CBM Key Assessment 1

CBM Key Assessment Project

Madison Lacombe

Coastal Carolina University EDSP 323

April 10, 2023

Baseline:

In this curriculum-based measurement intervention and assessment, the chosen student

participant is a 17-year-old Caucasian male with a specific learning disability in reading,

writing, and mathematics. His disability affects his ability to keep pace with his non-disabled

peers in the general education setting. In his most recent MAP reading assessment, he had an

RIT score of 199 with a Lexile score of 670 which is at the 13th percentile compared to peers

in his grade. The average RIT score for students in 10th grade is 221; his score of 199 is

equivalent to the average score of a student at the beginning of 4th grade. The average Lexile

score of a 10th-grade student is 920-1200. He struggled the most with the assessment's

language, craft, and structure area; his RIT score was 187. On his MAP language assessment,

he had an RIT score of 191, at the 4th percentile for 10th grade. The average score is 219. His

score places him at an average 3rd-grade score. On the 3 baseline Maze probes that were

administered to him; he was able to get 5 correct answers on all three. Based on these scores I

have decided to lower the Lexile score on the future probes from around 800 to 600 score.

His current levels suggest that he may be more successful with lower-level passages.

Accommodations and modifications that are given to the student are in all content areas.

He is given extended time on tests and assignments up to 150%, oral admiration, and small

group settings for tests and quizzes. He has been observed and tends to perform better on

assessments when the questions are read to him, and he can respond verbally. In the general

education classrooms, he received special education support in co-teach math and English.

Last year he completed the RIASEC test to determine what he would do well in for a

profession. He scored the highest in the realistic, investigative, and artistic categories. For

post-high school, he has planned to receive training in auto mechanics and work at a local

automotive shop. The student noted that he will stay at home, live with his brothers, and

purchase his vehicle when he gets his driver's license. His interests and preferences include
CBM Key Assessment 3

watching TV, reading, playing video games, and taking care of his many pets. At home, he

has 10 dogs, a turtle, a bearded dragon, a hedgehog, and a gecko. His contextual factors and

interests will be referred to during the intervention through the chosen passages.

Intervention:

I decided to implement an intervention plan I think would best fit the student's deficit

in reading comprehension. After reviewing his IEP goals, and test scores, I used the TRAP

strategy to increase his reading comprehension skills. This strategy stands for Think, Read,

Ask Yourself, and Paraphrase (TRAP) and will be used to support the student to dive deeper

into comprehending text. Following the completion of the baseline tests, the student was

pulled out of class twice a week for intervention. Since the student does not have a resource

or literacy/numeracy class he is taken out of his math class for 10 minutes and brought to the

special education classroom to practice the comprehension strategy.

This type of intervention was chosen for the student because they were last scored at

the 13th percentile for reading comprehension. Based on the progress learning score for

English 1 class, he was found to need support in finding the central idea in the text where he

scored a 0%. In his, IEP is listed that he also needs support finding the theme of texts. One of

the key components of TRAP is finding the main idea in the text along with supporting

details that are used to paraphrase the text.

The intervention is individualized for this student based on his interests because the

chosen texts are all animal-based, which is his main interest. Accommodations are given as

well through reading the full text to the student out loud while he reads along and allowing

the student to type their answers instead of writing them. Intervention differentiates his

instruction because, in the English 1 class, he is not given individual support for reading

comprehension and is expected to do the same for the rest of his class. I had chosen texts that

were around his Lexile score of 670 to use for the intervention because he is so behind other
CBM Key Assessment 4

classmates it is important to focus on mastering his current levels before increasing the Lexile

of the texts. This strategy requires the student to engage in the reading passages through

questioning and paraphrasing the text. The student also is required to learn these skills by

taking notes on the passage that answers the given questions. (Hagaman, 2016) Promoting

active engagement was done by continuing instruction so that he would not have the

opportunity to become an off track and lower his engagement with the intervention. Every

step of the invention allows the student to respond because he gives his ideas on what the

main idea and supporting details are. For all his responses praise is given for effort and

corrections are given if the student gives answers that do not go align with the questions that

he is to answer. The intervention begins with TRAP written on the board before the student

comes into the classroom. Once the student arrives, we review what each of the letters in

TRAP stands for. Below states how this is done in a guided practice model

1. I ask the student “What does the letter T stand for?” and he should respond with

“Think”, if not I will use a visual prompt him by pointing at my head. Once I am

given the correct answer, I give praise. Next, I ask the student “What does the R stand

for?” and he should respond with “Read”, if not I will give a visual prompt of opening

my hand like a book. Then, I will ask “What does the A stand for?” and he should

respond with “Ask Yourself”, if not I will use a visual prompt by pointing at myself.

