NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1116034
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2016
Pages: 25
Abstractor: As Provided
ISSN: ISSN-1537-7903
Comparing Two CBM Maze Selection Tools: Considering Scoring and Interpretive Metrics for Universal Screening
Ford, Jeremy W.; Missall, Kristen N.; Hosp, John L.; Kuhle, Jennifer L.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, v32 n4 p329-353 2016
Advances in maze selection curriculum-based measurement have led to several published tools with technical information for interpretation (e.g., norms, benchmarks, cut-scores, classification accuracy) that have increased their usefulness for universal screening. A range of scoring practices have emerged for evaluating student performance on maze selection (e.g., correct restoration, incorrect restoration, correct restoration minus incorrect restoration, and correct restoration minus one-half incorrect restoration). However, lack of clear understanding about the intersection between scoring and interpretation has resulted in limited evidence about using maze selection for making universal screening decisions. In this study, 925 students in Grades 3-6 completed two curriculum-based measurements for maze selection. Student performance on the two was compared across different scoring metrics. Limitations and practical implications are discussed.
Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education; Middle Schools; Secondary Education; Junior High Schools
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Assessments and Surveys: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS); Iowa Tests of Basic Skills
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A