Progress Monitoring of Mathematics Among Students with

Learning Disabilities
Edward S. Shapiro and Lana Edwards
Lehigh University
Naomi Zigmond
University of Pittsburgh
This article describes a statewide project in which weekly progress monitoring of mathematics was imple-
mented with 120 special education students. Curriculum-based measurement probes for computation and
concepts/applications skills were administered weekly over seven months. Students were assessed at lev-
els identified as instructional by their teachers, and goals for performance were set based on recommen-
dations from the research literature. Improvements of 0.38 digits per week (in computation) and 0.38
points per week (in concepts/applications) were found across students. A total of 66% of students
achieved the expected goals in computation and 37% in concepts/applications. These levels of improve-
ment were comparable to those reported in the literature for general education students. Perceived bene-

fits and challenges of conducting progress monitoring in mathematics are discussed.

Many students with learning disabilities
experience persistent difficulties leaming and
applying mathematics (Maccini & Hughes,
2000; Owen & Fuchs, 2002).
Characteristically, students with leaming dis-
abilities at the end of elementary school per-
form basic addition facts only as well as third-
grade students without disabilities, most
demonstrate growth patterns in mathematics of
no better than one year for every two or more
years of school, and by the end of high school
they demonstrate proficiency levels equivalent
to only fifth or sixth grade (Calhoon & Fuchs,
2003). Considering the challenges students
with leaming disabilities typically encounter in
mathematics, as well as their seemingly labori-
ously slow rate of progress, it is critical to iden-
tify an assessment system that would help
teachers monitor student math performance
and improve mathematics learning outcomes.
Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is
a validated assessment system that teachers
can use to set goals, monitor student perfor-
mance over time, and design instructional
interventions for individual students (Deno,
1992; Deno, Espin, & Fuchs, 2002).
Essentially, the purpose of CBM is to improve
student performance. An example and a type
of general outcomes measurement approach,
CBM has been used as an evaluative measure
in education for over two decades (Fuchs &
Deno, 1991; Shinn, 1989). More specifically,
it involves evaluating student progress toward
the acquisition of basic skills that are globally
reflective of instruction within a curriculum
(Deno et al., 2002; Shinn, Shinn, Hamilton,
& Clarke, 2002; Stecker & Fuchs, 2000).
CBM is a standardized procedure conducted
repeatedly over time that provides informa-
tion relevant to making decisions about stu-
dent achievement (Deno et al., 2002; Fuchs
& Deno, 1991; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1999; Fuchs,
Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Shinn et al.,
since the material used in assess-
2002). Also,
mentis taken directly from the curriculum,
CBM is considered to be an &dquo;authentic&dquo; way
to assessstudent performance (Deno et al.,
2002; Shepard, 2000). Finally, CBM proce-

15
16
dures can be used in several academic areas
including reading, writing, and mathematics.
In math, each CBM is an index of student
performance on the skills targeted for instruc-
tion across an entire school year. Thus, for
each CBM assessment, the teacher specifies
problem types that reflect the math curricu-
lum and creates multiple alternate assess-
ments that each contain all the problem types
covered in the curriculum (Fuchs, Fuchs,
Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991). CBM math
probes are typically scored according to the
student’s total number of digits correct
(Shapiro, 1996). These CBM scores, or &dquo;per-
formance indicators,&dquo; represent overall profi-
ciency within the yearly curriculum. Ideally,
teachers graph these performance indicators
and use the graphs to (a) monitor student
goals, (b) judge the adequacy of student
progress for determining instructional deci-
sions, and (c) assess the impact of different
instructional interventions (Fuchs et al.,
1991 ).
Although CBM focuses on a student’s
progress over time general
on skills within the
curriculum, a teacher can analyze student’s
a the achievement effect size associated with
responses on a given CBM assessment to
ascertain a comprehensive description of the
student’s mastered and emerging skills. In
math, each skill is assessed during an individ-
ual CBM assessment probe. Skills analyses
can be created by aggregating a student’s per-
formance across recent assessments for each
individual skill (Fuchs et al., 1991). In other
words, a teacher is able to determine specific
skill areas that students have mastered, as well
as specific skill areas that require further
remediation and future instruction. For exam-
ple, an analysis across recent probes might
indicate that a student has mastered two-digit
addition problems without regrouping, but
requires further instruction on two-digit addi-
tion problems with regrouping as well as a
review of subtraction. Further, using a digits
correct scoring procedure provides the
teacher with an error analysis and informs
him/her of how students solve a particular
problem type. This level of scoring analysis
reveals whether there are any &dquo;bugs&dquo; or mis-
conceptions in a student’s calculations (Fuchs
et al., 1991).
