 43%
were from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds,
19% received free or reduced lunch, 6% received special
education services, and 7% received English Language
Learner (ELL) services. Participants were students in four
first-grade combined classrooms. Informed written
parental consent and student assent were obtained from
100 students to participate. Of the 100 participants, 25.8%
were from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds,
17.6% received free or reduced lunch, 5.1% received spe-
cial education services, and 7.8% received ELL services.
Twenty-six were in Classroom 1, 24 in Classroom 2, 23 in
Classroom 3, and 27 in Classroom 4.
CBM
The writing tasks were developed through a process of
generating ideas, searching for materials, conducting pilot
tests with first-grade students from other schools, soliciting
teachers’ suggestions, and modifying prompts. To be con-
sistent with previous CBM research and development, we
maintained the principle that the measures to be used should
be simple in form and easy to administer and score. Study
1 included three tasks: word copying, sentence copying, and
story prompts. Each task had two alternate forms, and each
form was administered twice (for test-retest reliability).
Study 2 included four tasks: letter prompts, picture-word
prompts, picture-theme prompts, and photo prompts.
Word copying. Word copying was modeled after the
word-copying task developed by Lembke et al. (2003).

Figure 1
Sample Word-Copying Prompt
Both forms consisted of four pages (see Figure 1 for an
example). On the first page, two words were listed in the
first row as examples for students to practice. Below the
sample words and on subsequent pages, words were
printed in two columns. Under each word were lines on
which the students were to copy the word. These lines
were similar to lines used on writing paper in the first-
grade curriculum (i.e., two solid lines, 0.16 mm apart, sep-
arated with a dashed line to provide a guide for the
position of the letters to be written). Words were drawn
from the Houghton Mifflin curriculum (Cooper &
Pikulski, 2005) that was used in participating classrooms.
The curriculum includes high-frequency words that stu-
dents are to master by the end of first grade. For both
probes, words were randomly selected from the entire list.
Participants were instructed to practice copying two
sample words (e.g., cat and dog) listed at the top of the
first page. Then, they were told to copy the words from
left to right across the page. After 3 minutes, the examiner
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
McMaster et al. / Curriculum-Based Measures 45
instructed students to stop and raise their pencils in the air
to confirm that all students did indeed stop writing.
Students were instructed to circle the last letter they
copied and then to continue writing. They were stopped
again after 5 minutes.
Sentence copying. Sentence copying was modeled
after the sentence-copying task developed by Lembke
et al. (2003). Both forms consisted of packets of five
pages, with three sentences on each page (see Figure 2).
On the first page, one example sentence was included
for practice. Under each sentence were two sets of lines
(again modeled after writing paper used in the first-
grade curriculum) on which the students were to copy
the sentence. Sentences were selected randomly from
the Houghton Mifflin curriculum (Cooper & Pikulski,
2005) and included simple statements such as, “We
have four hats,” and simple questions such as, “What
can I do?”
46 Journal of Learning Disabilities
Figure 2
Sample Sentence-Copying Prompt
Participants were instructed to practice copying the
example sentence at the top of the first page (e.g., “We
have one cat”). Then, they were told to copy the remain-
ing sentences. The examiner instructed participants to
stop after 3 minutes, raise their pencils in the air (again,
to confirm that everyone had stopped), and circle the last
letter they copied. Students were then instructed to con-
tinue writing and were stopped again after 5 minutes.
Story prompts. Each student responded to two alter-
nate story-prompt forms. Story prompts were developed
for use in a previous writing study with older students
(McMaster & Campbell, in press). The prompts were
intended to reflect experiences to which any student
attending a U.S. public school would be able to relate, to
have relatively simple vocabulary and sentence structure,
and to be appropriate for students representing a wide
range of ages and skill levels, as well as ELLs, students
who are deaf or hard of hearing, and students with other
language difficulties. Prompt 1 read, “On my way home
from school, a very exciting thing happened. . . .” Prompt
2 read, “One day, we were playing outside the school
and . . . .”
Each prompt was printed at the top of a sheet of paper,
followed by lines printed on the same sheet. Students
were given extra sheets of lined paper in case their writ-
ing took more than one page. The examiner provided
participants with 30 seconds to think about what they
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
would write, then instructed them to write as much as
they could in response to the prompt in 5 minutes.
Students were told to stop after 3 minutes, raise their
pencils in the air, circle the last letter they had written,
and then to continue writing until 5 minutes had passed.
Letter prompts. Three alternate forms of the letter
prompts were administered. Each form contained four
pages with 54 letters total (see Figure 3). The letters were
randomly selected from all letters in the alphabet except
q, x, y, and z because they are used infrequently by first
graders (however, these letters were used as sample
items). Under each letter were lines on which the stu-
dents were to write words beginning with that letter. At
the top of the first page, one letter was printed for partic-
ipants to practice with the examiner. The student was
instructed to use the letters provided to write words. For
example, under the practice letter y, participants were
instructed to write a word starting with y, such as yes.
After providing students with practice, the examiner
instructed the students to write as many words as they
could that started with the letters provided. After 3 min-
utes, the examiner instructed participants to stop and
raise their pencils in the air. When all students had
stopped, the examiner instructed students to circle
the last letter they had written. Students were then
instructed to continue writing and were stopped again
after 5 minutes.

