Skip Navigation


Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advance Access originally published online on June 29, 2009
The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2009 14(4):503-515; doi:10.1093/deafed/enp013
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
14/4/503    most recent
enp013v1
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 Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cheng, S.-F.
Right arrow Articles by Rose, S.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cheng, S.-F.
Right arrow Articles by Rose, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Investigating the Technical Adequacy of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Written Expression for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Shu-Fen Cheng

Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan

Susan Rose

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis


  Abstract

This study investigated the technical adequacy of curriculum-based measures of written expression (CBM-W) in terms of writing prompts and scoring methods for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Twenty-two students at the secondary school-level completed 3-min essays within two weeks, which were scored for nine existing and alternative curriculum-based measurement (CBM) scoring methods. The technical features of the nine scoring methods were examined for interrater reliability, alternate-form reliability, and criterion-related validity. The existing CBM scoring method—number of correct minus incorrect word sequences—yielded the highest reliability and validity coefficients. The findings from this study support the use of the CBM-W as a reliable and valid tool for assessing general writing proficiency with secondary students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The CBM alternative scoring methods that may serve as additional indicators of written expression include correct subject–verb agreements, correct clauses, and correct morphemes.

Correspondence should be sent to Shu-Fen Cheng, Department of Special Education, Chung Yuan Christian University, 200 Jung-Bei Road, Chung-Li City, 32023 Taiwan (e-mail: chen0562{at}cycu.edu.tw).

Received February 6, 2009; revised May 27, 2009; accepted May 29, 2009


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.