Module 5 Assignment: Assessment Critique

Module 5 Assignment: Assessment Critique

You will choose one Curriculum Based Measure and One Diagnostic Assessment to review and critique. The purpose of this critique is to provide additional information to your colleagues in understanding whether, when, and how to use and interpret common assessments. The final product will be a user-friendly handout that addresses the following components. Be sure to include in-text citations and a complete reference list. Once complete, you will upload your handout to the discussion board and the assignments tab.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Assessment tools play a pivotal role in educational and clinical settings by providing valuable insights into a student's learning progress and diagnostic needs. The selection of appropriate assessments, particularly curriculum-based measures (CBMs) and diagnostic assessments, can significantly influence instructional decisions and intervention strategies. This critique examines one CBM and one diagnostic assessment, evaluating their design, application, advantages, limitations, and overall utility to educators, clinicians, and stakeholders.

Curriculum-Based Measures (CBMs): Overview and Evaluation

Curriculum-Based Measures are formative assessment tools that directly measure a student's academic performance related to the curriculum. They are typically quick, easy to administer, and provide ongoing data to inform instruction (Shinn, 1989). For example, a common CBM in reading might involve timed oral reading passages, where the number of words read correctly per minute is recorded. The strengths of CBMs include their sensitivity to growth over short periods, their direct alignment with instructional content, and their practicality for frequent administration (Hosp & Reschly, 2002).

However, limitations exist, such as potential variability in administration and scoring, which can affect reliability. Additionally, CBMs tend to focus on specific skills, potentially overlooking wider competencies. Despite these limitations, CBMs are invaluable for monitoring progress and making data-driven instructional adjustments (Deno, 1985).

Diagnostic Assessments: Overview and Evaluation

Diagnostic assessments aim to identify specific learning difficulties or skill deficits, offering a detailed profile of a student's strengths and weaknesses. These assessments are often comprehensive, involving multiple subtests and qualitative observations (Gersten et al., 2009). An example might be a standardized math diagnostic assessment that identifies particular areas of difficulty such as problem-solving or computational skills.

The advantages of diagnostic assessments include their thoroughness and ability to inform targeted interventions. They assist educators in tailoring instruction to individual student needs and providing evidence for specialized services (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Nonetheless, they can be time-consuming, require trained administrators, and may be less feasible for frequent use due to resource constraints (Kavale & Mostert, 2004).

Utility and Application in Practice

In practice, CBMs are most effective for ongoing progress monitoring, grades, and formative assessment, providing immediate feedback that guides instruction. Conversely, diagnostic assessments are best employed at the outset of intervention planning, to clarify specific learning difficulties, or to evaluate the effectiveness of targeted interventions over time (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

When choosing between these assessments, educators and clinicians should consider factors such as the purpose of assessment, time constraints, and the specific information needed. Combining both types can offer a comprehensive understanding of a student's academic profile, facilitating data-driven decisions and personalized instruction.

Conclusion

Both curriculum-based measures and diagnostic assessments are essential tools within the educational assessment landscape. CBMs provide quick, ongoing data useful for monitoring progress and adjusting instruction, while diagnostic assessments offer in-depth analysis crucial for understanding specific learning challenges. An informed integration of both assessments enhances the capacity of educators and clinicians to support student success effectively.

References

  • Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232.
  • Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). A cognitive perspective on progress monitoring. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 131-144.
  • Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2009). Teaching reading to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(3), 261-276.
  • Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. (2002). The use of curriculum-based measurement in special education. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11(4), 355-376.
  • Kavale, K., & Mostert, M. P. (2004). Measurement issues and assessment practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 38-47.
  • Shinn, M. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. The Journal of Special Education, 23(1), 29-37.
  • Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to intervention: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.

Related Assignments