Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, 398–410

doi: 10.1093/deafed/enaa020
Advance Access Publication Date: 22 July 2020
Theory/Review Manuscript

T H E O RY / R E V I E W M A N U S C R I P T

Systematic Review of Curriculum-Based Measurement

with Students Who Are Deaf

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024

Elizabeth A. Lam*, Kristen L. McMaster, and Susan Rose
Educational Psychology Department, University of Minnesota
*Correspondence should be sent to Elizabeth Lam, Educational Psychology Department, 250 Education Sciences Building, 56 East River Road, Minneapolis,
MN 55455, USA (e-mail: elam@umn.edu)

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 f luency,
silent reading f luency, 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.

Students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) are a heteroge-
neous population, with some students meeting or exceeding lit-
eracy benchmarks and others demonstrating limited proficiency
(Mayer & Trezek, 2018). A large majority of students experience
persistent delays in obtaining proficiency similar to their same-
aged peers with typical levels of hearing (Allinder & Eccarius,
1999; Luckner, 2013). Limited literacy proficiency can impede
students who are DHH from finishing high school (Appelman
et al., 2012), can create barriers in postsecondary education
(Hartmann, 2010), and present challenges with meeting literacy
demands in the workplace (Luft, 2012).
Educational legislation calls for the use of data-based
instruction and evidenced-based educational strategies to
efficiently and effectively provide high-quality instruction and
targeted individualized instruction to students who are at risk
or with disabilities (IDEIA, 2004; ESSA, 2015). As such, there is a
need for researchers to develop and practitioners to implement
evidenced-based practices to address the persistent problem of
underachievement for this subgroup of students who are DHH
(Luft, 2018). Evidenced-based practices are supported by the use
of valid and reliable assessment to measure student response
to instruction and to use data to modify the approach when
needed (Rose, 2007; Thomas & Marvin, 2016).
Within the field, there remains a critical need for assess-
ment tools that can reliably measure a student’s skill level,
can generate data that predict performance on comprehensive
assessment measures, are sensitive to growth over short periods
of time, and can inform instructional decision-making for stu-
dents who are DHH (Thomas & Marvin, 2016). One assessment
method that shows promise to inform instructional planning is
curriculum-based measurement (CBM; Devenow, 2003; Luckner
& Bowen, 2006; Rose, 2007).
CBM, as conceptualized by Deno (1985), is an approach
that can effectively provide “vital signs” of a student’s overall
academic performance. CBM was designed to measure students’
responsiveness to instruction and inform service delivery.

Received December 18, 2019; revisions received June 13, 2020; accepted June 15, 2020

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

398

Deno (1985) described that CBM should meet the following
criteria: It should be (a) reliable and valid, (b) simple and efficient,
(c) easy to understand, and (d) inexpensive. CBM tools are
designed to be quick, efficient, and sensitive to growth over
short periods of time.
Use of CBM with Hearing Populations
For students with typical levels of hearing, oral reading fluency
(ORF) is the most commonly used CBM tool. Within the context
of progress monitoring, students are administered the ORF task
as often as once a week with performance scored and charted.
The general process is as follows: Students are presented with a
passage and prompted to read the text aloud in the time allotted
(e.g., 1 min). The examiner tracks as the student reads, marks
incorrectly read words on the examiner copy, and calculates the
total number of words read correctly.
Previous literature reviews have established the appropri-
ateness of using ORF within the screening and benchmarking
process (Marston, 1989; Wayman et al., 2007). Researchers have
demonstrated that CBM tasks correlate well with high-stakes
state tests and standardized achievement tests and are sensitive
to growth over short periods of time (Ticha et al., 2009; Hunley
et al., 2013; Shin & McMaster, 2019). The utility of CBM with
students with intellectual disabilities and with English learners
(Els) has been supported (Christ et al., 2010; Sandberg & Reschly,
2011; Hosp et al., 2014). When practitioners who work with stu-
dents with typical levels of hearing, they use CBM data to make
instructional decisions, and improved student literacy outcomes
have been observed (Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012; Jung et al., 2018).
Research on CBM with Deaf Students
Since CBM has been demonstrated to provide reliable and valid
data for students with typical levels of hearing, it begs the ques-
tion: Could CBM provide useful data for students who are DHH?
Currently, the most common assessment tools used with stu-
dents who are DHH are state and commercial achievement tests
(Luckner & Bowen, 2006), which are limited in the extent to which
they can inform instruction (Bruce et al., 2018). Progress moni-
toring tools such as CBM could supplement achievement tests
and provide more timely information for day-to-day instruction
(Devenow, 2003; Luckner & Bowen, 2006; Rose, 2007).
Careful consideration is needed to determine the appropri-
ateness of CBM with the heterogeneous population of students
who are DHH. Research from cognitive science identified that
some students who are DHH may decode and linguistically pro-
cess text differently than their hearing counterparts (Marschark,
2006; Marschark et al., 2011), which suggests that selecting CBM
tasks that require less reliance on oral production in decoding
may be more appropriate.
Luckner (2013) asked experts in the field of deafness to rate
the appropriateness of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Lit-
eracy Skills (DIBELS) reading probes, which are a type of CBM.
The probes included the following: initial sound fluency, let-
ter naming fluency, phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense
word fluency, oral reading fluency, retell fluency, and word
use fluency. In general, experts rated DIBELS probes as mostly
appropriate for children who use spoken language, possibly
appropriate for students who use spoken language and sign, and
not appropriate for students who use sign language. Luckner
(2013) acknowledged limitations such as the term “appropriate”
not being defined, how students vary across multiple factors not
E. A. Lam et al. 399
only communication mode, and that communication modali-
ties may be more complex than a three-category delineation.
Luckner (2013) called for further research exploring the technical
properties of student scores and the potential of using CBM for
progress monitoring. Given the need for viable assessments tools
for students who are DHH, the appropriateness of these tools
for other special populations, and the call for future research
to explore the technical features of CBM with students who are
DHH, we conducted this systematic review.
Purpose of Review
The purpose of this review was to explore the technical adequacy
of CBM with students who are DHH. According to Fuchs (2004), a
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024
three-phased approach is needed to establish a body of evidence
to support CBM measures within the instructional planning
process. The process includes (a) demonstrating the technical
adequacy (reliability and criterion validity) of the measures, (b)
examining sensitivity to growth over time, and (c) exploring how
CBM data is used within the data-based decision-making pro-
cess. We aimed to explore the current body of evidence (phase
1) and create a springboard for future researchers to explore
whether the data generated from these measures are sensitive
to growth over short periods of time (phase 2) or can be used in
the data-based decision-making process (phase 3) for students
who are DHH.
Method
To determine the utility of CBM for this population, the first step
is to explore features of technical adequacy including reliabil-
ity and validity (Fuchs, 2004). Below we describe the literature
search process, the inclusion criteria, and coding process.
Literature Search
To identify relevant studies, we followed a three-step process
(see Figure 1). First, we broadly searched the Academic Search
Premier, ERIC, Education Index Retrospective (1929–1983), and
Psych Info databases. Keyword terms related to deafness (deaf ,
deafness, hearing impairment, hearing loss, partial hearing, and hard
of hearing) were paired with CBM terms (CBM, curriculum-based
assessment, progress monitoring, response to intervention, cloze pro-
cedure, DIBELS, oral reading fluency, and miscue analysis). As the
search included a large timespan, the term “hearing impair-
ment” was used with the intent to identify a greater number
of potential studies, especially for studies with older publication
dates. We limited our search to articles written in English. The
initial search yielded 1,333 articles. The initial search articles
were screened for duplication, with 476 articles remaining. We
screened each title for relevance (n = 16) and then reviewed the
full articles based on the inclusion criteria, yielding six articles.
Next, we then identified articles from various data sources
and applied the same search method. We conducted ancestral
searches of 2 highly relevant conceptual/review articles (Luckner,
2012; Rose, 2007), which yielded 122 studies; 7 were identified
as potentially relevant, and 4 were identified for inclusion. We
identified the most frequently occurring data sources from the
initial searches (Exceptional Children, American Annals of the Deaf ,
and Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education) and examined
current abstracts (2012–2019), 547 articles were identified; one
article was identified for review, but did not meet criteria. We
 400 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 4
Figure 1. Systematic review screening process documents the systematic search process including the following steps: identification, screening, eligibility, and included
studies.
examined 38 technical reports from the Research Institute on
Progress Monitoring (RIPM), and 1 article was identified (Rose,
2008) and met the inclusion criteria in the full-text screen. We
identified an additional unpublished master’s thesis (Barkmeier,
2009) which shared the same sample of participants as Rose
(2008) but analyzed student performance on a different set of
measures. The master’s thesis was screened, met criteria, and
was ultimately included.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024
Last, we conducted an interrater agreement (IRA) to deter-
mine the consistency in decision-making. A trained researcher,
independent of the authors, conducted the review of 20%
of the articles at each stage. IRA was as follows: initial
database (99% title screen, 100% full screen), ancestral searches
(88%, 100%), frequently occurring journals (99%, 100%), and
RIPM (100%, 100%). All disagreements were reviewed and
resolved.