Fuchs et al. (1991) explored the use of spe-
cific skill analysis in conjunction with goal
setting and instructional decision making
associated with CBM. The authors randomly
assigned 30 special education teachers who
taught self-contained or resource classes in
grades 1 through 9 to three different inter-
vention groups. The first group of teachers
used CBM performance indicators with skills
analysis, the second group used CBM perfor-
mance indicators without skills analysis, and
the third group used neither CBM nor skills
analysis. Results supported the use of specific
skills analysis within CBM. That is, teachers
who received graphed CBM performance
indicators along with a specific skills analysis
report planned more specific instructional
interventions for their students and observed
more significant gains in student math
achievement than teachers who just received
graphed CBM data. According to Fuchs et al.,
CBM skills analysis was large. Compared to
control teachers, the effect size for the com-
bined CBM and skills analysis approach was
.67; the effect size for CBM teachers who did
not receive skills analysis was .55. Overall, the
Fuchs et al. findings appear to suggest the
potential contribution of skills analysis to
CBM procedures.
In addition to investigating the use of spe-
cific skill analysis in the context of CBM per-
formance indicators, research on the techni-
cal adequacy of mathematics CBM systems
has also been conducted. Math CBM typical-
ly focuses on computation skills with a grade-
level representative sample of math facts
and/or math operations ( i.e., adding, subtract-
ing, multiplying, and dividing whole num-
bers, fractions, and decimals) from a specific
curriculum (Fuchs et al., 1991). Research sup-
ports the reliability and validity of using com-
putation as a global indicator of math

achievement (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, &
Allinder, 1989; Shapiro, 1996). In addition,
there is emerging documentation on the use
of math computation probes for monitoring
student growth across time. Using their
CBM-computation system, Fuchs et al.
( 1989) found that slopes ranged from .25 at
grade 2 to .70 at grade 4 for a sample of 140
students in inclusive general education math
classrooms monitored weekly on math com-
putation across 20 weeks. While these find-
ings are suggestive of the progress general edu-
cation students may make in math, cautious
interpretation is warranted when considering
goal setting for students with learning disabil-
ities due to the limited number of students
with disabilities included in the Fuchs et al.
sample.
-
Although computation has been a focus
within math CBM, a singular focus on com-
putation assessment has limitations. First,
computation is only one component of a com-
prehensive mathematics curriculum (Fuchs et
al., 1994; Thurber, Shinn, & Smolkowski,
2002). Second, many instructional programs
focus on highly procedural computation
instruction that typically requires students to
independently negotiate conceptual concepts
(Woodward & Montague, 2000). Students
with learning disabilities, therefore, often
struggle in their understanding of core princi-
ples, concepts, and skill applications
(Jitendra, DiPipi, & Perron-Jones, 2002). In
response to the documented mathematics
deficits of students with learning disabilities,
along with the dominant focus on computa-
tion within typical mathematics instruction,
Fuchs and colleagues (1994) expanded the
traditional computation-based assessment to a
CBM system that included number concepts,
counting, applied computation, geometry,
measurement, charts, graphs, money, and
problem solving. In other words, they created
an additional set of CBM concepts and appli-
cation probes to reflect broader skills from the
mathematics curriculum.
To document the technical adequacy of the
17
concepts/applications CBM probes, Fuchs et
al. (1994) tested a total of 140 students in sec-
ond-, third-, and fourth-grade classrooms. A
total of 12 students with learning disabilities
were included in the sample. Classroom
teachers were asked to administer
concepts/applications probes to all the stu-
dents in their daily mathematics class once a
week for 20 weeks. Teachers followed with
high fidelity the administration and scoring
guidelines for the weekly concepts/applica-
tion probes outlined by Fuchs et al. (1994).
Results indicated strong split-half reliabili-
ty on the concepts/applications probes, with
correlations ranging from .94 to .98. Findings
also supported the validity of the concepts
and applications assessment. Correlations
between the concepts/applications probes
with computation and a general mathematics
battery ranged from .68 to .81. Perhaps most
important when considering the use of the
concepts and applications probes for progress
monitoring are findings related to slope.
Fuchs et al. reported that slopes ranged from
.40 at grade 2 to .69 at grade 4. When dis-
cussing their findings Fuchs et al. recognized
that the slopes derived from their study pro-
vide tentative estimates for designing appro-
priate weekly goals for progress monitoring.
For example, they note that given the average
slope of approximately .60 points correct on
the concepts and applications probes at grade
3, with a standard deviation of .30, one could
target a gain of .60 to .90 points per week
when setting weekly goals for a third-grade
student. It is important to note, however, that
these preliminary estimates for rate of growth
are based primarily on the performance of
general education students and a relatively
small number of students with learning dis-
abilities participating in inclusive math class-
rooms.
Finally, research on the use of CBM to
monitor student performance in math sug-
gests that students learn more when teachers
make individual adjustments in instruction
through the use of CBM procedures (Stecker
18
& Fuchs, 2000). The impact of CBM on math
achievement is particularly evident when
teachers more intensively monitor the
progress of a few individual students (Fuchs,
Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991). For exam-
ple, Fuchs et al. (1991) observed that teachers
who used CBM to monitor student math per-
formance adjusted their students’ instruction-
al programs approximately 2.5 times over the
course of 20 weeks. This finding was in con-
trast to the average .27 times of instructional
adjustments made by teachers who did not
employ CBM during the same period.
Overall, when considering the challenges stu-
dents with leaming disabilities face when
leaming mathematics, empirical support for
the importance of collecting progress moni-
toring data, designing interventions, and
evaluating instructional effectiveness on an
individual basis is critical.
