Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Improve Student Achievement: Review of Research

narrative review of experimental-contrast studies of curriculum-based measurement in reading and mathematics

US K-12, students with disabilities and general-education classrooms

Narrative review with no pooled effect size, written by the developers of the method being reviewed and covering largely their own research programme. Grade D and developer-led, both of which should discount the positive framing. It is included for the moderator claim rather than the headline claim, because the moderator claim is the one that survives contact with the independent literature.

Teachers' use of curriculum-based measurement produced significant gains in student achievement - but the review names what has to accompany the measurement for that to happen, and the list is the finding. For students with disabilities, enhanced achievement was associated with teachers' use of SYSTEMATIC DATA-BASED DECISION RULES, SKILLS ANALYSIS FEEDBACK, and explicit INSTRUCTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS for modifying the programme. In general education, positive effects were associated with class profiles and peer-assisted learning strategies. Measuring a child more often is not the intervention; the intervention is the structured change in teaching that the measurement triggers. This converges exactly with the rules-versus-judgement moderator in Fuchs & Fuchs (1986), from a different angle.

Not applicable - a review of instructional practice with no trait estimates.

Not an empirical finding of its own. The measurement-plus-response claim is independently supported by the moderator structure in Fuchs & Fuchs (1986) and by the with-versus- without contrast in Filderman et al. (2018).