Inclusion Criteria
To be included in this review, each study needed to (1) assess
the reading performance of students who are DHH using at least
one CBM reading task, (2) explore the technical characteristics
(validity and reliability) of student scores, and (3) be written in
English inclusive of theses, dissertations, and technical reports.
For the CBM requirement, we accepted studies that generally
met the criteria set forth by Deno (1985), except in some cases
the scoring did not meet the criteria of simple and efficient.
For the reliability and validity requirements, we used the def-
initions set forth by the American Educational Research Asso-
ciation (AERA, 1999). As defined, reliability refers to “the con-
sistency of such measurements when the testing procedure is
repeated on a population of individuals or groups” (p. 25). Within
this context, researchers explored the consistency of the metrics
of the CBM tasks by analyzing inter-rater agreement, internal
consistency, stability, and equivalence. According to AERA (1999),
validity refers to “the degree to which evidence and theory
support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed
uses of the test” (p. 9). In this context, students CBM performance
was compared to a student’s performance on standardized tests,
other fluency measures, and teacher ratings.
The review included peer-reviewed articles, technical reports,
dissertations, and master’s theses. In their article on quality
indicators for systematic reviews of research, Talbott et al. (2017)
recommended actively seeking and including all works (includ-
ing dissertations, theses, and other forms of “gray literature”) to
have the full range of relevant studies to review. The intent of the
inclusive approach is to review the full population of studies to
reduce bias, consistent with the recommendations from Talbott
et al. (2017).
Coding
Each article identified in this systematic review was coded on
key features of reliability and validity. For reliability, articles were
coded on three features: analysis, metrics, and findings. For the
analysis, the article was categorized based on the method by
which reliability was explored, which included one or more of
the following codes: inter-rater, internal consistency, alternate
form, and test retest. For metrics, the article was coded based on
the scoring type identified by the authors. For example, for the
maze CBM task, the metrics included the number of correctly
identified words (“correct” metric), number of words correctly
identified words after adjusting for guessing (“corrected” metric),
number of words read (“scan” metric), and number of incorrectly
identified words (“incorrect” metric). Due to the variation across
study types, the metrics used varied. For findings, the authors
reported reliability correlations or percentages, with findings
from significance testing included when available (see Table 1).
For validity, articles were coded on the following dimen-
sions: type of measure, name of measure, CBM metrics, relation
between measures (most often correlations), and significance.
For type of measure, the article was coded based on the criterion
measure to which the CBM tools were compared. Across studies,
measures included achievement tests, fluency tests, informal
measures, and CBM. Often times, an author used more than one
comparison type. The name of the measure used as the criterion
was also documented. In most cases, the criterion measure was a
standardized achievement test, in other cases the measure was
a teacher rating or fluency test. Similar to reliability, the data
reported by the authors on the CBM metrics used, the relations
between measures, and any significance testing (when available)
were reported; see Table 2.
E. A. Lam et al. 401
IRA was conducted with a trained researcher with 20% of
the studies selected for review. In some cases, the first author
reported ranges where the rater reported the summary or com-
posite value, though both representations of the data were cor-
rect. Inter-rater agreement was 96%; two disagreements were
identified and resolved.
Results
The literature search yielded nine studies that fell into four
categories (signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency, cloze,
and maze) described in more depth below. For each study, the
reliability and validity findings were reviewed. See Table 1 for the
reliability and Table 2 for the validity findings for each study.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024
For the purpose of this review, descriptive classifications are
used to denote the strength of the correlations. What consti-
tutes strong, moderate, and weak correlations is context depen-
dent; thus, previous narrative reviews of the technical adequacy
of CBM measures with students with typical levels of hearing
(Marston, 1989; Wayman et al., 2007) and recommendations
from the field of measurement were considered (Cohen, 1988;
Thorndike & Thorndike-Christ, 2010). For reliability, a correlation
above .80 is considered strong, between .60 and .79 as moderate,
and .59 and below as weak. For validity, correlations above .50
are considered strong, between .30 to .49 as moderate, and .29
and below weak. These descriptive classifications should be
interpreted with the understanding that standardized ranges
have not been established for this population.
Signed Reading Fluency
Two research teams (Allinder & Eccarius, 1999; Easterbrooks &
Huston, 2008) examined the technical properties of signed read-
ing fluency measures (students read the presented passage to
the examiner using sign language). Allinder and Eccarius (1999)
assessed students who were prelingually deaf with moderate to
profound hearing loss and attended general education elemen-
tary schools. As reported by the authors, students use variants
of an English-based sign system, Signing Exact English. The
participants (n = 36, ages 6 to 13) were administered CBM tasks
derived from the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery
(CRAB; Fuchs et al., 1989) and the Test of Early Reading Ability—
Deaf or Hard of Hearing (TERA-DHH; Toubanos, 1995) (norm-
referenced test).
Study results yielded statistically significantly poorer perfor-
mance (p < .001) for both the 1 and 3 min time lengths when
morphological endings were required for signed responses. For
reliability, inter-rater agreement varied (40% to 100%, M = 79%),
and internal consistency and alternate form were strong. For
criterion validity evidence, the correlation between the CBM and
the TERA-DHH (Toubanos, 1995) fell in the moderate range.
Allinder and Eccarius (1999) required one-on-one correspon-
dence between the printed word and the signed word; in con-
trast, Easterbrooks and Huston (2008) measured the quality of
the rendered sign interpretation. Easterbrooks and Huston (2008)
assessed students with severe to profound bilateral sensorineu-
ral hearing loss who attended a school for the deaf (n = 29,
age 9 to 16). One student communicated receptively through
sign language and expressively through spoken English. The
remaining students varied in their sign communication ranging
from a more English-based signing approach to American Sign
Language (ASL) or a combination of features within this range.
Students’ performance was scored using the Signed Reading
 402 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 4