Figure 3
Sample Letter Prompt
Picture-word prompts. Three alternate forms of picture-
word prompts were administered. These prompts con-
sisted of words with a picture above each word (see Figure
4). The examiner read each word aloud to the students
before they completed the prompt. The pictures served as
a reminder of the word to control for reading difficulties.
Each form contained 15 words and pictures on five pages.
We chose 45 nouns and adjectives from the high-frequency
word bank from the Houghton Mifflin curriculum
(Cooper & Pikulski, 2005) because these words could be
depicted clearly with pictures. The pictures came from
Microsoft Clip Art and researcher-drawn pictures.
Before the task began, the examiner drew a picture
(e.g., tree, sun, or sock) on the blackboard and wrote the
name of the object underneath. Then, the examiner asked
the participants to generate sentences with the word and
picture. The examiner wrote the sentence examples on
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
McMaster et al. / Curriculum-Based Measures 47
the board. For example, the word tree could elicit the
sentence, “I saw a tree.” After providing students with
practice, the examiner instructed the students to write as
many sentences as they could that included the words or
pictures provided. After 3 minutes, the participants were
instructed to stop, raise their pencils in the air, circle the
last letter they had written, and then continue writing
until 5 minutes had passed.
Picture-theme prompts. Picture-theme prompts
included three prompts with the following themes that
we identified (with participating teachers’ help) as famil-
iar to most first graders attending U.S. public schools:
birthday party, snow, and school. These prompts also
used high-frequency words from Houghton Mifflin
(Cooper & Pikulski 2005). Each theme contained four
pictures with one related word underneath each picture
48 Journal of Learning Disabilities
Figure 4
Sample Picture-Word Prompt
(see Figure 5). For example, the birthday-party theme
had pictures of cake, friends, home, and birthday balloon
with the corresponding word printed under each picture.
The pictures came from Microsoft Clip Art and
researcher-drawn pictures.
Each picture-theme prompt was printed at the top of
the first page with lines printed below the prompt.
Additional lined sheets were provided in case they were
needed. Before the task, the examiner first instructed the
participants to identify the four pictures provided, then
asked the participants to write a story based on the
theme. After 3 minutes, the examiner instructed partici-
pants to stop and raise their pencils in the air, circle the
last letter they had written, and then continue writing
until 5 minutes had passed.
Photo prompts. Students responded to three alternate
photo prompts, two of which were developed for use in a
previous writing study with older students (McMaster &
Campbell, in press) and a third developed for this study.
The prompts were intended to reflect experiences that any
student attending a U.S. public school would likely be
able to relate to. Prompt 1 was a picture of students board-
ing a bus outside of a school. Prompt 2 was a picture of
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
students playing ball outside of a school. Prompt 3 was a
picture of kids playing on a playground in the wintertime.
Each prompt was printed in color on a separate sheet of
paper.
Students were provided with lined sheets of paper.
The examiner provided participants with 30 seconds to
think about what they would write, then instructed them
to write as much as they could in response to the prompt
in 5 minutes. The students were told to stop after 3 min-
utes, raise their pencils in the air, circle the last letter
written, and then continue writing for 5 minutes.
Scoring Procedures
For both Studies 1 and 2, each writing sample was
scored using procedures selected based on those that
have shown promise in previous progress-monitoring
studies focusing on written expression for older students:
1. WW: The total number of words written. Word
was defined as at least two letters written in
sequence, with the exception of single-letter
words such as I and a, which were counted as
words (Deno, Mirkin, & Marston, 1980).

Figure 5
Sample Picture-Theme Prompt
2. WSC: Words spelled correctly in the context of
the sentence.
3. CWS (Videen et al., 1982): Any two adjacent,
correctly spelled words that are syntactically and
semantically correct within the context of the
sample. (Note: this procedure was not applied to
the word-copying or letter prompts.)
4. CIWS (Espin et al., 1999). (Note: this procedure
was not applied to the word-copying or letter
prompts.)
5. CLS (Deno et al., 1980): Any two adjacent letters
that are correct according to the spelling of the
word.
Criterion Variables
Classroom writing performance. Two measures were
used to assess students’ writing performance in the class-
room. First, teachers were asked to rate each student’s
writing skills on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = lower
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
McMaster et al. / Curriculum-Based Measures 49
performing; 4 = higher performing). The teachers were
encouraged to use the full range of ratings to describe
their students. Second, students’ grades in writing were
obtained from district records. Grades were obtained
for the second, third, and fourth grading quarters, as
these were the closest points in time to the CBM data-
collection periods. The rubric teachers used was pro-
vided by the school district and included seven
standards: (a) using a process for writing, (b) writing for
a variety of purposes, (c) organizing writing appropri-
ately with topics and details, (d) using beginning knowl-
edge of capitalization and punctuation, (e) spelling
grade-appropriate words correctly, (f) locating and using
information, and (g) forming letters correctly. Each stan-
dard was rated based on a 4-point rubric (1 = needs con-
tinuous teacher support; 2 = approaching standard; 3 =
at standard; 4 = above standard).
Test of Written Language–Third Edition (TOWL-3).
The TOWL-3 (Hammill & Larsen, 1996) is a compre-
hensive test of written language designed for students
50 Journal of Learning Disabilities
from 7 years to 17 years 11 months of age. The
Spontaneous Writing subtest of the TOWL-3 (Form B)
was group administered to all participants. Students were
presented with a picture depicting a futuristic scene of
astronauts, spaceships, and construction activity.
Students were told to think of a story about the picture.
They were encouraged to plan their story and then to
write as much as they could in 15 minutes. Writing sam-
ples were scored based on Contextual Conventions
(including capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and
other such elements), Contextual Language (including
quality of vocabulary, sentence construction, and gram-
mar), and Story Construction (including quality of plot,
prose, character development, interest, and other compo-
sitional elements). Alternate-form reliabilities for the
Spontaneous Writing subtests for 7-year-olds range from
r = .60 to .87. The average validity correlation between
Spontaneous Writing and the Writing Scale of the
Comprehensive Scales of Student Abilities (Hammill &
Hresko, 1994) is reported as .50.
Procedures
CBM administration. CBM-W tasks were first admin-
istered in February to March 2006. Two graduate
research assistants (GRAs) group administered each
task. In Study 1, three tasks were administered in 12 ses-
sions in each of the two classes across 2 weeks. Each
task included two forms. Each session contained one
form of two different tasks. Each form of each task was
administered twice. In Study 2, four tasks were adminis-
tered in 12 sessions in each of the two classes across 2
weeks. Each task included three forms. Each session
contained one form of two different tasks. Each form of
each task was administered once.
The progress-monitoring measures were administered
again in May 2006. Two GRAs administered measures to
the same first-grade participants. To avoid confounds
such as test fatigue and attention problems anticipated by
the teachers (it was the end of the year and limited time
was available), each measure was reduced to a single
form. Form B of the TOWL-3 was also administered. In
Study 1, three measures plus the TOWL-3 were admin-
istered in two sessions in each of the two classes within
1 week. In Study 2, four measures plus the TOWL-3
were administered in three sessions in each of the two
classes within 1 week.
Scoring and reliability. Scorers included the first
author and four GRAs. GRAs were all doctoral students
in special education. The first author and two GRAs, all
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
of whom had completed extensive scoring using the
above procedures on writing samples of older students,
met during five 1-hour sessions. During these sessions,
scoring procedures used in previous CBM writing
research with older students were applied to the first-
grade writing samples and revised to better fit the nature
of the new tasks and the writing of the younger students.
Following these sessions, each scorer scored one com-
plete set of writing responses (we all scored the same
student’s writing) and then compared scores. Differences
in scoring or questions regarding scoring were discussed
and resolved. When a final set of scoring procedures was
agreed on, each scorer then scored an additional writing
packet (which included all tasks produced by one stu-
dent) on his or her own. The second author (who served
as the “expert” scorer) then compared each GRA’s scores
with her own and calculated the percentage of agreement
for each scoring procedure, using a point-by-point agree-
ment method. If a GRA scored less than 80% on any
scoring procedure, she was asked to meet with the expert
for further training, and the interrater agreement proce-
dure was repeated. Once 80% agreement was met for
each scoring procedure, the GRA was given additional
writing samples to score. During this process, one GRA
graduated and was replaced by two new GRAs who were
trained on the final agreed-on scoring procedures and
underwent the interrater agreement procedures described
above.
To maintain at least 80% agreement, frequent discus-
sions were held regarding any unexpected scoring issues
during the scoring process. For each GRA, the second
author selected randomly 1 out of every 10 packets,
scored them independently, and compared her scores to
the GRA’s scores. If the agreement for each scoring pro-
cedure was not at least 80%, the second author and GRA
met to discuss the discrepancy. If there were only a few
discrepancies, the two came to agreement on the correct
score, and the GRA continued scoring. If there were sev-
eral discrepancies, the entire packet was rescored, and
the GRA had to reach 80% reliability with the expert
again to continue scoring. Average interscorer agreement
ranged from 93% to 100%, with lower agreement on
more complex scoring procedures (CWS and CIWS).
Training and interrater agreement procedures were
also conducted to score the TOWL-3 Spontaneous
Writing samples. The first author and two graduate stu-
dents in educational psychology who had experience
scoring the TOWL-3 met for 1 hour to review and prac-
tice scoring procedures. One of the graduate students
(an experienced special education teacher and doctoral
student) then scored all of the students’ responses. The