Unfortunately, despite evidence for general
CBM efficacy and the impact of CBM perfor-
mance indicators on student math achieve-
ment, empirical evidence for the use of CBM
to monitor the performance of students with
learning disabilities in math is limited. While
L.S. Fuchs, D. Fuchs, and colleagues’ research
on the use of CBM in math instruction has
made substantive contributions to what we
know about CBM in math, further research is
required to document the growth students
with leaming disabilities make in math and
how specific intervention decisions impact
rate of growth on specific skills and skill appli-
cations. For example, an essential question
when considering the use of computation and
concepts/applications probes in progress mon-
itoring is, What are reasonable goals for stu-
dents with leaming disabilities? As men-
tioned earlier, current estimates for rate of
growth are based on studies that have includ-
ed a majority of general education students
with relatively few students with learning dis-
abilities. In particular, Deno, Fuchs, Marston,
and Shin (2001) reported data that suggested
normative rates in CBM reading for students
with leaming disabilities were approximately
one half the rate of typical students, especial-
ly in the earlier grades. Based on their find-
ings, Deno et al. make specific recommenda-
tions for CBM growth rates in reading that
exceed normative levels for students with
learning disabilities.
Another unanswered question involves the
impact of reading demands on the perfor-
mance of students with leaming disabilities
on the concepts/applications probes. Fuchs et
al. ( 1994), for example, noted that one expla-
nation for differentially higher rates of growth
for second-grade students on math con-
cepts/applications could be the emerging
reading skills of second-grade students early in
the academic year. In other words, as second-
grade students made improvements in reading
across the year, their ability to solve con-
cepts/applications problems, problems that
require reading, also improved. When consid-
ering the serious difficulties students with
leaming disabilities have with reading, the
relationship between performance on con-
cepts/applications probes and overall math
performance deserves further attention
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2002).
While research has begun to examine how
the positive impacts of CBM with individual
students can be extended to a class- and
schoolwide scale, emphasis on the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics’
Curriculum and Education Standards
(NCTM, 1989) and high-level academic
standards for all students have refocused
attention on the use of assessment in math
instruction for progress monitoring (Fuchs,
1992; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Fuchs, Fuchs,
Hamlett, Phillips, & Kams, 1995). The pur-
pose of this article is to discuss specific find-
ings related to the use of CBM computation
and CBM concepts/applications probes in a
statewide project on the use of a general out-
comes-based measurement approach to moni-
tor student progress. The project was imple-
mented in response to growing recognition of
the need to document and account for stu-
dent progress. Though the statewide project

emphasized both reading and math outcomes
of students with leaming disabilities, we will
emphasize only the findings in math. In the
results and discussion, we specifically address
critical issues related to progress monitoring
such as goal setting and student rate of growth
on both computation and concepts/applica-
tions measures.
Method
Participants
A total of 15 school districts in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania volunteered
to participate in the project 5 from the
-
east, 5 from the central, and 5 from the west-
em regions of the state. Each district desig-
nated five special education teachers and a
site coordinator to be part of the project. Each
teacher was asked to identify at least two stu-
dents for whom General Outcomes
Measurement progress monitoring would be
implemented in reading, math computation,
and math concepts/applications. Teachers
were permitted to select the same student for
progress monitoring in both reading and
math. Only data collected for math are
reported in this article.
Across the 15 districts, a total of 120 stu-
dents were monitored in math computation
and 109 in math concepts/applications
(teachers in two districts elected not to assess
concepts/applications) Within each district,
2-15 students were assessed (mean number of
students assessed per district 9 in computa-
= lem was scored by counting the number of
tion, 8 in concepts/applications).
Students ranged in grade from 1 to 6 (mean
= 3.3 grade). Of the 120 students for whom
progress-monitoring data were collected in
computation, 5.8 % (7) were in programs for
students needing emotional/behavioral sup-
port (i.e., classified as emotionally/behav-
iorally disordered). All others (n 113, 94.2
=
%) were students with leaming disabilities in
need of learning support. Students with learn-
ing support needs ranged in level of support,
with 27.4 % (n 31) receiving full-time sup-
=
19
port ( i.e., self-contained more than 50% of
their day), 61.1 % (n =
69) receiving part-
time or resource room support (i.e., special
education services between 25-50% of the
day), and 11.5 % (n 13) receiving itinerant
=
support (fully included, receiving special edu-
cation services for less than 25% of the day).
Of the 7 students receiving emotional sup-
port, 4 received part-time support and 3
received itinerant support. A total of 16 stu-
dents (all in two districts) were in middle
schools; the remaining 104 students in ele-
mentary school buildings.
Materials and Dependent Measures
Math computation. The blackline masters
from Monitoring Basic Skills Progress
(MBSP) - Math Computation (2nd
edition)
(Fuchs, Hamlett, Fuchs, 1998)
& were used to
assess student progress in math computation.