Table 1 Reliability of CBM for students who are deaf or hard of hearing

Citation Analysis Metrics Findings p values when

available

Signed reading fluency

Allinder & Eccarius (1999) Inter-rater Words read correctly 40 to 100% (M = 78.69%)
Idea units retold 0 to 100% (M = 78.76%)
Internal consistency 1- & 3-min passages .89 to .97
Alternate form 1-min passages .85
3-min passages .94

Easterbrooks and Huston Inter-rater Fluency envelope .98

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024

(2008) Visual grammar .75
Internal consistency .86

Silent reading fluency

Rose, (2008) Inter-rater Correct words identified 92%

Alternate form Correct words identified .92

Lam (2020) Alternate form: Correct words identified .50 to .69 <.01
paper–pencil Correct boundaries .51 to .70 <.0 l
Percent correct .39 to .59 <.01 to .02
Alternate form: e-based Correct boundaries .68 to .75 <.01
Percent correct .49 to .71 <.01

Cloze

LaSasso (1980) Internal consistency Fifth grade passages (six forms) .67 to .82

Kelly & Ewoldt (1984) Inter-rater (sample of 100 Meaningful to passage 82%
responses) Meaningful in sentence 81%
Related to English form 79%
Sign form classification 82%

Maze

Chen (2002) Inter-rater Maze 100%

Alternate form Correct .86 & .77
Corrected .85 & .79
Scan .78 & .62
Incorrect .55 &. 30
Test–retest Correct .83 <. 01
Corrected .85 <. 01
Scan .82 <. 01
Accuracy .39 <. 01
Incorrect .11 Ns

Devenow (2003) Alternate form Correct (Phase 2) .60 to .80 <. 001
Corrected (Phase 2) .64 to .82 <. 001
Scan (Phase 2) .45 to .70 <. 001

Barkmeier (2009) Alternate Form Form A .42 to .75

Form D .80 to .86
Form A & Form D .41 to .90
Form E −.21to .85

Lam (2020) Alternate form: CMC .76 to .84 <.01

paper–pencil CMC-IMC .66 to .84 <.01
CMC-IMC/2 .71 to .84 <.01
Alternate form: e-based CMC .66 to .80 <.01
CMC-IMC .61 to .72 <.01
CMC – IMC/2 .64 to .73 <.01

Note: CMC, correct maze choices; IMC, incorrect maze choices; CMC-IMC, correct maze choices minus incorrect maze choices; CMC-IMC/2, correct maze choices minus
the value of incorrect maze choices divided by a value of 2.
 E. A. Lam et al. 403

Table 2 Validity of CBM for students who are deaf or hard of hearing

Citation Type of measure Name of measure CBM metrics Relationship Significance

between measures

Signed reading fluency

Allinder & Eccarius Achievement test TERA-DHH M no. of words read 1 min .30 ns
(1999) M no. of words read 3 min .21 ns
M no. of idea units retold .36 ns
M no. of words retold .46 p < .05
M no. of unique words retold .47 p < .05
% of content words retold .46 p < .05

Easterbrooks and Achievement test WRMT-R Word comprehension .38 to .46 p < .05
Huston (2008) Passage comprehension .55 to .64 p < .01

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024

Total comprehension .43 to .50 p < .05 or p < .01

Silent reading fluency

Rose, (2008) Fluency test TOSCRF Correct words identified .84 & .90 Not reported
Achievement test MAP Correct words identified .58 to .75 Not reported
Informal Teacher ratings Correct words identified .54 to .85 Not reported

Lam (2020) Achievement WJ-III Passage Correct words identified .33 to .48 <.01 to .05
(paper–pencil CBM) Comprehension Correct boundaries .30 to .45 <.01 to .07
Total wrong −.51 to −.26 <.01 to .12
Percent correct .27 to .49 <.01 to .10
MAP Correct words identified .55 to .71 <.01
Correct boundaries .53 to .72 <.01
Total wrong −.42 to −.71 <.01 to .04
Percent correct .44 to .73 <.01 to .03
Achievement WJ-III Passage Correct boundaries .25 to .34 .04 to .14
(e-based CBM) Comprehension Total wrong −.53 to .05 01 to .76
Percent correct .08 to .50 <.01 to .62
MAP Correct boundaries .37 to .51 <.01 to .07
Total wrong −.59 to −.21 <.01 to .32
Percent correct .28 to .58 <.01 to .18

Cloze

LaSasso (1980) CBM Reading for concepts Passages (third, fifth, & Ranking (easy to NA
series seventh) difficult): fifth,
seventh, third grade

Kelly & Ewoldt, Achievement test SAT-HI Verbatim χ 2 =8.94 p = .003

(1984) Meaningful in passage χ 2 =10.02 p = .003
Acceptable English form χ 2 =17.54 p < .001
Story retell Story retell Verbatim χ 2 =.036 p = .849
Meaningful in passage χ 2 =3.76 p = .05
Acceptable English form χ 2 =.000 p = 1.0

Maze

Chen (2002) Achievement test TOWL-3 (winter, Correct .76 & .88 p < .01
spring) Corrected .77 & .89 p < .01
Scan .82 & .83 p < .01
Accuracy .52 & .62 p < .05 & p < .01
Incorrect .26 & -.17 ns
Informal measure Teacher ratings Correct .79 & .76 p < .01
(winter, spring) Corrected .82 & .74 p < .01
Scan .80 & .74 p < .01
Accuracy .48 & .50 p < .05 & p < .01
Incorrect .19 & .01 ns

Devenow (2003) Achievement test SAT P1-2M correct .72 & .74 p < .05
P1-2M corrected .74 & .75 p < .05
P1-2M scan .56 & .71 p < .05
P1-4M correct .64 & .64 p < .05
P1-4M corrected .64 & .66 p < .05

(Continued)
 404 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 4

Table 2 Continued

Citation Type of measure Name of measure CBM metrics Relationship Significance

between measures

P1-4M scan .46 & .56 p < .05

P1-untimed correct .62 & .57 p < .05
P1-untimed .60 & .60 p < .05
corrected
P1-untimed scan .02 & .49 ns & p < .05
P2 correct .87 & .88 p < .001
P2 corrected .89 & .89 p < .001
P2 scan .77 & .83 p < .001

Barkmeier (2009) Achievement test MAP Elementary .80 & .91 Not Reported
Middle school .59 to .91 Not Reported

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024

High school −.10 to .85 Not Reported
Informal measure Teacher ratings Elementary .86 & 81 Not Reported
Middle school .86 & .85 Not Reported
High school −.20 & -.28 Not Reported

