Single-case designs provide an established technology for evaluating the effects of academic interventions. Researchers interested in studying the long-term effects of reading interventions often use curriculum-based measures of reading (CBM-R) as they possess many of the desirable characteristics for use in a time-series design. The reliability of CBM-R scores is often supported by research from group designs, but making idiographic interpretations regarding the change in a student's oral reading rate requires attention to the precision of static scores and growth estimates. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we discuss how recent empirical work on the technical adequacy of CBM-R scores has revealed multiple threats to the data-evaluation validity when CBM-R passages are used to measure oral reading rate. Second, we identify pertinent considerations for conducting a visual analysis of intervention effects based on CBM-R data. We conclude with a brief discussion of implications for researchers considering the use of CBM-R within multiple-baseline designs.