Each probe consisted of a single sheet of 25
mixed operation problems designed to assess
mastery of computational skills typical for
each grade level. For example, problems for
grades 1 and 2 consisted of addition and sub-
traction problems with and without regroup-
ing. Simple multiplication and division facts
were introduced in grade 3 probes, with frac-
tions and multidigit multiplication as well as
simple division introduced in grade 4 probes.
Decimals, complex fractions, and multidigit
division with remainders were introduced in
grade 5 and 6 probes. Each computation prob-
digits correct in the final answer. The total
number of digits correct was used as the
dependent measure to reflect student perfor-
mance on math computation.
Math concepts/applications. The blackline
masters from Monitoring Basic Skills Progress
(MBSP) - Math Concepts and Applications
(Fuchs, Hamlett, & Fuchs, 1999) were used to
assess student progress in math
concepts/applications. The probes consisted
of 18 (grade level 2) or 24 problems (grade
levels 3 to 6) designed to assess mastery of
20
concepts and application of mathematical
skills. The measures specifically cover count-
ing, number concepts, names of numbers,
measurement, charts and graphs, money, frac-
tions, applied computation, and word prob-
lems. Problems began at grade 2, and contin-
ued to increase in difficulty through grade 6.
Problems required between one and three
responses, and varied in type (fill in blanks,
multiple choice). Each part of a problem
answered correctly was awarded a point and
the total number of points across the probe
was used as the dependent measure to reflect
student performance on math concepts/appli-
cation.
Progress Monitoring Procedures
Teachers began by determining the level at
which each student would be monitored.
Looking over the probes to be used for
progress monitoring, teachers made a &dquo;best
guess&dquo; regarding student instructional levels.
Teachers were asked to collect baseline data
and to determine if their estimate of student
instructional level was accurate. If their stu-
dents scored at or near zero level of perfor-
mance in baseline, teachers moved their esti-
mate of student instructional levels downward
and again collected baseline data.
Each student was assessed once each week.
Assessments of computation and
concepts/application were alternated, so that
students were assessed once every two weeks
in computation and concepts/applications.
Students were assessed at a time designated by
each teacher. Instructions recommended by
Fuchs et al. (1998, 1999) were used in admin-
istering the probes. Specifically, students were
told that they were to look at each problem,
first attempt to complete the problems they
believed that they could do, and then return
to those they were unsure about. This proce-
dure ensured that students would demonstrate
success on the problems that they had
learned, maximizing their performance on
each assessment measure.
At each assessment session, students were
given the amount of time specified by Fuchs
et al. (1998, 1999) to complete their progress
monitoring problems. Probes are set up such
that students are not expected to complete all
problems presented. For computation, stu-
dents were given 2 minutes for grades 1 and 2
probes, 3 minutes for grades 3 and 4 probes,
and 5 minutes for grade 5 probes. For con-
cepts/applications, students were given 8 min-
utes for grade 2 probes, 6 minutes for grades 3
and 4 probes, and 7 minutes for grades 5
probes.
Teachers graphed all data. Teachers were
first instructed to set year-end goals for stu-
dent performance. Data are limited on the
expected levels of performance of typical stu-
dents in progress monitoring of mathematics.
In thisstudy, data reported by Fuchs, Fuchs,
Hamlett, Walz, and Germann (1993) and by
Fuchs et al., (1999) were used to make rec-
ommendations to teachers for setting weekly
goals for expected performance. Based on
these studies and earlier pilot testing by the
investigators, it was recommended that teach-
ers set a goal of 0.5 digits per week gain in
math computation and 0.5 points per week
gain in math concepts/applications. These
levels of improvement were somewhat arbi-
trary (approximately 2 digits or 2 points per
month), but were viewed as challenging and
consistent with performance levels found in
previous research.
Teachers were trained to use a decision rule
when examining their data. Specifically, they
were instructed to examine their data after 4
points were collected and every few data
points thereafter. They were to compare the
student’s performance against the expected
level of performance (i.e., the student’s aim-
line). Based on their analysis of the data,
teachers were instructed to (a) continue cur-
rent instructional procedures if the trend in
the student’s performance matched expected
level of performance; (b) increase a student’s
goal if the student consistently exceeded the
aimline; or (3) make a teaching change if the

student’sperformance was substantially below
expected level of performance. Teachers were
also given the option to continue existing
instructional practices even if the student was
below the aimline if they felt that the student
needed more time to respond to the instruc-
tional practices. Likewise, if students were
making increasing progress, albeit not quite at
the level set as the expected level of perfor-
mance, teachers were encouraged to continue
current instructional practices.
The progress monitoring process began
around the second week of November and
continued throughout the school year until
approximately May 31.
Teacher Training
Training in the use of General Outcomes
Measurement (GOM) progress monitoring
was developed and conducted by the three
authors. Daylong inservice sessions were
delivered in October, December, and March
2002-2003, with onsite visits to individual
teachers in February as well as a wrapup ses-
sion to review the progress of all students in
May 2003. The initial session in October was
dedicated to introducing the concept of
GOM in reading and math, teaching teachers
how to collect progress monitoring data, and
concepts of graphing the data. Teachers were
instructed that they needed to select at least
two students, obtain baselines, and begin the
progress monitoring process prior to the next
session.