Lam (2020) Achievement WJ-III Passage CMC .33 to .57 <.01 to .05
(paper–pencil CBM) Comprehension IMC −.27 to −.43 <.01 to .10
CMC-IMC .50 to .58 <.01 to .02
CMC-IMC/2 .36 to .58 <.01 to .03
MAP CMC .49 to .65 <.01 to .01
IMC −.50 to −.20 .01 to .33
CMC-IMC .50 to .67 <.01 to .01
CMC-IMC/2 .50 to .67 <.01 to .01
Achievement WJ-III Passage CMC .43 to .50 <.01
(e-based CBM) Comprehension IMC −.50 to −.33 <.01 to .05
CMC-IMC .49 to .52 <.01
CMC-IMC/2 .46 to .51 <.01
MAP CMC .56 to .60 <.01
IMC −.18 to −.04 .40 to .84
CMC-IMC .51 to .61 <.01
CMC-IMC/2 .54 to .61 .01

Note: TERA-DHH, Test of Early Reading Ability—Deaf or Hard of Hearing; WRMT-R, Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—Revised; TOSCRF, Test of Silent Contextual Reading
Fluency; MAP, measures of academic progress; CBM, curriculum-based measurement; WJ-III, Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement—Third Edition; SAT-HI, Stanford
Achievement Test—Hearing Impaired; TOWL-3, Test of Written Language—Third Edition; SAT, Stanford Achievement Test; P1-2M, Phase 1—2 min; P1-4M, Phase 1—4
min; P1, Phase; P2, Phase 2; CMC, correct maze choices; IMC, incorrect maze choices; CMC-IMC, correct maze choices minus incorrect maze choices; CMC-IMC/2, correct
maze choices minus the value of incorrect maze choices divided by a value of 2.

Fluency Rubric for Deaf Children (Easterbrooks & Huston, 2008).
Study participants were first administered the Signed Read-
ing Fluency Rubric for Deaf Children and then, 0 to 4 months
later, were administered two subtests (Word Comprehension
and Passage Comprehension) from the Woodcock Reading Mas-
tery Test—Revised (WRMT-R; Woodcock, 1987).
Inter-rater agreement was strong for the fluency envelope
metric (overall visual appearance of the signed interpretation—
with or without voice) and moderate for the visual grammar
metric (elements that demonstrate the reader is deriving mean-
ing from the text—in an English-like mode or ASL). Internal
consistency fell in the strong range. Criterion validity evidence
for the Signed Reading Fluency Rubric for Deaf Children with
the WRMT-R (Woodcock, 1987) spanned the moderate to strong
ranges.
In summary, two studies (Allinder & Eccarius, 1999; East-
erbrooks & Huston, 2008) explored the reliability and validity
of student performance when students were presented with a
passage and prompted to read the passage in sign language.
Participants within the studies varied in the features of their
expressive sign language communication, which may impact
how the students processed the task, the degree of difficulty
of the task, and the type of student response generated. The
authors varied in their approaches of scoring student responses
which included requiring word-by-word translation or assessing
the quality of the signed interpretation of the text. Since the task
demands and scoring methods varied widely for signed reading
fluency, it is questionable if the authors were measuring the
same construct. As such, these findings suggest a complexity
in administering, scoring, and interpreting the performance of
sign reading fluency with students who are DHH who use a sign-
based system.
Silent Reading Fluency
Two research teams explored silent reading fluency (Rose, 2008;
Lam, 2020). Rose (2008) conducted research at a school for the
deaf within the context of a school-wide progress monitoring
program. Participants (n = 101, grades 3 to 12) attended a resi-
dential school for the deaf with six students attending the com-
munity public school part-time. All students qualified for special
education services due to their hearing loss status (n = 36 mild
to moderate, n = 61 severe to profound, n = 4 range unknown).
Twenty-three percent (n = 23) of the sample had additional dis-
abilities. Within the school-wide program, Rose (2008) analyzed
student performance on the measures of academic progress