second graduate student (a school psychology student)
randomly selected and scored 10% of the responses.
Interrater agreement was calculated on these 10%, using
a point-by-point method. The number of agreements was
divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements
and multiplied by 100 to obtain percentage of agreement.
All discrepancies in scoring were identified and dis-
cussed, and items were rescored if necessary. Interrater
agreement scores were above 90% for all variables.
Data analysis. All data were analyzed using SPSS
13.0. We began by examining distributions of each writ-
ing task, scoring procedure, and duration. Descriptive
data for both Study 1 and Study 2 in February and May
were computed for each measure, including means, stan-
dard deviations, range, skewness, and kurtosis.
Descriptive data were also computed for the TOWL-3.
Measures with relatively normal distributions (i.e., skew-
ness and kurtosis were less than the absolute value of
2.58, which is acceptable for small samples) were exam-
ined to determine which had sufficient alternate-form
reliability (sufficient is defined in the Results section) by
calculating Pearson’s r correlation coefficients between
forms. Those with sufficient reliability were then exam-
ined to determine which had sufficient criterion validity
(also defined in the Results section) by calculating
Pearson’s r or Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients
with criterion measures. Measures with sufficient relia-
bility and criterion validity were examined to identify
whether they reliably detected fall to spring growth using
paired-samples t tests.
Results
Below, we report descriptive data and analyses con-
ducted to answer the research questions: (a) Which mea-
sures (in terms of writing task, duration, and scoring
procedure) have sufficient alternate-form and test-retest
reliability? (b) Which measures have sufficient criterion
validity for assessing student writing performance?
(c) Which measures show growth over time?
Descriptive Data
Means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and
range were calculated. Complete descriptive data may be
obtained from the first author. Descriptive data for mea-
sures that yielded sufficient reliability and validity are
displayed in Table 1. Descriptive data for the teacher rat-
ings, district rubric, and TOWL-3 are provided in Table 2.
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
McMaster et al. / Curriculum-Based Measures 51
Which Measures Have Sufficient Alternate-
Form and Test-Retest Reliability?
Pearson’s r correlation coefficients were calculated to
determine test-retest (Study 1) and alternate-form relia-
bility (Studies 1 and 2) and are reported in Table 3.
Because there is not a consensus on criteria by which to
judge reliability of measures, we report the strength of
reliability coefficients in relative terms, based on the fol-
lowing sources of information: (a) the general rule that
reliability coefficients of at least r = .80 are desirable for
group-administered tests (e.g., Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2001)
and (b) coefficients found for other types of CBM and
other types of writing measures. In reading, sufficient
reliability coefficients have generally been reported as r >
.85 (Wayman et al., 2007). For standardized writing mea-
sures, sufficient reliability estimates have ranged from .70
to above .90 (Taylor, 2003). With this information in
mind, we considered reliability coefficients of r = .70 to
be sufficient. Sufficient reliability coefficients are bolded
in Table 3; only those measures that had consistently suf-
ficient reliability are included in further analyses.
In Study 1, measures that consistently yielded suffi-
cient test-retest and alternate-form reliability included
virtually all scoring procedures for 3- and 5-minute sen-
tence copying (r = .70–.89). Reliability coefficients for
5-minute word-copying scores ranged from r = .66 to
.89, and coefficients for 5-minute story-prompt scores
ranged from r = .62 to .84 with the exception of test-
retest reliability of CIWS on Form A (r = .45). In Study
2, alternate-form reliability coefficients were less consis-
tent. Forms B and C of the letter prompt yielded suffi-
ciently reliable scores on CLS written in 3 minutes (r =
.70) and WW, WSC, and CLS written in 5 minutes (r =
.74–.81). Forms B and C of the picture-word prompt also
yielded sufficiently reliable scores for 3-minute WW,
WSC, CWS, and CLS (r = .72–.79) and for 5-minute
WW, WSC, and CLS (r = .72–.79). For the photo
prompts, Forms A and B yielded sufficiently reliable
scores for WW, WSC, CWS, and CLS written in 3 and 5
minutes (r = .73–.85); Forms A and C yielded suffi-
ciently reliable scores for WW, WSC, CWS, and CLS
written in 5 minutes (r = .73–.79); and Forms B and C
yielded sufficiently reliable scores for WSC, CWS, and
CLS written in 3 minutes (r = .70–.78).
Which Measures Yielded Sufficient
Criterion Validity?
Those measures that yielded scores that were consis-
tently reliable according to our criteria for sufficient were
52 Journal of Learning Disabilities

Table 1
Descriptive Data for Sufficiently Reliable and Valid Measures: February and May
February May
Measure M SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis M SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis

Study 1

Sentence (n = 50) (n = 47)

copying (3 minutes)
WW 19.17 7.63 4 42 0.16 0.37 27.10 12.01 4 61 0.53 0.59
WSC 16.47 7.35 2 37 0.11 0.07 24.90 11.34 4 50 0.36 –0.03
CWS 16.70 7.73 2 32 0.03 –0.73 27.00 12.96 4 57 0.29 –0.25
CIWS 9.94 10.26 23 26 –0.60 0.88 21.30 13.53 –2 54 0.37 –0.35
CLS 71.77 30.01 11 158 0.31 0.38 108.00 52.07 17 241 0.62 0.19
Sentence copying (n = 50) (n = 47)
(5 minutes)
WW 29.86 13.31 3 70 0.55 0.88 45.80 20.34 11 99 0.76 0.13
WSC 26.34 12.39 2 63 0.40 0.45 42.20 18.79 11 86 0.65 –0.13
CWS 26.86 13.27 2 64 0.30 0.19 45.30 20.68 11 96 0.61 –0.17
CIWS 17.70 15.63 39 44 –0.90 2.16 35.60 19.95 9 88 0.67 –0.02
CLS 118.40 55.47 14 290 0.54 0.95 185.00 81.67 41 406 0.67 0.38
Story prompt (n = 50) (n = 47)
(5 minutes)
WW 21.85 9.18 5 41 0.78 1.12 36.98 20.93 6 99 1.00 0.71
WSC 15.23 7.41 3 32 0.67 –0.03 28.96 18.21 5 87 1.27 1.75
CWS 10.57 7.21 1 35 1.46 2.67 20.98 16.37 3 75 1.43 1.93
CLS 80.36 37.82 13 168 0.56 0.01 136.80 87.13 20 414 1.36 2.27

Study 2

Picture-word (n = 47) (n = 43)

prompt (5 minutes)
WW 27.89 11.81 0 59 0.157 0.27 42 21.39 0 87 0.15 –0.73
WSC 23.96 10.86 0 56 0.41 0.72 38.07 19.75 0 77 0.26 –0.56
CWS 18.83 9.76 0 42 0.40 –0.04 33.14 19.25 0 100 0.94 2.08
CLS 102.89 47.39 0 226 0.44 0.39 171.7 78.04 40 341 –0.11 –0.4
Photo prompt (n = 46) (n = 46)
(5 minutes)
CWS 7.71 6.64 0 24.00 1.03 0.39 12.49 7.83 1 40 1.18 2.29
CLS 93.57 55.78 0 214 0.29 –0.711 127.63 66.95 1 338 0.984 1.65

Note: Sample sizes in February vary slightly because some students were repeatedly absent and makeups were not possible. In addition, several
students moved and were not available for data collection in May. CIWS = correct minus incorrect word sequences; CLS = correct letter
sequences; CWS = correct word sequences; WSC = words spelled correctly; WW = words written.

further examined for concurrent validity. These measures
included all scoring procedures on the 3- and 5-minute sen-
tence-copying tasks and all scoring procedures except
CIWS on the 5-minute story prompts, picture-word prompt,
and photo prompts. Correlation coefficients were calculated
between participants’ performance on each measure and
each of the following criterion measures: (a) teacher ratings
on a 4-point scale, (b) the school district rubric, and (c)
TOWL-3 subtests and total scores. To judge the strength of
validity coefficients, we relied on (1) the general rule that
correlations of r < .60 should be interpreted with caution
and (2) the fact that writing measures have historically
yielded modest criterion-validity coefficients (Taylor,
2003). Because we wished to be as inclusive as possible in
identifying promising measures, we considered criterion-
validity correlations above .50 to be sufficient for inclusion
in further analyses. Below, we report findings specific to
measures that yielded sufficiently reliable and valid scores.
Criterion-validity coefficients are shown in Table 4.
Teacher ratings. Correlations between student perfor-
mance and teacher ratings were calculated separately for

Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010

 McMaster et al. / Curriculum-Based Measures 53

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Criterion Measures
Study 1 (n = 48) Study 2 (n = 44)
M SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis M SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis

Teacher ratings
Teacher 1 2.62 1.02 1.00 4.00 0.15 –1.17 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Teacher 2 2.50 1.14 1.00 4.00 –0.19 –1.39 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Teacher 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.36 1.00 1.00 4.00 –0.21 –1.17
Teacher 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.35 0.94 1.00 4.00 –0.15 –0.96
District rubric
Quarter 3 2.83 0.41 1.93 3.60 –0.15 0.27 2.75 0.54 1.71 4.00 0.52 0.18
Quarter 4 2.97 0.48 1.96 3.74 –0.15 –0.01 2.85 0.52 1.71 4.00 0.14 0.43
TOWL-3
Subtest 6 1.67 2.14 0.00 10.00 2.23 5.55 0.96 1.08 0.00 4.00 0.91 0.07
Subtest 7 8.85 3.18 1.00 17.00 –0.07 0.59 8.23 2.27 1.00 12.00 –0.87 1.20
Subtest 8 6.19 2.96 1.00 12.00 –0.31 –1.06 4.43 2.76 0.00 11.00 0.27 –0.95
Total 16.71 6.73 3.00 31.00 0.37 0.05 13.61 4.85 1.00 23.00 –0.16 –0.06

Note: NA = not applicable; TOWL-3 = Test of Written Language–Third Edition.

each of the four teachers. In Study 1, measures that
yielded sufficient reliability and validity coefficients
across both teachers included CWS on the 3- and
5-minute sentence-copying measure (r = . 51–.64) and
WSC, CWS, and CLS on the 5-minute story prompt
(r = .50–.61). In Study 2, measures that yielded sufficient
reliability and validity coefficients across both teachers
included CWS produced on the 5-minute picture-word
prompt (r = .60) and CWS and CLS produced on the
5-minute photo prompts (r = .53–.59).
separately with scores on each of the three TOWL-3
subtests and with the total score of the three TOWL-3
subtests. In both Studies 1 and 2, validity coefficients
were generally weak, with the exception of WW, WSC,
CWS, and CLS obtained from the 5-minute story
prompts. These procedures yielded sufficiently valid
scores with Subtest 7 (r = .55–.63). WSC, CWS, and
CLS also yielded sufficiently valid scores with the Total
Score (r = .50–.54).

District rubric. The school district rubric included
seven categories for each school-year quarter. Rating
scores for each category in the third quarter (in February)
were averaged for each student and correlated with scores
from CBM measures administered in February. Rating
scores for the fourth quarter (in May) were averaged and
correlated with scores from CBM measures administered
in May. In Study 1, measures that appeared to have suffi-
cient test-retest and/or alternate-form reliability and crite-
rion validity included the following: for sentence
copying, virtually all scoring procedures administered in
3 and 5 minutes (r = .53–.70); for story prompts, WSC,
CWS, and CLS administered in 5 minutes (r = .56–.65).
In Study 2, measures that appeared to have sufficient
alternate-form reliability and criterion validity (with the
district rubric) included WW, WSC, CWS, and CLS on
the 5-minute picture-word prompt (r = .52–.54).
TOWL-3. Scores on WW, WSC, CWS, CIWS, and
CLS for 3 and 5 minutes in each prompt were correlated
Which Measures Show Growth Over Time?
Those measures that were determined to have suffi-
cient reliability and criterion validity were examined to
determine whether they were sensitive to student growth
over a brief period (February–May). In Study 1, multiple
scoring procedures were sufficiently reliable and valid for
both the 3- and 5-minute sentence-copying probes (WW,
WSC, CWS, CIWS, and CLS) and the 5-minute story
prompts (WW, WSC, CWS, and CLS). In Study 2, WW,
WSC, CWS, and CLS produced on the 5-minute picture-
word prompt and CWS and CLS produced on the
5-minute photo prompts were sufficiently reliable and
valid. Each of these scoring procedures on each measure
was submitted to a paired-samples t test. Results of
paired-samples t tests on sentence copying, story
prompts, picture-word prompts, and photo prompts
between February and May show significant differences
on all scoring variables (see Table 5). Table 5 also shows
average weekly growth made on each measure from
February to May.

Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010

54 Journal of Learning Disabilities

Table 3
Test-Retest and Alternate-Form Reliability Coefficients
3 Minutes 5 Minutes
WW WSC CWS CIWS CLS WW WSC CWS CIWS CLS

Word copying
Test-retest (A) .58** .64** .62** .69** .75** .73**
Test-retest (B) .72** .65** .78** .83** .80** .81**
Alternate test .54** .54** .68** .66** .67** .72**
Alternate retest .83** .82** .85** .86** .86** .89**
Sentence copying
Test-retest (A) .72** .71** .75** .74** .73** .81** .83** .82** .79** .81**
Test-retest (B) .79** .78** .78** .85** .74** .85** .82** .82** .89** .80**
Alternate test .73** .70** .75** .69** .68** .78** .79** .82** .79** .76**
Alternate retest .79** 75** .72** .77** .74** .82** .79** .75** .83** .79**
Story prompt
Test-retest (A) .61** .63** .63** .49** .68** .68** .65** .62** .45** .74**
Test-retest (B) .60** .64** .72** .74** .70** .78** .81** .83** .75** .83**
Alternate test .56** .47** .58** .67** .58** .69** .74** .70** .65** .78**
Alternate retest .66** .63** .58** .50** .75** .78** .82** .78** .54** .84**
Letter prompt
Forms A & B .65** .62** .58** .70** .71** .68**
Forms A & C .38* .44** .46** .52** .58** .59**
Forms B & C .58** .63** .70** .74** .77** .81**
Picture-word prompt
Forms A & B .63** .61** .66** .58** .63** .70** .68** .71** .70** .73**
Forms A & C .59** .61** .58** .44** .62** .56** .58** .61** .57** .65**
Forms B & C .79** .76** .72** .50** .78** .74** .72** .69** .53** .79**
Picture-theme prompt
Forms A & B .37* .37* .58** .43* .57** .56** .55** .57** .31* .65**
Forms A & C .40* .46** .51** .50** .62** .49** .57** .59** .52** .17
Forms B & C .59** .59** .60** .59** .64** .70** .65** .61** .68** –.07
Photo Prompt
Forms A & B .74** .75** .73** .56** .80** .84** .82** .76** .44** .85**
Forms A & C .58** .60** .66** .40* .63** .73** .79** .73** .39* .79**
Forms B & C .69** .70** .78** .54** .76** .72** .66** .68** .57** .46**

Note: Sufficient reliability coefficients are bolded. CIWS = correct minus incorrect word sequences; CLS = correct letter sequences; CWS =
correct word sequences; WSC = words spelled correctly; WW = words written.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion CLS applied to the 5-minute story prompts. Students

The purpose of the two studies reported above was to
establish the technical adequacy of CBM-W for first
graders. Specifically, we sought to determine which
measures yield scores with sufficient alternate-form
and/or test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and sensi-
tivity to growth over time. Measures yielding sufficiently
reliable and criterion-valid scores included all scoring
procedures applied to the 3- and 5-minute sentence-
copying tasks; WSC, CWS, and CLS applied to the
5-minute story and picture-word prompts; and CWS and
scored reliably higher in May than in February on each
of these measures, suggesting that each is sensitive to
growth over a relatively short period. Below, we discuss
our findings in terms of the technical adequacy of tasks,
sample durations, and scoring procedures. We end by
discussing implications for further research and practice.
Which Writing Tasks?
One goal of the studies reported in this article was to
determine whether CBM-W tasks used for older elemen-
tary students would yield technically adequate indices of

Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010

 McMaster et al. / Curriculum-Based Measures 55

Table 4
Criterion-Related Validity Coefficients With Teacher Ratings, District Rubric, and TOWL-3
Teacher Ratings District Rubric TOWL-3
Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Teacher 4 February May Subtest 6 Subtest 7 Subtest 8 Total

Study 1

Sentence copying
(3 minutes)
WW ns .61** NA NA .61** .57** .33* .42** ns .32*
WSC .48* .62** NA NA .67** .59** .34* .41** ns .33*
CWS .58** .64** NA NA .70** .64** .38* .44** ns .38*
CIWS .67** .48* NA NA .62** .61** .37* .40** ns .37*
CLS ns .60** NA NA .65** .56** .34* .42** ns .33*
Sentence copying
(5 minutes)
WW ns .51* NA NA .59** .53** .36* .43** ns .34*
WSC .49* .50* NA NA .63** .57** .40* .44** ns .38*
CWS .61** .51* NA NA .65** .61** .44** .47** ns .42**
CIWS .69** .43* NA NA .62** .63** .49** .45** ns .46**
CLS ns .49* NA NA .59** .53** .36* .37* ns .32*
Story prompt
(5 minutes)
WW ns .53* NA NA .47** .57** .31* .55** ns .47**
WSC .51** .52* NA NA .56** .63** .35* .59** .30* .51**
CWS .57** .50* NA NA .59** .65** .37* .58** ns .50**
CLS .56** .61** NA NA .62** .64** .36* .63** .33* .54**

Study 2

Picture-word prompt
(5 minutes)
WW NA NA ns .49* .52** .39* ns ns ns ns
WSC NA NA ns .56** .54** .39* ns ns ns ns
CWS NA NA .60** .60** .52** .37* ns ns ns ns
CLS NA NA ns .55** .52** .42** ns ns ns ns
Photo prompt
(5 minutes)
WW NA NA ns .49* .43** .36* ns ns ns ns
WSC NA NA .47* .54** .47** .36* ns ns ns ns
CWS NA NA .59* .54** .50** .44** ns ns ns ns
CLS NA NA .53* .54** .45** .41** ns ns ns ns