At the December training session, teachers
presented the outcomes of their data collec-
tion. The session emphasized the processes of
instructional decision making, specifically
using decision rules and analyzing data.
Teachers were taught to examine changes in
level, variability, and trend when considering
graphed student performance. Finally, they
were instructed to begin examining their data
and to apply decision rules following the
inservice.
In January or February 2003, onsite visits
21
were made to each of the participating teach-
ers. At these visits, the data for each student
were reviewed, concerns about the data col-
lection and/or graphing process were
addressed, and teachers were asked to demon-
strate the data collection process with one
student. Feedback was provided to correct any
errors in the data collection and graphing
process, and teachers were asked to bring their
data to the next training session to be held in
March.
The March 2003 training session empha-
sized making instructional changes. Teachers
were provided with ideas and strategies for
how to vary the instructional process, with a
focus on making simple changes in instruc-
tional process before committing to more
complex changes. At that session, teachers
presented individual cases and shared the
nature of changes they had been making
based on their data collection.
A final wrapup session was held in May
2003, either at each school district or as a
group inservice, to review students’ progress
as well as address additional concerns from
teachers about the progress monitoring
process. At this final session, plans for contin-
uing progress monitoring for the following
school year were also discussed.
Results
Data were analyzed using several metrics.
Using the ordinary least squares (OLS)
method, each student’s performance for both
computation and concepts/applications was
regressed against assessment sessions. This
of
resulted in the calculation slopes reflecting
the rate of change per assessment session.
Given that assessment data for computation
and concepts/applications were collected
every two weeks, the slopes were divided by
0.5 to reflect the rate of change per week.
The degree to which student performance
matched the goals set by the teacher was also
calculated. Goals for student performance
were set based on achieving a gain of 0.5 dig-
22
its or points per week. To determine whether
students met or did not meet the expected
rate of growth, a measure called the Goal
Score was calculated for each student. The
Goal Score was obtained by subtracting the
student’s expected slope of performance (i.e.,
0.5 digits/week or points/week) from the stu-
dent’s actual weekly slope of performance.
Values equal to or greater than zero would
reflect that the student’s rate of performance
met or exceeded the expected levels, whereas
negative values would reflect performance
falling below expected levels. The percentage
of students whose Goal Scores met or exceed-
ed the expected level of performance was cal-
culated.
Presented below are the outcomes of the
slope calculations across students, the levels of
goal attainment as reflected in the calculated
Goal Scores, and two representative case stud-
ies that reflect the overall findings across stu-
dents. Data for computation and
concepts/applications are presented separately.
Overall Slope of Improvement
The average slope of student performance
in computation and concepts/applications
across participants is displayed in Table 1. In
computation, participants ranged in perfor-
mance from -1.23 to +1.77 digits per week,
with a mean of change across participants of
+0.38 digits per week (SEM = 0.21).
Multiplying the average rate of gain of indi-
vidual participants (0.38 digits) by the num-
ber of weeks in a school year (36), it would be
estimated that these students would show
gains of 13.7 digits across the nine months of
an academic school year.
Table 1 Mean and SEM (Standard Error of the Measure) of
Concepts/Applications Across Participants
Participants’ performance in concepts/appli-
cation ranged from -0.5 to + 1.50 points per
week, with a mean change across participants of
+0.38 points per week (SEM = 0.20).
Multiplying the rate of gain of individual par-
ticipants (0.38 points) by the number of weeks
in a school year (36), it would be estimated that
these students would show a gain of 13.7 points
across the nine months of an academic school
year.
Participants’ outcomes by teacher-assigned
instructional level are provided in Table 2. In
computation, students who were assessed at
the first- and second-grade level showed gains
that were somewhat below the overall average
gain of +0.38 digits or points per week.
Students assessed at third- and fourth-grade
instructional levels showed mean growth of
0.43 and 0.72 digits per week, levels that were
above the average gain across all participants.
In concepts, students assessed in second-,
third-, and fourth-grade levels improved at
rates of 0.36 to 0.44 points per week, very
close to the overall levels found across partic-
ipants. In computation, much lower levels of
performance were found among the three stu-
dents working at the fifth-grade level; some-
what higher levels were found for
concepts/applications. However, conclusions
for students assessed at the fifth grade level
cannot be drawn because of the limited num-
ber of students who were assigned to this level
of probes.
Given that the students participating in
this project were all identified as having spe-
cial educational needs requiring learning or
emotional support, most students were being
assessed at instructional levels that differed by
Slopes for Computation and
_ __

Table 2 Mean Slope and SEM for Computation
Teacher Assigned Instructional Level
one or more years from their chronological
grade levels. Table 3 displays the performance
of students based on the difference between
their assigned grade and the instructional lev-
els used for monitoring.