(MAP; NWEA, 2003), silent reading fluency test (APPROACH 1:
(SRFT); Rose and McAnally, 2008), test of silent contextual read-
ing fluency (TOSCRF; Hammill et al., 2006), and teacher ratings.
See Maze section for further details on the findings from Bark-
meier (2009), who analyzed student data from the CBM maze,
MAP (NWEA, 2003), and teacher ratings.
Rose (2008) presented the SRFT (in which students read mod-
ified passages in which the story was presented in all upper
case letters with no spaces or punctuation and students put a
slash between the boundaries of words). This measure used the
formatting structure of the TOSCRF (Hammill et al., 2006) with
content derived from Reading Milestones (Quigley et al., 2001) and
Reading Bridge (Quigley et al., 2003). For the SRFT and TOSCRF
tasks, the participant’s score was calculated by summing the
correct number of words identified. The SRFT and the TOSCRF,
presented as 3-min timed tasks, were administered within a
3-day time frame and presented four times in the year. MAP
(NWEA, 2003) was administered twice a year, within 10 days of
the progress monitoring measures. In the fall, teachers rated the
student’s reading ability (1 = low reading ability to 5 = average
reading ability). Inter-rater agreement was high with strong
alternate form reliability. For criterion validity, strong correla-
tions were present between the SRFT, TOSCRF (Hammill et al.,
2006), MAP (NWEA, 2003), and teacher ratings. SRFT and TOSCRF
were sensitive to growth (p < .001) for students in elementary
and high school, but not middle school.
Lam (2020) explored the technical adequacy of silent reading
fluency in a traditional paper–pencil and electronic-based deliv-
ery formats. Additionally, Lam (2020) also explored the technical
adequacy of maze in both delivery formats. See Maze section
below for student performance on the maze portion of the Lam
(2020) study. Students were included if they met the follow-
ing four criteria: (a) a documented hearing loss, (b) a reading
level between the second and fourth grade according to teacher
report, (c) placement in grades 2 to 12, and (d) no known motor of
uncorrected vision impairment. Students (n = 40) were generally
in elementary school (n = 33, 83%), were White (n = 20, 50%), used
Spoken English as their primary communication mode (n = 26,
65%), and used amplification (n = 36, 90%).
Students were presented with CBM materials with the order
of conditions (paper–pencil versus e-based) and measures (maze
versus silent reading fluency) counterbalanced. Within each
measure the forms were randomized. For silent reading flu-
ency, students were presented with six passages (two repeating
passages across the paper–pencil and e-based conditions, one
non-repeating passage in the paper–pencil condition and one
non-repeating passage in the e-based condition). Silent reading
fluency passages at the third grade reading level were selected.
For the task, students marked the boundaries between words by
drawing a vertical line (paper–pencil) or by clicking on the space
between the words with a computer mouse (e-based).
Scoring metrics included: correct words identified (CWI,
number of words after boundary lines are drawn) a metric
only for paper–pencil condition, correct boundaries (number
of boundary lines selected that correctly separated words), and
percent correct (correct boundaries/(correct + incorrect bound-
aries)). In addition to the silent reading fluency task, students
completed the Woodcock Johnson III Test of Achievement Third
Edition Passage Comprehension subtest (Woodcock et al., 2001).
Spring 2015 MAP data (NWEA, 2003) were available for 67% of
the sample.
For alternate form reliability, Pearson product–moment cor-
relations for the passages delivered in the paper–pencil and the
e-based conditions correlations fell within the weak to moderate
E. A. Lam et al. 405
ranges. For criterion validity in the paper–pencil conditions, WJ-
III Passage Comprehension (Woodcock et al., 2001) correlations
fell in the weak to moderate range and MAP (NWEA, 2003)
correlations in the moderate to strong ranges. For e-based, the
correlations ranged from weak to strong for passage comprehen-
sion subtests and weak to strong for MAP.
In summary, Rose (2008) and Lam (2020) explored the relia-
bility and criterion-related validity of silent reading fluency. The
results across the studies varied with the results of Rose (2008)
generally reporting higher correlations for reliability and validity
as compared to Lam (2020). Even when comparing the studies
using only the paper–pencil condition and the same metrics,
the differences remained. It appears as if sample differences in
size, demographics, measures selected, and length of the tasks
presented may have impacted differences in scores. Due to these
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024
differences, further research is needed to examine the technical
properties and utility of silent reading fluency with students
who are DHH.
Cloze
Two studies (LaSasso, 1980; Kelly & Ewoldt, 1984) explored the
technical adequacy of the cloze procedure (students read pas-
sages in which every fifth word was removed and replaced with
a blank, and students wrote in the missing word for each blank).
LaSasso (1980) assessed students who were prelingually and
profoundly deaf who attended residential schools for the deaf
(n = 95, ages 14 to 18). For this study, four passages were selected
from the Reading for Concepts reading series (McGraw-Hill, 1970).
The passages were selected at third, fifth, and seventh grade lev-
els. Participants were administered three passages: third grade
(selected from one of three forms), fifth grade (one of six forms),
and seventh grade (one of three forms).
Internal consistency spanned the moderate to strong range.
For criterion validity, the cloze procedure did not accurately rank
the readability of passages. LaSasso (1980) proposed three possi-
ble interpretations: (1) the readability formulas used not predict
reading difficulty, (2) the cloze scores are non-predictive, or (3)
neither approaches predict passage difficulty. Further research
was needed to explore these findings.
Kelly and Ewoldt (1984) examined the technical adequacy of
the cloze procedure when both verbatim and responses that
were not verbatim but maintained text coherence were consid-
ered correct. Students who were DHH and attended the Kendall
Demonstration Elementary School (n = 96, age 7 to 15) partici-
pated. Prior to administration, teacher judgment was used to
identify the cloze passage that matched each student’s approxi-
mate reading level. For the task, each student was administered
one cloze passage. Some students also completed a story retell
task in which students provided a signed (or spoken) retelling of
the text.
Using a borderline group technique, performance standards
were established, with the student performance on each of the
three cloze metrics classified as “acceptable” or “unacceptable.”
Additional data from a story retell (n = 57) and performance on
the reading comprehension subtest of the Stanford Achievement
Test—Hearing Impaired (SAT-HI; as cited by Kelly & Ewoldt,
1984) (n = 74) were analyzed using this same technique. Inter-
rater reliability was generally high. The criterion validity of cloze
passages with story retell and the SAT-HI (as cited by Kelly &
