Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (R-CBM): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening

A great deal of research over the past decade has examined the appropriateness of curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (R-CBM) in universal screening. Multiple researchers have meta-analyzed available correlational evidence, yielding support for the interpretation of R-CBM as an indicator of general reading proficiency. In contrast, researchers have yet to synthesize diagnostic accuracy evidence, which pertains to the defensibility of the use of R-CBM for screening purposes. The overall purpose of this research was to therefore conduct the first meta-analysis of R-CBM diagnostic accuracy research. A systematic search of the literature resulted in the identification of 34 studies, including 20 peer-reviewed articles, 7 dissertations, and 7 technical reports. Bivariate hierarchical linear models yielded generalized estimates of diagnostic accuracy statistics, which predominantly exceeded standards for acceptable universal screener performance. For instance, when predicting criterion outcomes within a school year (≤ 9 months), R-CBM sensitivity ranged between .80 and .83 and specificity ranged between .71 and .73. Multiple moderators of R-CBM diagnostic accuracy were identified, including the (a) R-CBM cut score used to define risk, (b) lag in time between R-CBM and criterion test administration, and (c) percentile rank corresponding to the criterion test cut score through which students were identified as either truly at risk or not at risk. Follow-up analyses revealed substantial variability of extracted cut scores within grade and time of year (i.e., fall, winter, and spring). This result called into question the inflexible application of a single cut score across contexts and suggested the potential necessity of local cut scores. Implications for practices, directions for future research, and limitations are discussed

A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses in Special Education: Exploring the Evidence Base for High-Leverage Practices

It is crucial that special education teachers are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Despite federal legislation and efforts of the field to identify and disseminate evidence-based practices for students with disabilities, it is uncertain whether all special education teachers provide instruction based on the best available research. To better prepare special education teachers, McLeskey et al. proposed 22 high-leverage practices (HLPs). We conducted this systematic review of meta-analyses to provide an initial investigation of the experimental evidence reporting on the effectiveness of the HLPs for students with, or at risk for, a disability. Results indicated the largest amount of evidence from meta-analyses related to intensive instruction, explicit instruction, and social skills, with few meta-analyses reporting on collaboration and assessment. The results highlighted disproportional evidence according to disability categories. Implications for future research, practice, and teacher education are discussed

sj-docx-1-rse-10.1177_07419325241240067 – Supplemental material for Outcome-Reporting Bias in Special Education Intervention Research Using Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Group Designs: A Conceptual Replication

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-rse-10.1177_07419325241240067 for Outcome-Reporting Bias in Special Education Intervention Research Using Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Group Designs: A Conceptual Replication by Elizabeth Talbott, Daniel M. Maggin, Meveryn Chua, Lauren Ashley, Xiaohong Chen, Philippa A. Chin and Mary Kate Curry in Remedial and Special Education</p

A Longitudinal Comparison of Enrollment Patterns of Students Receiving Special Education in Urban Neighborhood and Charter Schools

The purpose of this study is to compare and examine special education enrollment trends across disability categories and grade spans for public neighborhood and charter schools in the City of Chicago. Using multilevel longitudinal data analysis methods, we examined annual school enrollment and demographic reports. Our findings indicated that neighborhood schools serve significantly higher proportions of students receiving special education services (SRSE) than charter schools at the aggregate grade level (i.e., elementary and high school enrollments) and at each grade level. In addition, we found that charter schools enroll equal or significantly higher proportions of students with learning disabilities (LD), speech and language impairments (SLI), other health impairments (OHI), and emotional disturbance (ED), and substantially smaller proportions of students with autism, sensory impairments (SI), and intellectual disabilities (ID), when compared with neighborhood schools. However, we found that these differences vary between grade levels. We discuss the implications of these findings for policies affecting charter school authorization and contract renewal, and for policies establishing special education enrollment targets in charter schools. © 2017, © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2017