In computation and concepts, all but 25
and 10 students, respectively, were being
monitored at least one grade level below their
chronological grade. In computation, students
who were between grade level and two grades
below showed rates of improvement that
equaled or were somewhat higher than the
overall slope across participants regardless of
instructional level. Students whose instruc-
tional level fell three or four years below grade
levels showed slower rates of gain than those
two or fewer grade levels behind, but the
number of students four grade levels behind
was quite small, making any conclusions
about this group tentative. Interestingly, two
Table 3 Mean Slope and SEM Across Participants Based
and Instructional Level for Progress Monitoring
23
and Concepts Across Participants by
students who were five grade levels behind
showed slopes of improvement that nearly
equaled overall levels across all participants.
The same pattern was not evident for math
concepts. The performance of students who
were at grade level substantially exceeded the
overall level across participants. Both the 36
students who were monitored one year below
grade level and the one student whose
instructional level was five grade levels below
his grade (an 8th grader being monitored at
the 3rd grade level) made much slower
progress (approximately 0.20 points correct
increase per week). Students who were two,
three, or four
grade levels behind showed
increasingly higher levels of improvement,
ranging from 0.31 to 0.92 points per week.
The small number of students who were four
or five grade levels behind makes any conclu-
sions about this group tentative.
on the Difference Between Grade
24
Attainment of Goals
The percentage of students who attained a
Goal Score that was equal to or greater than
the expected levels of performance as set by
the instructors ( i.e., a gain of 0.5 digits or
points per week) is Figure 1. As
displayed in
illustrated, in computation, approximately
66% of students attained a rate of improve-
ment that met their goal, whereas in concepts
only 37% of students met this goal.
Illustrative Cases
Two cases are presented to illustrate the
rates of improvement typical across students.
Kelly. Kelly was fourth-grade student
a
enrolled in a part-time special education pro-
gram (25-50% of time in general education
setting) for students who need learning sup-
port (i.e., classified as having a learning dis-
ability). Her teacher elected to monitor her
progress in mathematics computation at the
third-grade level, where Kelly was currently
being instructed. Figure 2 reflects Kelly’s per-
formance in computation. Kelly had a base-
line level of 14 digits correct and progressed
over the school year to a rate of 25 digits cor-
rect across the last three sessions. Her rate of
improvement (slope) was calculated to be
Figure 1. Mean percent of students reaching goal
0.70 digits per week. A Goal Score was calcu-
lated by subtracting the value of her slope of
performance from the weekly expected rate of
gain set by her teacher (0.5 digits); her Goal
Score of +0.20 digits reflected a student who
exceeded the expected rate of gain.
Examination of the pattern of her perfor-
mance showed that Kelly appeared initially
not to be responsive to the instruction deliv-
ered in her math program, with data points
that fell below her aimline (11/21 to 1/6).
When her teacher examined the graph after
data were collected on 1/28, she noticed an
increase in Kelly’s performance and decided
to wait to see if the instruction being deliv-
ered as part of her math program was becom-
ing effective. When the data were examined
on 3/3, the teacher noted substantial
improvement in Kelly’s performance and
decided that no specific instructional changes
were needed.
Niki. Figure 3 reflects Niki’s performance
in concepts/applications, and is a good illus-
tration of a student who made gains through-
out the progress monitoring process but who
did not reach the level of expected perfor-
mance as set by the instructors. Niki was a
fifth-grade student being instructed and
as set by instructors.

Figure 2. Progress monitoring in computation for Kelly.
assessed in mathematics at the third-grade
level. Starting at a baseline of 23 points cor-
rect, the teacher set an improvement goal of
0.5 points per week. Over the course of the
seven months during which Niki was moni-
tored, she showed a gain of 0.15 points per
week. Her Goal Score, calculated by subtract-
ing the value of her slope from the expected
slope of improvement, was -0.35 points per
week. Although Niki’s performance was
below her aimline, from 1/19 through 2/16
her teacher noted an increasing trend and
elected not to change instruction. Data col-
lected from 3/1 to 3/29 indicated that the
increasing trend was no longer present.
Through an analysis of the error patterns in
the probes, Niki’s teacher recognized that she
was struggling in the area of graphing and
between 3/29 and 4/2 implemented mini-
lessons as part of her regular instructional
activities. As a result, gains in performance
were reflected in the progress monitoring
data. That is, Niki raised her performance
from a baseline of 23 points to a level of over
31, 37, and 32 points in each of the last three
assessment sessions. Although the rate of gain
25
was not equal the rate set by her teachers,
to
and an earlier instructional change might
have been beneficial, Niki clearly showed
gains in her performance once her teacher
paid attention to the probe data.
Discussion
Slope of Student Performance
In computation and concepts/applications,
students showed overall gains in performance
across the school year. The level of gain for
both computation and concepts/application
was the same, equal to a gain of approximate-
ly 14 total digits or total points over baseline
levels across the academic year, a gain of
approximately 0.38 digits or points per four
weeks .
When individual student performance was
examined based on the level at which stu-
dents were being monitored, we found similar
patterns across grade levels for computation
and concepts. Between the second- and
fourth-grade level, students’ rate of growth
tended to increase as instructional level
increased. In computation, students moni-
26
Figure 3. Progress monitoring in concepts/applications for
tored at the fourth-grade level achieved
improvement ratesthat were nearly triple
those of students at the second-grade level.