Ewoldt, 1984) yielded significant agreement between all three
cloze metrics and the SAT-HI, but only one metric was significant
for story retell.
 406 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 4
In summary, two studies (LaSasso, 1980; Kelly & Ewoldt, 1984)
explored the reliability and criterion validity of Cloze. Overall,
reliability was moderate to strong (LaSasso, 1980) and relativity
high (Kelly & Ewoldt, 1984). To evaluate validity, both authors
selected a different method of analysis. For LaSasso (1980) the
passages did not rank from easy to hard based on student
performance, and for Kelly and Ewoldt (1984), there was higher
agreement in the consistency of decisions for the SAT-HI than
the story retell.
Maze
Four studies (Chen, 2002; Devenow, 2003; Barkmeier, 2009; Lam,
2020) explored the technical adequacy of the maze, which is a
modified-cloze technique (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992), in which stu-
dents read passages in which every seventh word in the passages
is replaced with multiple-choice options. Students circle the
word that best completes the sentence.
Chen (2002) explored the technical adequacy of CBM reading
and writing passages with elementary students who are DHH
(age 6 to 12, M = 10.12). All students attended the same school
and received instruction either in a self-contained classroom
(n = 37) or in the mainstream (n = 14). Participants completed
three 1-min maze passages each in the winter and spring. Mea-
sures included the maze, CBM written language probes, a sub-
test from the Test of Written Language—Third Edition (TOWL-
3; Hammill & Larsen, 1996), and teacher ratings. Maze metrics
included correct (number of correct selections), corrected (num-
ber of correct selections adjusted for incorrect selections), scan
(total number of words read), and accuracy (percent of correct
selections out of the total number of choices).
Inter-rater reliability was high. For alternate form reliability
and test–retest, correlations ranged from weak to strong, with
the highest correlations present for the metrics of correct and
corrected. All correlations between the maze and the achieve-
ment test fell in the strong range except for the metric of
incorrect that fell in the weak range. For teacher ratings, the
metrics of correct, corrected, and scan fell in the strong range,
accuracy spanned the moderate to strong ranges, and incorrect
choices fell in the weak range.
Devenow (2003) assessed the technical adequacy of the maze
but used a two-phase approach. Thirty-four students (ages 11 to
17, M = 13.37) participated in Phase 1 and 31 students (ages 9 to
15, M = 12.25) participated in Phase 2. All participants attended a
residential school for the deaf either in the geographic Midwest
(Phase 1) or Southwest (Phase 2). American Sign Language was
the primary mode of communication for the majority of par-
ticipants with spoken English, or a combination of both modes
(spoken language and sign) also reported.
For Phase 1, each participant was administered six maze
passages with two probes administered at each of the three
testing conditions (untimed procedure, 2-min procedure, 4-
min procedure). The six CBM metrics in each of the three
conditions were correlated with the participants’ performance
on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT; Harcourt Brace
Educational Measurement, 1995). For Phase 2, the technical
adequacy of the 2-min condition was explored further with each
participant administered four maze passages under the 2-min
condition.
Alternate form reliability, calculated only in Phase 2, spanned
the moderate to strong range for correct and corrected and
spanned the weak to moderate range for incorrect. Correlations
between the maze and the SAT (Harcourt Brace Educational
Measurement, 1995) yielded the strongest correlations when
administered in the 2-min time condition.
As noted earlier, Rose (2008) and Barkmeier (2009) shared the
same sample of participants but Rose (2008) analyzed silent
reading fluency results, whereas Barkmeier (2009) explored
maze. Maze passages, derived from the basic academic skill
sample (Espin et al., 1989), were administered three times during
the school year. The score was the number of incorrect words
subtracted from the total number of words correct. Perfor-
mance was compared to the MAP (NWEA, 2003) and teacher
ratings.
For reliability, student performance varied across forms and
grade levels, with the highest correlations noted for elementary
aged students using testing form D. For criterion-related validity,
strong correlations were present for both MAP (NWEA, 2003) and
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024
teacher ratings in the elementary and middle school grades, with
lower correlations noted for high school students.
Lam (2020) analyzed student performance using silent
reading fluency (described earlier in the text) and maze
(described below) under two delivery formats (e-based versus
paper–pencil). Three scores were used in this study: correct
maze choices (CMC, total number of correctly identified selec-
tions within one min), correct maze choices minus incorrect
maze choices (CMC-IMC, total number of correctly identified
selections minus incorrect selections in one min), and correct
maze choices minus 1/2 incorrect maze choices (CMC-IMC/2,
total number of correctly identified selections minus the total of
incorrect selections divided by two).
For alternate form reliability, Pearson product–moment cor-
relations for the passages delivered in the paper–pencil and the
e-based conditions correlations fell within the weak to moderate
ranges. For criterion validity in the paper pencil conditions, WJ-
III Passage Comprehension (Woodcock et al., 2001) and MAP
(NWEA, 2003) correlations fell in the moderate to strong range.
For e-based, the correlations across CBM probes ranged from
moderate to strong for passage comprehension subtest in the
strong range for MAP.
In summary, the maze was assessed in four of the nine
studies. Reliability evidence was generally strong across mea-
sures. Validity evidence supported the use of the maze with
students who are DHH especially for elementary and middle
school students, when the task was 1–2 min in length, and the
metrics of correct choices and corrected choices were employed.
The maze results suggest that educators could use this tool,
in conjunction with additional data sources, as an indicator of
students’ reading proficiency.
Discussion
The purpose of this systematic literature review was to explore
the reliability and validity of CBM with students who are DHH as
a first step in determining the utility of CBM for instructional
planning and data-based decision-making. Nine studies were
identified and included the CBM tasks of signed reading fluency,
silent reading fluency, cloze, and maze.
The technical adequacy (reliability and validity) for each
study was analyzed. Reliability was assessed using a range of
techniques including inter-rater, internal consistency, stability,
and equivalence analysis. Validity evidence included the degree
to which the scores obtained could be interpreted for the
intended uses. In the context of CBM, can an educator interpret
the student’s score on a CBM task to have meaning beyond the
given CBM task; can the score be interpreted as an indicator
 E. A. Lam et al. 407