Finally, I will ask the student “What does the P stand for?” and he should respond

with “Paraphrase”, and if not, I will use a visual prompt of pushing my hands closer to

each other in a shrinking motion.

2. After we review the acronym, I will hand out the passage to the student and we will

start using the TRAP strategy by saying “Let’s start with T, I want you to think about

and tell me what this passage could be about and what the title makes you think of?” I
CBM Key Assessment 5

then let the student respond with his answers and take note of what he said on the

board. Praise will be given for his answer.

3. For R, I will read the passage to him because he gets an accommodation to have text

read to him due to his learning disability in reading. The student will read along as I

say the text out loud.

4. On the board, I will have the A section broken down into the main idea and two

details. The student will also be provided with a sheet that has these listed on them. I

will ask the student “Can you tell me what the main idea of the passage is?” and write

their response on the board. I will then tell the student “Now I want you to look

through the text and give two supporting details” and write their answers on the

board. The student will receive praise for their answers, and they will write their

answers on their sheet as well.

5. The final step to guided practice is to tell the student “You are now going to

paraphrase the paragraph into 10 words or less and tell me the sentence you came up

with.” I will write their responses on the board. After this, we will reread everything

on the board.

Assessment:

A MAZE probe was chosen for this student to assess his reading comprehension skills

for the baseline and during the 5-week intervention. This assessment was chosen because of

the validity and research done proving the success of progress monitoring that can be done

using this assessment. Based on the information in the Teaching Reading Sourcebook, a

MAZE probe focuses on the repeated measurement of comprehension which is why it is used

for progress monitoring frequently. As it measures students' comprehension progress it also

measures a student’s reading fluency speed as well. (Honing pp. 12) I had previous

experience with this CBM assessment as well which made the process of monitoring the
CBM Key Assessment 6

student clear to complete. His IEP states that he struggles with comprehending detailed

passages, language comprehension, and craft and structure in texts. The assessment chosen

will show his growth in comprehension during the intervention trials. Using a MAZE probe is

the best assessment for the student because of the straightforward aspect and connection to

reading comprehension.

A maze probe is highly individualized because the creator can choose any text to be

generated into a CMB assessment. This student tends to not work when he does not find any

interest in the content, so being able to decide what the text will be about increases the chance

of him putting in full effort. The Maze probe is a CBM assessment for reading which is a

time-efficient sensitive tool. The evaluation is created online and is immediately scored after

administration. Frequent correlation of the CBM results with achievement tests provided

educators with information that was necessary to plan interventions. Progress monitoring is

done for the student using the CBM because an achievement test is unable to provide proper

data (Tzivinikou, 2020). Each Wednesday morning during the 5-week trial throughout the

intervention, a MAZE assessment was created using texts from Readworks that fit the

student's Lexile levels. The chosen text was put into a generator on intervention central, and

the student and examiner copies were printed. Before the student came into the classroom to

take the assessment, it was placed on the desk and flipped over. The student was given 3

minutes once he arrived to read the passage and circle correct words that would fit in the

sentences properly. The probes from the student are collected and the data from each is put

into an Excel graph to show progress. Baselines are graphed in a different color than the rest.

of the invention trial, separated with a dotted line on the graph.

Graphed Data: Student completing assessment:

Data Analysis:

The student has made slight progress during this intervention trial. The baseline tests

had an average of 11 correct answers on the MAZE probes. I used a more difficult Lexile on

the baseline tests to see what he could complete and once the baseline scores were done, I

used a passage with a slightly lower Lexile score to see if he had more success with this. The

issue with high Lexile was not his comprehension of the content, but the speed at which he

could read the text. Once I had changed the Lexile, he scored higher but was still below

average for a 10th-grade student. In 10th grade, a student should have a Lexile score between

905L and 1195L, yet this student was at a 650L score. As the weeks went on, I increased the

Lexile of the chosen passages and he continued to make progress on the MAZE probes. Other

than one instance, his score increased each week, and he got over the end goal of 20 correct

answers. He reached a score of 21 during the last trial during the intervention. The goal of the

intervention was to increase the number of correct answers in the MAZE probes from 10

correct answers to 20 correct answers by the last intervention trial.