Similarly, in concepts students at the fourth-
grade level attained the highest slopes,
although not substantially greater than those
at second- or third-grade instructional levels.
The impact of instructional level seemed
even clearer when looking at student perfor-
mance when the gap between instructional
and grade level was considered. In computa-
tion, students showed better growth when the
gap between instructional and grade level was
two versus one grade, but then showed the
opposite effect when the gap widened to three
or four grade levels. One explanation for this
may be related to the amount of material that
a student needs to learn to &dquo;catch up&dquo; to
his/her chronological grade level. A teacher
who is monitoring a student working below
grade level is likely to be intensifying instruc-
tion on target skills that are assessed on the
CBM probes. When the gap is one or two
grade levels, teachers have fairly prescribed
choices of what to teach, and students may be
Niki.
highly responsive to the more intense and
focused instruction. However, when the gap
between instructional and grade level widens
to three or four grade levels, students may be
so severely behind that instructional modifi-
cations based on the progress monitoring data
alone are not sufficient to close the gap.
A second explanation is that the wider gap
between instructional and grade level reflects
a student who has a more severe and perva-
sive difficulty in acquiring mathematical
understandings. Such students who are being
taught well below their actual grade level
might be expected to progress at slower learn-
ing rates, and this effect was displayed by the
progress monitoring data collected in this
study.
In contrast to computation, students who
show wide gaps between instructional and
grade level in concepts/applications may be
offering teachers clear indications of where
more intensive instructionneeded.
is
Although only a speculation, anecdotal evi-
dence from discussions with teachers found
performance on the concepts/application

probes easier to directly to instructional
link
interventions than performance on the com-
putation probes. Concepts/application probes
provide students with problems that sample
areas of mathematical problem solving.
Problem areas include numeration, decimals,
geometry, graphing, fractions, time, money,
measurement, and so forth. Teachers adminis-
tering these measures can see directly the
areas in which students are struggling, and
can quickly adapt or intensify instruction
specifically in that area.
How do the gains found across students in
this project compare to those of general edu-
cation students? Fuchs et al. ( 1993 ) and Fuchs
et al. (1999) are the best sources for deter-
mining the expected outcomes of students in
general education settings. Both of these pub-
lications report on the progress of students in
general education classrooms across grades 1
through 6 who were monitored across entire
school years in both computation and con-
cepts/applications. Fuchs et al. (1993) report
realistic CBM weekly rates of improvement in
computation for grades 1, 2, and 3 of 0.30 dig-
its and rates of 0.45 for grades 4 and 5. Fuchs
et al. (1999) reported weekly rates of
improvement in concepts/applications of 0.40
for second graders, 0.58 points for third
graders, and 0.69 points for fourth graders.
Lower slopes were reported for fifth (0.19)
and sixth graders (0.12).
Comparing these &dquo;normative&dquo; data against
the findings of the present project, the rate of
gain in computation for students at first-,
third-, and fourth-grade instructional levels
exceeded the level identified as reasonable for
general education students. At second-grade
instructional levels, students in this project
nearly equaled the reasonable level reported
for general education second graders.
Concepts/applications performance of stu-
dents was also similar to that achieved in the
Fuchs et al. (1999) data, except for students
assessed at third, and fourth-grade instruc-
tional levels, who performed at a somewhat
lower level than typical third- and fourth-
27
grade students. Thus, the special education
students in this project performed at levels
that met or exceeded the rates of gain expect-
ed of typically performing students at similar
curricular (or instructional) levels in compu-
tation and concepts/applications.
The issue of whether reading skills impact
student performance on concepts and applica-
tions was raised in previous research. Fuchs et
al. (1994) speculated that growth on concepts
and applications may be related to student
reading skills. As student reading skills
improved, their performance on concepts and
applications improved. For that reason, one
might question whether scores on concepts
and applications would be a true reflection of
the math performance of students with learn-
ing disabilities or confounded with their read-
ing difficulties. Because the sample of students
with learning disabilities in our project
exceeded the performance levels reported for
the Fuchs et al. (1999) sample of mostly gen-
eral education students, it did not appear that
reading skills had an impact on student growth
in the area of concepts and applications.
Certainly, reading may be a problem for indi-
vidual students, but, overall, it appears that
with the progress students with learning dis-
abilities from this project made on concepts,
reading was not an issue. It should also be
noted that although reading skills are required
for the concepts and applications progress
monitoring assessment, there are still prob-
lems such as interpreting graphs, tables, and
figures that do not involve the more extensive
reading often required by word problems.