of the student’s overall reading ability? Would a student’s role of oral reading fluency when used with students who are
performance on a CBM task be similar to their performance DHH who use oral communication.
on an achievement task (e.g., high CBM performance and high
achievement performance, would the inverse be true)? Below we
describe the reliability and validity evidence for each of the four Silent Reading Fluency
measures.
Silent reading fluency was measured in two of the nine studies
(Rose, 2008; Lam, 2020) in this review. In Rose (2008) reliability
Signed Reading Fluency was high. Additionally, for students with typical levels of hearing,
correlations between the TOSCRF (the measure to which the
For signed reading fluency variation was present in how the
SRFT was based) and criterion measures ranged from .57 to .80
authors approached viewed, interpreted, and scored student
(Hammill et al., 2006), which is generally similar to the findings
signed responses (Allinder & Eccarius, 1999; Easterbrooks & Hus-
of Rose (2008) using the SRFT with students who are DHH. In
ton, 2008). Across studies correlations were strong for internal
contrast, Lam (2020) reported lower reliability coefficients for
consistency with more notable variation for other reliability
test retest and validity coefficients that were rarely sufficient.
types. Validity evidence between signed reading fluency and an

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024

There were notable differences in the sample size, demograph-
achievement test yielded correlations in the moderate (Allinder
ics, length, and construction of the silent reading passages,
& Eccarius, 1999) or moderate to strong ranges (Easterbrooks &
task demands (paper–pencil and e-based), and scoring protocol,
Huston, 2008).
which limit direct comparison across the Rose (2008) and Lam
It is critical to note a few factors that present challenges
(2020) studies.
during the scoring and interpretation of signed reading flu-
However, when completing the silent reading fluency task,
ency—factors that are not present when native English speakers
students who are DHH and students with typical levels of hear-
with typical levels of hearing complete the task. First, students
ing respond to the prompt in the same way (drawing vertical
who are DHH vary not only in their expressive language ability
lines to indicate boundaries between words), which may pro-
but also in the way they present information in a signed form
mote some commonalities in performance. Also since the task
(e.g., Signed Exact English, Signed English, Total Communication,
is read silently, it is possible that a sequential word-by-word
American Sign Language). As such, the scoring of signed reading
encoding of the text may not be required, and students could
fluency with students who use signed English with an emphasis
more flexibly work through the task. Future research is needed
on word-by-word replication of the written text (Allinder &
to explore the utility of silent reading fluency with students who
Eccarius, 1999) is different from assessing the quality of the
are DHH, as silent reading fluency may provide additional means
language interpreted text into a sign-based system or American
to assess students reading performance that does not require
Sign Language (Easterbrooks & Huston, 2008). Both methods
interpretation of signed responses.
are renderings of the text but may require different cognitive
processes and engagement with the task.
Second, students with typical hearing who live in native Cloze
English speaking environments may have full access to spoken
The cloze procedure was assessed in two of the nine studies. For
English, a language in which the passage is presented. In con-
LaSasso (1980) and Kelly and Ewoldt (1984), results suggest gen-
trast, students who are DHH, even in a native English speaking
erally consistent student performance but variation in validity
home, may have limited or no functional access to English.
evidence for these measures. Both cloze and maze procedures
Limited access to English may create challenges as students are
have students read a passage with missing words presented at
then required to translate the written English text (the student’s
set intervals, and the students insert the missing word by either
second language) into their first language (signed-based system)
writing in the word (cloze) or circling the correct word when
and then generate a response for an examiner in a signed
given three choices (maze). As described below, the evidence
form.
supporting the validity of the scores obtained in maze appear
Of further note, correlations between ORF and criterion mea-
stronger than cloze. It may be possible that differences in a
sures with students with typical levels of hearing generally range
student’s language exposure, levels of communication access,
from .60 to .90 (Marston, 1989; Wayman et al., 2007), which is
and cognitive organization of linguistic information may create
notably above the correlations presented in this review. These
greater difficulty in self-generating and writing a missing word
findings suggest that signed reading fluency with students who
as compared to recognizing the correct word when given a set of
are DHH do not function similarly as ORF with students with
choices. Further research is needed to test this hypothesis.
typical levels of hearing. ORF is the most common CBM tool,
and due to its popularity and availability, it is feasible that
an accommodation to promote test access would be to have
the student who is DHH read the passage “aloud” using sign
Maze
language rather than orally. The maze was assessed in four of the nine studies within this
The findings from this review are consistent with prior review. For reliability, Chen (2002), Devenow (2003), and Lam
research in cognitive science suggesting that students who (2020) reported generally high reliability correlations when
are DHH may interact with text differently (Marschark, 2006; using the metrics of correct and corrected; lower correlations
Marschark et al., 2011) and accommodations alone do not were present in alternative scoring methods of scan, accuracy,
create equivalency (Cawthon, 2015). These results suggest that and incorrect responses. Barkmeier (2009) analyzed correlations
student performance data from a signed passage (signed reading across forms rather than by metric. Results yielded that student
fluency) cannot be interpreted to have the same meaning as an performance on some forms as highly reliable, whereas on other
orally read passage (oral reading fluency). Further research is form student performance varied especially in the upper grades.
needed to empirically explore the relation between sign and These findings suggest that form selection and grade level may
oral reading fluency, and evidence is needed to establish the be a critical factor to screen when selecting Maze probes for
 408 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 4
students. This pattern of more modest correlations in the upper
grades is consistent with the pattern of correlations for students
with typical levels of hearing (Marston, 1989; Wayman et al.,
2007).
These findings provided preliminary validity evidence that
student data on the maze may serve as a general outcome
measure of students’ overall reading competency. In general,
when students performed well on maze, their overall perfor-
mance on achievement tests was also high, with the inverse
finding present as well. In addition to the empirical evidence,
theoretically maze may be a promising option as it does not
require oral or signed production and may allow for variation
in cognitive processing (Marschark, 2006; Marschark et al., 2011).
Since only four studies explored maze, additional evidence are
needed to confirm these findings.
Limitations
Findings of this review should be considered in light of a few
limitations. First, following the systematic search, only nine
studies were identified which is a limited number of studies.
Although inclusion criteria included articles and unpublished
works from a variety of data sources to include the full pop-
ulation of studies, it is notable that three of the maze studies
were dissertations or master’s theses originating from the same
university. Conclusions would have been stronger if additional
studies from a variety of generating institutions and authors
were present.
Second, studies varied in the administration, scoring, and
interpretation of the tasks, even within the same CBM task.
For example, with signed reading fluency, Allinder and Eccarius
(1999) required a one-to-one correspondence of word-to-sign,
whereas Easterbrooks and Huston (2008) assessed the quality
of the interpreted signed response. For silent reading fluency,
cloze, and maze, there were variations in task difficulty, length
of passage presented, and scoring techniques used. Last, in most
cases there were a limited number of study participants per
study, which is often a challenge with students in a low incidence
disability area. Across studies, the students were heterogeneous,
which limits inferences as to how these measures function with
subsets of students who are DHH but may provide a broad
understanding of the performance of students who are DHH
across the population.
Future Research
Future research is needed to explore the utility of CBM with
students who are DHH. We recommend that future researchers
include larger sample sizes, systematically assess subgroups of
students who are DHH, and clearly describe the demographic
characteristics of the sample. Future research is recommended
in the areas of administration procedures including accommo-
dations and longitudinal datasets. When determining the most
promising CBM tools, Deno’s (1985) criteria (reliable and valid,
simple and efficient, easy to understand, and cost-effective)
should also be considered.
More specifically, students who are DHH may have varying
levels of auditory access to spoken English and different levels of
language fluency in one or more languages and may vary in how
they engage these language(s) when processing written English
text. As such, it seems important for future researchers to assess
and clearly describe the language experiences of student par-
ticipants, as this information may shed light on a student’s
reading fluency, comprehension across language modes, and the
relation between fluency and comprehension.
Additionally, students who are DHH who use spoken English
to communicate were underrepresented in this review. Since
ORF is the most common measure for students with typical
hearing, the consideration of appropriateness of students who
are DHH who use spoken English is likely. Available research
suggests that students who are DHH are diverse in how they
acquire reading skills and the cognitive processes they use when
engaging in the reading process (Herman et al., 2019). Reading
tasks, including ORF, provides limited information as to how the
student is cognitively processing the text and assumes auditory
and phonological fluency in English (Luft, 2019). Understanding
of these factors is needed when administrating and interpreting
the findings of student performance using ORF and may limit
comparison of performance to students with typical levels of
hearing.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024
The legislative call emphasizes the importance of using data-
based instruction and evidenced-based educational strategies to
efficiently and effectively provide high-quality instruction to all
students (IDEIA, 2004; ESSA, 2015). According to Fuchs (2004), a
three-phased approach is needed to establish a body of evidence
to support CBM measures within the instructional planning
process. Based on this systematic review, the field is currently
in phase 1 of this process exploring reliability and validity. To
move through the phases of generating evidence, we need to
build strong relationships between researchers and practition-
ers. From a research perspective, it is within these relationships
that empirical studies can be conceptualized and applied with
students in real-word contexts and results examined to build the
evidence base. From a practitioner perspective, these partner-
ships can create an avenue to meet the legislative call by using
CBM data—and other data forms—to inform instructional plan-
ning, in which additional guidance and resources are provided
through a research partnership.
Currently, practitioners are seeking ways to engage in data-
based decision-making, with CBM appearing to be a viable tool.
The results of this systematic review provide preliminary evi-
dence that ORF used with students with typical levels of hearing
may not be appropriate for students who are DHH. Findings
suggest that silent reading fluency or maze may serve as viable
alternatives, as the nature of these tasks reduces some chal-
lenges with spoken responses or signed interpretations, but
further research is needed. When administering maze, the most
robust results were present when it was administered to elemen-
tary and middle school students, when the task was 1–2 min in
length, and when the metrics of correct choices and corrected
choices were employed.
Conclusion
Results from this systematic review of the literature suggest
that student performance on CBM tasks is generally consistent
and stable with emerging evidence that select CBM tasks that
may have the capacity to serve as general outcome measures of
students’ general reading proficiency. These promising prelimi-
nary results suggest the need for continued research to grow the
evidence base related to the technical characteristics of the most
promising measures, identify how these measures demonstrate
progress over time, and identify ways to integrate and interpret
student-level data to inform day-to-day instructional planning
to improve student outcomes.
Conf licts of Interest
No conflicts of interest were reported.
 E. A. Lam et al. 409

References Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Monitoring reading
growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feed-
Allinder, R. M., & Eccarius, M. A. (1999). Exploring the technical
back systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 103–111. doi:
adequacy of curriculum-based measurement in reading for
10.1080/00220671.1989.10885938
children who use manually coded English. Exceptional Chil-
Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention:
dren, 65(2), 271–283. doi: 10.1177/001440299906500210
A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 195–203.
Appelman, K. I., Callahan, J. O., Mayer, M. H., Luetke, B. S., &
doi: 10.1177/0022219412442150
Stryker, D. S. (2012). Education, employment, and inde-
Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of Written Language (3rd
pendent living of young adults who are deaf and hard of
Ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
hearing. American Annals of the Deaf , 157(3), 264–275. doi:
Hammill, D. D., Wiederholt, J. L., & Allen, E. A. (2006). TOSCRF: Test
10.1353/aad.2012.1619
of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency, Examiner’s manual. PRO-
American Educational Research Association, American Psycho-
ED.
logical Association, & National Council on Measurement in
Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement (1995). Stanford
Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological
Achievement Test (9th Ed. Ed.Form S (Stanford 9)). Pearson.
testing. Washington D.C: American Educational Research
Hartmann, E. A. (2010). Evaluating employment outcomes of adults

