An analysis of the concurrent and predictive validity of curriculum based measures CBM), the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), and the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) for reading

This study examined the concurrent validity of four different reading assessments that are commonly used to screen students at risk for reading difficulties by measuring the correlation of the third grade Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) in Reading with three specific versions of curriculum based measurement: DIBELS oral reading fluency (ORF), AIMSweb ORF, and AIMSweb Maze. In addition, correlations were calculated among each of these measures with the third grade New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) measure of reading achievement. Multiple regression analyses also were conducted to provide information on the predictive validity of CBM and MAP in determining risk for reading difficulty, as measured by a high stakes assessment (e.g., NECAP). Reading performance data were collected on 137 third grade students in the fall and winter. Significant correlations were found among each measure of reading at each point in time (p < .001). Correlations ranged from .972 (DIBELS ORF and AIMSweb ORF) to .621 (Maze and NECAP). Within each measure, ORF had the highest correlations between fall and winter measures (r = .952), followed by the MAP (r = .872) and Maze (r = .746), respectively. Regression analyses revealed that the MAP assessment in the fall best predicted MAP scores in the winter (p < .001), followed by oral reading fluency (p < .05). MAP was also the best predictor of NECAP scores for the general population of students (p < .001), as well as those students receiving supplemental reading support (p < .001). When MAP was removed from the equation, ORF was the most significant predictor of performance on the NECAP for general education (p < .001) and at-risk readers (p < .001). Educational implications and suggestions for further research are discussed.