Note: Sufficient reliability coefficients are bolded. CIWS = correct minus incorrect word sequences; CLS = correct letter sequences; CWS =
correct word sequences; NA = not applicable; ns = not significant; TOWL-3 = Test of Written Language–Third Edition; WSC = words spelled
correctly; WW = words written.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

young students’ writing, such that writing tasks could be
extended across students of a wide range of ages and
skill levels in a seamless and flexible system of progress
monitoring. Findings are promising in that both story
and photo prompts yielded scores that were reliable,
valid, and sensitive to growth across a brief period. Photo
prompts have yielded reliable and valid indices of older
(third grade) elementary students’ writing proficiency (e.g.,
McMaster & Campbell, 2007), and story prompts have
yielded reliable and valid indices of older elementary and
secondary students (e.g., Deno et al., 1980; Espin et al.,
2000; Jewell & Malecki, 2005; McMaster & Campbell,
2007; Parker et al., 1991). Thus, it appears that these
tasks may be useful for tracking students’ writing not
only within but also across grade levels, starting at least
as early as spring of first grade.
In addition to tasks that have been used with older stu-
dents in previous research, we examined alternative writ-
ing tasks that have been developed for beginning writers
(word and sentence copying; see Lembke et al., 2003), as

Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010

56 Journal of Learning Disabilities

Table 5
Paired-Samples t Tests (February to May)
Mean Average Weekly
Difference t value p value n Growth

Study 1

Sentence copying (3 minutes)

WW 8.49 7.32 <.001 45.00 0.71
WSC 8.60 7.53 <.001 45.00 0.72
CWS 10.42 7.30 <.001 45.00 0.87
CIWS 10.91 6.07 <.001 45.00 0.91
CLS 37.73 7.37 <.001 45.00 3.14
Sentence copying (5 minutes)
WW 15.56 8.16 <.001 47.00 1.30
WSC 15.23 8.55 <.001 47.00 1.27
CWS 17.68 8.88 <.001 47.00 1.47
CIWS 16.91 7.03 <.001 47.00 1.41
CLS 64.43 8.24 <.001 47.00 5.37
Story prompt (5 minutes)
WW 14.11 5.70 <.001 47.00 1.18
WSC 13.74 6.45 <.001 47.00 1.15
CWS 8.09 4.38 <.001 45.00 0.67
CLS 55.47 5.65 <.001 47.00 4.62

Study 2

Picture-word prompt (5 minutes)

WW 12.84 4.74 <.001 43.00 1.07
WSC 13.02 5.11 <.001 43.00 1.09
CWS 13.33 4.89 <.001 43.00 1.11
CLS 54.37 5.29 <.001 43.00 4.53
Photo prompt (5 minutes)
CWS 6.96 5.20 <.001 44.00 0.58
CLS 29.18 4.36 <.001 44.00 2.43

Note: CIWS = correct minus incorrect word sequences; CLS = correct letter sequences; CWS = correct word sequences; WSC = words spelled
correctly; WW = words written.

well as new tasks (letter, picture-word, and picture-theme
prompts). Sentence copying appeared to have the most
consistent technical soundness, with all scoring proce-
dures yielding reliable and valid scores on both
3- and 5-minute samples. The picture-word prompt also
yielded technically adequate scores, although less consis-
tently than sentence copying and only on the 5-minute
samples. It appears that sentence-writing tasks yield more
technically sound information than do word-writing
tasks, a finding consistent with Lembke et al.’s (2003)
results. It was somewhat surprising that the picture-theme
prompt did not yield stronger reliability and validity coef-
ficients, given its similarity to story and photo prompts.
Perhaps providing specific words and themes was too
constraining, whereas the story and photo prompts were
generic enough to elicit a wider range of responses.
For What Duration?
Each writing task was administered for 5 minutes, and
students marked their places at 3 minutes so that we
could determine whether longer samples yielded more
technically sound information. On the sentence-copying
task, 3 minutes comprised a sufficient duration. On all
other tasks, 5 minutes were needed to obtain reliable and
criterion-valid scores. This is not surprising given that
first graders are relatively slow writers. For example, in
May, students were writing an average of about 37 words
in 5 minutes on the story prompts. However, they were
able to write substantially more words in the same
amount of time on the copying prompts (approximately
46 words in 5 minutes, on average, on the sentence-copying
task in May). Students likely wrote more words on the

Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010


copying task because the words were already available to
them, whereas on the other tasks, they had to generate
their own words, sentences, and stories. Because it
appears that first graders are generally able to produce
more writing in a shorter amount of time on the sentence-
copying task, 3 minutes seem sufficient to produce reli-
able and valid scores.
Which Scoring Procedures?
Scoring procedures associated with sufficient reliabil-
ity and criterion validity included WSC, CWS, and CLS.
WW and CIWS also yielded reliable and valid scores on
the sentence-copying task. These findings are interesting
because, although WW and WSC are probably the most
common scoring procedures used both in research and
practice (Gansle et al., 2002; Malecki & Jewell, 2003),
they have typically yielded relatively weak reliability
and criterion-validity coefficients (McMaster & Espin,
2007). Recent research findings suggest that more com-
plex scoring procedures, such as CWS and CIWS, have
stronger technical characteristics for both elementary
and secondary students (Espin et al., 2000; McMaster &
Campbell, in press; Videen et al., 1982). Our current
findings indicate that when extending measures down-
ward to first-grade writers, it may not be sufficient to
simply count the number of words written; rather, at least
counting WSC is necessary. However, more complex
scoring procedures (CWS, CIWS, or CLS) may not be
necessary, which is good news because they are more
time consuming than WSC.
However, it would be premature to exclude these scor-
ing procedures from further research with beginning
writers, because they may become necessary for frequent
progress monitoring. For example, Videen et al. (1982)
were concerned that when students were administered
writing measures on a frequent basis, they would just
write as many words as they could. Thus, Videen et al.
introduced CWS, which would take grammar (and, pre-
sumably, higher quality writing) into account. This logic
may apply to beginning writers, and so CWS should be
included in further investigations of these measures for
progress monitoring. Whether CIWS should be included
is less clear because it did not yield sufficiently reliable
scores on most measures (except for sentence copying).
Perhaps CIWS, which is the most complex scoring
approach that we examined, is too advanced for begin-
ning writers (e.g., many students received negative
scores because they wrote many more incorrect than cor-
rect word sequences), and it would not make sense to use
this procedure for monitoring growth.
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
McMaster et al. / Curriculum-Based Measures 57
Related to the above point, we included CLS because
we anticipated that growth over short periods might not
be detected by word-level scoring procedures but that let-
ter-level scoring might be more sensitive to growth.
Whereas other scoring procedures did show growth over
12 weeks, they may not be as sensitive to change over
briefer (e.g., weekly) periods. In fact, assuming that
growth is linear, students’ average weekly growth rates
were 2.43 to 4.62 CLS, compared with .71 to 1.30 WW,
.72 to 1.27 WSC, .58 to 1.47 CWS, and .91 to 1.41 CIWS.
Limitations
Conclusions drawn from our findings are limited by the
small sample sizes included in the two studies. We
included small samples primarily to maintain study con-
trol: Given the preliminary nature of this research, all mea-
sures were administered and scored by research staff to
ensure high fidelity and interscorer agreement. Scoring
multiple forms of each of the seven tasks using several
scoring procedures is time consuming (i.e., resource inten-
sive); thus, the sample size was determined to be sufficient
for internal validity of the study and manageable for
administration and scoring. However, findings cannot nec-
essarily be generalized to other groups with different
demographic makeups (such as students in rural settings).
A second limitation relates to criterion measures. Few
standardized measures of writing are normed for first
graders. The TOWL-3 appeared to be the best choice in
that it (a) has adequate reliability and validity, (b) is
normed for 7-year-olds, and (c) is group administered.
However, two of the three subtests of the TOWL-3 pro-
duced floor effects for our sample. The other criterion
measures (teacher ratings and district writing rubric) per-
haps improve the face validity of the CBM-W measures
but are suspect in terms of technical adequacy.
Implications for Research
Given the above limitations, replication of this
research with larger samples and other criterion mea-
sures is critical. Future researchers should examine the
utility of beginning-writing, progress-monitoring mea-
sures. For example, do the measures show growth over
relatively brief periods (e.g., weekly or monthly) such
that teachers can use them for instructional decision
making? How many data points are needed, and how
often must measures be administered, to establish stable
growth trajectories? Does aggregating scores on multiple
forms yield stronger technical information? When teach-
ers use CBM-W for instructional decision making, does
students’ writing performance improve?
58 Journal of Learning Disabilities
As part of this work, future researchers should exam-
ine the sensitivity of CBM-W to growth when strong
beginning-writing interventions are in place, as well as to
changes in progress when teachers make changes to
instruction. Researchers may also wish to examine
whether other tasks and scoring procedures will yield a
different picture of performance and progress over time.
Given the limited time and resources available in
schools, researchers should examine issues of feasibility:
Can teachers administer and score the measures with
fidelity and reliability and do so in a reasonable amount
of time? Finally, the utility of the measures should be
examined. Specifically, when CBM-W for beginning
writers is used, do teachers accurately identify students
in need of more intensive, individualized writing inter-
vention? Can CBM-W be used to make important
instructional decisions, such as when to change instruc-
tion or when to move students to increasingly intensive
interventions, such as Tiers II and III within RTI frame-
works? Ultimately, does CBM-W lead to improved out-
comes for students at risk of severe writing difficulties,
including those with writing-related disabilities?
Implications for Practice
In determining which measures to use to monitor stu-
dents’ early writing progress, educators may wish to con-
sider the following. First, findings from research thus far
are somewhat tentative because they are based on small
samples and somewhat flawed criterion measures. As this
research is replicated and extended, teachers, schools,
and districts will be able to make more sound decisions
regarding which progress-monitoring tools to use.
Educators should certainly consider whether the students
with whom they intend to use beginning-writing mea-
sures are adequately represented in the research. For
example, these studies were conducted with a fairly
homogeneous group of students (74.2% White, 17.6% on
free and reduced lunch) in the spring of their first-grade
year. Whether similar findings would be obtained with
more diverse or younger first graders is questionable.
Second, it is important that educators understand what
kind of information they will obtain from these begin-
ning-writing measures. Like other CBMs, these measures
were designed to serve as general indicators of overall
writing proficiency, not as specific subskill measures.
This is particularly important in understanding the utility
of the sentence-copying task, which, for many teachers,
may have questionable face validity. Whereas this mea-
sure may, on its face, appear to represent only a child’s
handwriting and spelling skills, it is intended to serve as
a broader indicator of beginning-writing proficiency. As
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
discussed in the introduction, researchers have suggested
that the speed and automaticity with which students
integrate letter forms in memory with motor production
(e.g., handwriting) may influence their attentional cap-
acity for higher level processes involved in writing
(e.g., Berninger, 2000; Berninger, Abbott, et al., 2002;
Berninger et al., 1992). Our rationale for using copying as
a progress-monitoring tool is that a measure involving
such transcription processes could serve as a general indi-
cator of beginning writers’ overall writing progress
because, as their copying speed and automaticity
improve, so should their capacity for higher level pro-
cessing. Sentence copying may thus be more sensitive to
subtle growth than are free-writing measures.
Third, educators should consider the purpose of using
the beginning-writing measures. If the purpose is to
screen students to identify those who may struggle with
beginning writing, any of the measures identified as suf-
ficient (3- or 5-minute sentence copying and 5-minute
picture-word, story, or photo prompt) appears to be
appropriate. If schools or districts are interested in con-
necting student writing performance and progress across
grade levels, they may wish to administer 5-minute story
or photo prompts and score them for CWS, as these mea-
sures have yielded reliable and valid scores for older ele-
mentary students (McMaster & Campbell, in press). If
teachers are interested in monitoring students’ progress
on a frequent basis (e.g., weekly or monthly) to make
instructional decisions, they may wish to consider
administering 3-minute sentence-copying probes and
score them for WSC, which is likely to be more efficient
than using longer samples and more complex scoring
procedures. However, it is important to note that techni-
cal characteristics of these measures for frequent
progress monitoring are as yet unknown, and so teachers
should use caution in interpreting outcomes of progress-
monitoring data. This is an especially important consid-
eration if measures are to be used within RTI frameworks.
We do not yet have sufficient information regarding the
technical characteristics of beginning-writing measures if
they are to be used for high stakes decision making such
as LD identification. Thus, schools and districts should
rely on multiple sources of information about students’
writing when making eligibility and instructional pro-
gramming decisions.
Conclusion
The two studies reported above replicate and extend
previous research by (a) providing further support for the
use of copying tasks, which Lembke et al. (2003) have