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024

Association.
who are deaf and hard of hearing[Unpublished Doctoral Dis-
Barkmeier, L.M., & Rose, S. (2009). Technical adequacy of the Maze
sertation]. Austin, TX: Teachers College, Colombia Univer-
with secondary deaf and hard of hearing students. [Unpublished
sity.
masters thesis.] University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Herman, R., Kyle, F. E., & Roy, P. (2019). Literacy and phonological
Bruce, S. M., Luckner, J. L., & Ferrell, K. A. (2018). Assessment of
skills in oral deaf children and hearing children with a
students with sensory disabilities: Evidenced-based prac-
history of dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 5(4), 553–575.
tices. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43(2), 79–89. doi:
doi: 10.1002/rrq.244
10.1177/1534508417708311
Hosp, J. L., Hensley, K., Huddle, S. M., & Ford, J. W. (2014).
Cawthon, S. (2015). From the margins to the spotlight: Diverse
Using curriculum-based measures with postsecondary
deaf and hard of hearing student populations and standard-
students with intellectual and developmental disabili-
ized assessment accessibility. American Annals of the Deaf ,
ties. Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 247–257. doi:
160(4), 385–394. doi: 10.1353/aad.2015.0036
10.1177/0741932514530572
Chen, Y. (2002). Assessment of reading and writing samples of deaf
Hunley, S. A., Davies, S. C., & Miller, C. R. (2013). The relation-
and hard of hearing students by curriculum-based measure-
ship between curriculum-based measures in oral reading
ments[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Minneapolis, MN:
fluency and high-stakes tests for seventh grade students.
University of Minnesota.
RMLE Online: Research In Middle Level Education, 36(5), 1–8. doi:
Christ, T. J., Silberglitt, B., Yeo, S., & Cormier, D. (2010). Curriculum-
10.1080/19404476.2013.11462098
based measurement of oral reading: An evaluation of
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. . § 1400
growth rates and seasonable effects among students
(2004). www.ed.gov.
served in general and special education. School Psychology
Jung, P. G., McMaster, K. L., Kunkel, A. K., Shin, J., & Stecker,
Review, 39(3), 447–462. https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/u
P. M. (2018). Effects of data-based individualization for
spr20/39/3?nav=tocList.
students with intensive learning needs: A meta-analysis.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 144–155. doi:
New York, NY: Erlbaum Associates.
10.1111/ldrp.12172
Deno, S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerg-
Kelly, L. P., & Ewoldt, C. (1984). Interpreting nonverbatim cloze
ing alternate. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232. doi: 10.1177/
responses to evaluate program success and diagnose stu-
001440298505200303
dent needs for reading instruction. American Annals of the
Devenow, P. (2003). A study of the CBM Maze procedure as a measure
Deaf , 129(1), 45–51. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.0857
of reading with deaf and hard of hearing students[Unpublished
Lam, E. A., Rose, S., & McMaster, K. L. (2020). Technical char-
doctoral dissertation]. Minneapolis, MN: University of
acteristics of curriculum-based measurement with stu-
Minnesota.
dents who are deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and deaf Educa-
Easterbrooks, S. R., & Huston, S. G. (2008). The signed reading
tion, 318–333. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enaa003. https://doi.org/
fluency of students who are deaf/hard of hearing. Jour-
10.1093/deafed/enaa003.
nal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(1), 37–54. doi:
LaSasso, C. (1980). Validity and reliability of the cloze procedure
10.1093/deafed/enm030
as a measure of readability for prelingually, profoundly deaf
Espin, C., Deno, S., Maruyama, G., & Cohen, C. (1989). The Basic
students. American Annals of the Deaf , 125(5), 559–563. doi:
Academic Skills Samples (BASS): An instrument for the screen-
10.1353/aad.2012.1497
ing and identification of children at risk for failure in regular
Luckner, J. L., & Urbach, J. (2012). Reading Fluency and Stu-
education classrooms[Paper presentation]. San Francisco: CA:
dents who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Synthesis of the
American Educational Research Association.
Research. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33(4), 230–241.
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740111412582.
congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177.
Luft, P. (2012). Employment and independent living skills of
Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-
public school high school deaf students: Analyses of the
based measurement research. School Psychology Review,
transition competence battery response patterns. Journal
33(2), 188–193. https://naspjournals.org/loi/spsr.
of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 45(3),
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitor-
292–313. https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara/about.html.
ing student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21(1),
Luft, P. (2018). Reading comprehension and phonics research:
45–59. https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/uspr20/21/1?nav=
Review of correlational analyses with deaf and hard of
tocList.
 410 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, Vol. 25, No. 4
hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
23(2), 148–163. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enx057.
Luft, P. (2019). Strengths-based reading assessment for deaf and
hard-of-hearing students. Psychology in the Schools, 57(3),
375–393. doi: 10.1002/pits.22277.
Luckner, J. L. (2013). Using the dynamic indicators of basic literacy
skills with students who are deaf or hard of hearing: Per-
spectives of a panel of experts. American Annals of the Deaf ,
158(1), 7–19. doi: 10.1353/aad.2013.0012.
Luckner, J., & Bowen, S. (2006). Assessment practices of profes-
sionals serving students who are deaf or hard of hearing:
An initial investigation. American Annals of the Deaf , 151(4),
410–417. doi: 10.1353/aad.2006.0046.
Marschark, M. (2006). Intellectual functioning of deaf adults and
children: Answers and questions. European Journal of Cogni-
tive Psychology, 18(1), 70–89. doi: 10.1080/09541440500216028.
Marschark, M., Spencer, P., Adams, J., & Sapere, P. (2011). Evidence-
based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing chil-
dren: Teaching to their cognitive strengths and needs.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(1), 3–16. doi:
10.1080/08856257.2011.543540.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach
to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do
it. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assess-
ing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: NY: Guilford
Press.
Mayer, C., & Trezek, B. J. (2018). Literacy outcomes in deaf stu-
dents with cochlear implants: Current state of the knowl-
edge. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23(1), 1–16.
doi: 10.1093/deafed/enx043.
McGraw-Hill (1970). Reading for Concepts. Columbus, OH: Author.
Northwest Evaluation Association (2003). Technical manual
for the NWEA Measures of Academic Progress and
achievement level tests. Portland, OR: Northwest Evaluation
Association.
Quigley, S. P., McAnally, P., Rose, S., & King, C. (2001). Reading
milestones. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Quigley, S. P., McAnally, P., Rose, S., & Payne, J. (2003). Reading
bridge. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Rose, S. (2007). Monitoring progress of students who are deaf or
hard of hearing. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Stu-
dent Progress Monitoring. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/E
D502455.pdf.
Rose, S., McAnally, P., Barkmeier, L., Virnig, S., & Long, J. (2008).
Silent reading fluency test: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to
growth for students who are deaf and hard of hearing at the
elementary, middle school, and high school levels. (Report No. 9).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Sandberg, K. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2011). English learners: Chal-
lenges in assessment and the promise of curriculum-based
measurement. Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 144–154.
doi: 10.1177/0741932510361260.
Shin, J., & McMaster, K. (2019). Relations between CBM (oral
reading and maze) and reading comprehension on state
achievement tests: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychol-
ogy, 73, 131–149. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.005.
Talbott, E., Maggin, D. M., Van Acker, E. Y., & Kumm, S.
(2017). Quality indicators for reviews of research in
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/25/4/398/5874736 by guest on 02 March 2024
special education. Exceptionality, 6(4), 245–265. doi:
10.1080/09362835.2017.1283625.
Thomas, A. E., & Marvin, C. A. (2016). Program monitoring
practices for teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing in
early intervention. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 37(3),
184–193. doi: 10.1177/1525740115597862.
Thorndike, R. M., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (2010). Measurement and
evaluation in psychology and education: Eighth edition. New
York, NY: Pearson Education Inc.
Ticha, R., Espin, C. A., & Wayman, M. (2009). Reading
progress monitoring for secondary-school students:
Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of
reading-aloud and maze-selection measures. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), 132–142. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00287.x.
Toubanos, E. S. (1995). Review of the Test of Early Reading
Ability—Deaf or Hard of Hearing. In J. C. Connelly & J. C.
Impara (Eds.), The twelve mental measurement yearbook (pp.
1051–1053). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measure-
ment.
Wayman, M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A.
(2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measure-
ment in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85–120.
doi: 10.1177/00224669070410020401.
Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test – Revised.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-
Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.