Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Joyce, B. G.
Right arrow Articles by Wolking, W. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Standardized Tests and Timed Curriculum-Based Assessments: A Comparison of Two Methods for Screening High-Risk Students

Bonnie G. Joyce

West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia

William D. Wolking

University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida

The present study compared two procedures used in identifying students as "at risk" for learning problems. One procedure was a standardized norm referenced assessment represented by the Metropolitan Readiness Test and the Metropolitan Achievement Test. The other test procedure was a variation of the Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA), which used frequency to measure samples of academic behavior. Tests were administered to 144 kindergarten and 142 first-grade children. Although the two procedures were comparable in identifying high-risk students, they differed substantially in time, effort, and cost. These differences might be important for school districts with limited personnel and funds.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 5, No. 3, 185-193 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/073428298700500301
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentHome page
J. Betts, M. Pickart, and D. Heistad
Construct and Predictive Validity Evidence for Curriculum-Based Measures of Early Literacy and Numeracy Skills in Kindergarten
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, April 1, 2009; 27(2): 83 - 95.
[Abstract] [PDF]