On the 5th test on the second week of the intervention trials, he scored lower than any

other assessment during the intervention. I believe this was due to his mind being in another

place. That day he had gotten into a physical fight with another student and had been broken

up with (which I learned after testing). The student also comes straight from lunch to take the
CBM Key Assessment 8

probes which may cause him to have full focus on the assessments. I was impressed with the

student's progress because of his low scores during the baseline. The effectiveness of this

intervention is shown in the graph above, the student was able to make progress throughout

the trials. Although the student did make it past the goal line at the end of the trial, he

constantly stayed below the goal line by a few points each until the last test trial.

To continue the student's increasing progress, he should be taught other types of

comprehension strategies that can be used in classes necessary for graduation. Instead of

using probes to measure progress, he will be progressed monitored in classes by checking

grades on papers and other comprehension-related work. Since he is placed in co-taught

inclusion classes, a special education teacher will work with him on these skills. The student

has difficulties completing work at home, which has been an ongoing issue, so daily check-

ins will be necessary to ensure he is completing work. If he continues to receive weekly

support with his reading comprehension, he will work towards reading at grade level.

Reflection:

The student was very successful during this intervention. Based on the data from his

progress, he increased his correct responses by 10 from the baseline trials. During the trials,

he only decreased in correct responses once which I believe had to do with outside factors

that may have been disrupting his focus. The student's comprehension of the passages met

expectations because looking at the goal line he ended up above the final goal that was

expected.

For an intervention next time I would choose a different test to give the student to

measure their progress in reading comprehension. It seems like the student had an issue with

fluency in reading speed and MAZE probes also measure a student's reading speed. The

timed test did not give the student the time he needed to properly read through the passages.

He was able to correctly choose the proper answer but could not get through even half of
CBM Key Assessment 9

each assessment. Next time I would use a probe that would rely more on comprehension

assessment and less on reading fluency speed. Next time I would also find more time to meet

with the student throughout the day to progress monitor his success in classes and implement

the information he is learning in class into the intervention trials. Connecting the intervention

to the in-class curriculum would allow him to understand how to use the skills from TRAP in

a real-life situation outside of our intervention sessions.

A professional development activity that I could participate in to continue my

knowledge of interventions and assessments is investigating different online seminars that the

Council of exceptional children has available. The CEC has courses on high-leverage

practices that teach how to implement these strategies by using assessment data to provide

feedback and give explicit instruction to students with disabilities which I could take part in

to expand my knowledge. The CEC also has conventions all over the country for educators to

learn from other educators and those involved with special education. All of their offering for

the 2023 year can be found at https://exceptionalchildren.org/improving-your-

practice/professional-development. Using these resources, I can improve upon my skills and

knowledge as a professional special educator and use the information to increase the amount

of assessment and intervention practices that I can use in my future classrooms.

References:

Central, I. (2016). Test of reading comprehension - maze passage generator. Test of Reading
Comprehension | Maze Passage Generator | Intervention Central. Retrieved March 23,
2023, from https://www.interventioncentral.org/teacher-resources/test-of-reading-
comprehension

Exceptional Children, C. for. (2023). Professional development. Council for Exceptional

Hagaman, J. L., & Casey, K. J. (2016). Paraphrasing strategy instruction in content area text.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(4), 210–217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216659468

Honig, B., Diamond, L., Gutlohn, L., & Cole, C. L. (2018). Curriculum-Based Measurement
(CBM). In Teaching reading sourcebook (pp. 12–13). essay, CORE.

Tzivinikou, S., Tsolis, A., Kagkara, D., & Theodosiou, S. (2020, October 14). Curriculum-
based Measurement Maze: A Review. Psychology. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=103868

Wright, J. (2013). How to: Assess reading comprehension with CBM: Maze passages.
Intervention Central. Retrieved April 10, 2023, from
http://www.jimwrightonline.com/mixed_files/lansing_IL/_Lansing_IL_Aug_2013/3_C
BA_Maze_Directions.pdf