demonstrated to show promise for beginning writers, and
(b) demonstrating that story and photo prompts, which
have been used with older elementary students, may be
extended to students at least as young as those in the
spring of their first-grade year. The former finding is
important because it provides an alternative for monitor-
ing progress within first grade, using measures that are
more efficient and possibly more sensitive to small
changes in beginning-writing proficiency. The latter
finding is important to the extension of CBM-W mea-
sures to be used in a seamless and flexible system of
progress monitoring that can be used across ages and
skill levels.
References
Berninger, V. W. (2000). Development of language by hand and its
connections with language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in
Language Disorders, 20, 65–84.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham, S., &
Richards, T. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between
language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 35, 39–56.
Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., &
Raskind, W. (2008). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia:
Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School
Psychology, 46, 1–21.
Berninger, V. W., Rutberg, J. E., Abbott, R. D., Garcia, N., Anderson-
Youngstrom, M., Brooks, A., et al. (2006). Tier 1 and Tier 2 early
intervention for handwriting and composing. Journal of School
Psychology, 44, 3–30.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K.
B., Curtain, G., et al. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition
alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304.
Berninger, V., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., &
Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning
writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4,
257–280.
Brigance, A. H. (1999). Comprehensive inventory of basic
skills–Revised. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
Cooper, D., & Pikulski, J. (2005). Here we go! Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging
alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
Deno, S., Marston, D., Mirkin, P., Lowry, L., Sindelar, P., & Jenkins, J.
(1982). The use of standard tasks to measure achievement in read-
ing, spelling, and written expression: A normative and develop-
mental study (Report No. IRLD-RR-87). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P., & Marston, D. (1980). Relationships among
simple measures of written expression and performance on stan-
dardized achievement tests (Report No. IRLD-RR-22).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on
Learning Disabilities.
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P., & Marston, D. (1982). Valid measurement
procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression.
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
McMaster et al. / Curriculum-Based Measures 59
Exceptional Children Special Education and Pediatrics: A New
Relationship, 48, 368–371.
Espin, C. A., De La Paz, S., Scierka, B. J., & Roelofs, L. (2005). The
relationship between curriculum-based measures in written
expression and quality and completeness of expository writing for
middle school students. Journal of Special Education, 38,
208–217.
Espin, C. A., Scierka, B. J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999).
Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing
for secondary school students. Reading and Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 15, 5–27.
Espin, C., Shin, J., Deno, S. L., Skare, S., Robinson, S., & Benner, B.
(2000). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency
for middle school students. Journal of Special Education, 34,
140–153.
Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring mea-
sures in mathematics: A review of the literature. Journal of
Special Education, 41, 121–139.
Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Naquin, G. M., &
Slider, N. J. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reli-
ability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternative measures for
curriculum-based measurement in writing. School Psychology
Review, 31, 477–497.
Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Slider, N. J.,
Hoffpauir, L. D., & Whitmarsh, E. L., et al. (2004). An examina-
tion of the criterion validity and sensitivity to brief intervention of
alternate curriculum-based measures of writing skill. Psychology
in the Schools, 41, 291–300.
Good, R. H., III, & Kaminski, R. A. (1996). Assessment for instruc-
tional decisions: Toward a proactive/prevention model of decision-
making for early literacy skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11,
326–336.
Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., &
Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elemen-
tary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89, 170–182.
Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998).
Development of handwriting speed and legibility in grades 1-9.
Journal of Educational Research, 92, 42–52.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing perfor-
mance of young struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic
research from the center on accelerating student learning. Journal
of Special Education, 39, 19–33.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution
of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor
spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B. (2000). Is handwriting causally
related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in
beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
620–633.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and inter-
vention of writing difficulties for students with learning disabili-
ties. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16, 74–84.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruc-
tion for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99(3), 445–476.
Hammill, D. D., & Hresko, W. P. (1994). Comprehensive scales of
student abilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of written
language–Third edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
60 Journal of Learning Disabilities
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C.
§ 1400 et seq. (2004).
Jewell, J., & Malecki, C. K. (2005). The utility of CBM written lan-
guage indices: An investigation of production-dependent, produc-
tion-independent, and accurate-production scores. School
Psychology Review, 34, 27–44.
Jones, D., & Christensen, C. A. (1999). Relationship between auto-
maticity in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written
text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44–49.
Lembke, E., Deno, S., & Hall, K. (2003). Identifying an indicator of
growth in early writing proficiency for elementary school stu-
dents. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 23–35.
Malecki, C. K., & Jewell, J. (2003). Developmental, gender, and prac-
tical considerations in scoring Curriculum-Based Measurement
writing probes. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 379–390.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to
assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In
M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing spe-
cial children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.
Marston, D., & Deno, S. (1981). The reliability of simple, direct mea-
sures of written expression (Report No. IRLD-RR-50).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on
Learning Disabilities.
Marston, D., Deno, S. L., & Tindal, G. (1983). A comparison of stan-
dardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques
in measuring pupil progress (Report No. IRLD-RR-126).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on
Learning Disabilities.
McMaster, K. L., & Campbell, H. (in press). Technical features of
new and existing measures of written expression: An examination
within and across grade levels. School Psychology Review.
McMaster, K. L., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Technical features of
curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review.
Journal of Special Education, 41, 68–84.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Nation’s report
card: Writing. Retrieved April 23, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/writing/
National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected “R”: The
need for a writing revolution. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from
http://www.writingcommission.org/
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002).
Parker, R. I., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991). Countable indices
of writing quality: Their suitability for screening-eligibility deci-
sions. Exceptionality, 2, 1–17.
Reid, K., Hresko, W., & Hammill, D. (2001). The test of early reading
ability (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Ritchey, K. D. (2006). Learning to write: Progress-monitoring tools
for beginning and at-risk writers. Teaching Exceptional Children,
39, 22–27.
Downloaded from http://ldx.sagepub.com at RH-net general on February 23, 2010
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (2001). Assessment in special and remedial
education (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Taylor, R. L. (2003). Assessment of exceptional students: Educational
and psychological procedures (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Deno, S. L. (1983). The reliability of
direct and repeated measurement (Report No. IRLD-RR-109).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on
Learning Disabilities.
Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating
written expression. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
6, 211–218.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., Naquin, G., & Noell, G. (2001).
The reliability and validity of curriculum-based measurement
readiness probes for kindergarten students. School Psychology
Review, 30, 363–382.
Videen, J., Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word
sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression
(Report No. IRLD-RR-84). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive
test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wallace, T., Espin, C. A., McMaster, K., Deno, S. L., & Foegen, A.
(2007). CBM progress monitoring within a standards-based sys-
tem: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Special
Education, 41, 66–67.
Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A.
(2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in
reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
Woodcock, R. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery test-revised/
normative update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Kristen L. McMaster, PhD, is an assistant professor of special edu-
cation at the University of Minnesota. Her research interests include
promoting teachers’ use of data-based decision-making and evidence-
based instruction, and developing individualized interventions for
students who struggle with reading and written expression.
Xiaoqing Du is a PhD, candidate in educational psychology at
the University of Minnesota. Her research interests include develop-
ing assessments of basic academic skills of K–12 students using
curriculum-based measurement, and intervention delivery to students
with writing difficulties.
Anna-Lind Pétursdóttir, PhD, is an assistant professor of educa-
tional psychology at the University of Iceland. Her research interests
include effective instructional and behavioral interventions for stu-
dents with disabilities.