Goal Attainment
Teachers were instructed to set goals of 0.5
digits per week for all students. Based on the
work of Fuchs et al. (1993), that goal level in
computation is consistent with the recom-
mendations of setting challenging weekly
rates for grades 1, 2, and 3. In concepts/appli-
cations, the goal of 0.5 points per week is con-
sistent with realistic levels of performance
28
based on the Fuchs et al. (1999) study, the
only data available to make such a recom-
mendation. In this project, approximately two
thirds of the students met or exceeded these
goal levels in computation, and one third in
concepts/applications. Additionally, when
considering students whose Goal Scores fell
within one SEM, the percentage of students
who met or exceeded the goals increased to
82.5% in computation and to 50.9% in con-
cepts/applications. These findings suggest
that many of the students who did not meet
the goals established by the teacher fell just
short of the expected levels. These very posi-
tive results may reflect the progress monitor-
ing project’s emphasis on using data to make
instructional decisions. Because the focus was
on frequent data analysis and making sound
instructional adjustments, student achieve-
ment was likely impacted. As discussed previ-
ously, students leam more when teachers
make individual adjustments in instruction
through the use of CBM procedures (Stecker
& Fuchs, 2000). The consultative support and
training provided to teachers throughout the
project may also have contributed to achieve-
ment outcomes (Fuchs et al., 1991).
Overall, the recommended goal of increasing
student performance on computation at 0.5 dig-
its per week appears to be reasonable and
attainable by many students with learning and
emotional disabilities. However, the goal of 0.5
points per week for concepts/application
appears to be a bit too challenging for many stu-
dents with special needs. This goal was derived
from the results of the single study reported by
Fuchs et al. (1999) that involved only 45-50
students per grade level. Further studies are
needed to more clearly establish normative lev-
els of performance for concepts/application
among general education students.
Considerations and Issues
The current project demonstrated that spe-
cial education teachers could successfully
implement a weekly progress monitoring sys-
tem for mathematics in their classrooms. The
use of both computation and concepts/appli-
cations appeared to be important, as the two
areas represent somewhat different, albeit
related, skill domains, and were found to grow
at different rates. Finally, the assessment
schedule used (i.e., alternating weekly assess-
ment between computation and
concepts/applications) appeared to be a rea-
sonable timeframe for data collection.
Teachers reported that conducting the
monitoring was feasible within their routine
schedule and that using the probes helped to
shape their instructional decisions for all stu-
dents. For example, one teacher reported that
one of her students who had been struggling
in math computation was presented with a
math probe containing fractions, a skill that
the teacher had not yet introduced. When
the student saw the problem, she asked ques-
tions about how one would do the calculation
and demanded that the teacher &dquo;teach me
fractions.&dquo; To the teacher’s surprise, the stu-
dent quickly acquired some knowledge of
fractions and demonstrated this knowledge in
the next several probes. This type of reaction
was reported by several teachers for students
taking the concepts/application probes as
well; thus, the progress monitoring process
was helping to define instructional content
and focus for both the teacher and the stu-
dent. This example is reflective of findings
from Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, and Stecker
(1990) related to the benefits of adding skill
analysis to CBM. Just like the above example
of &dquo;teach me fractions,&dquo; considering mastered,
emerging, and untaught skills in the context
of progress monitoring seems to enhance the
quality of information teachers use to design
instructional interventions.
Another benefit of progress monitoring
was that teachers used the data in feedback
sessions with students, fellow teachers, and
parents. Several teachers indicated they had
shared the data during parent-teacher confer-
ences to illustrate student accomplishments,
as well as a mechanism for focused discussion

on areas in need of more attention. Teachers
also reported the usefulness of involving stu-
dents very directly in the progress monitoring
process. For example, some teachers asked
students to graph their own data both with
pencil and paper and on the computer.
According to these teachers, the motivation-
al benefits of students recording and graphing
their own data were integral to their students’
achievement. Additionally, some teachers
began to use the measures in the process of
developing IEP goals.
Although the project had many benefits
for students and teachers, several challenges
were identified. The teachers who participat-
ed in this project were all volunteers. As such,
they were motivated to establish the progress
monitoring system in their classes, and they
maintained a high level of implementation
fidelity. At the same time, teachers expressed
concern about the difficulties they had in
finding time in their students’ schedules to
incorporate the progress monitoring process.
As a result, some teachers elected to moni-
tor only computation or only concepts/appli-
cations. Others decidedto assess only reading,
foregoing the math assessment entirely. One
of the challenges for all teachers doing
progress monitoring was to make the process
part of the normal weekly instructional rou-
tine. Teachers who could see gains in student
performance, could recognize the sensitivity
of the measures to instruction, and could use
the data for instructional decision making
found ways to incorporate the progress moni-
toring of math into their instructional pro-
grams.
Another challenge was related to the
teachers’ technological capabilities. Most of
the teachers chose to use paper-and-pencil
graphing methods. Although these methods
are valuable, the process of progress monitor-
ing can be enhanced by using technology such
as computerized generation of graphs. During
the project, teachers were offered some pre-
programmed Microsoft Excel software (initial-
ly developed by one of the teachers and adapt-
29
ed by one of the authors) to help them record
and graph student data. Teachers were also
offered a commercially available Macintosh
software program linked to the probes that
were being used (Fuchs et al., 1999). But only
a few of the teachers took advantage of these
enhancements. Future progress monitoring
projects should look for ways to promote the
use of computer technology like Monitoring
Basic Skills Progress, Basic Math (Fuchs et al.,
1999) or Yearly Progress Pro (McGraw-Hill,
http://www.mhdigitalleaming.com) to stream-
line the data collection, scoring, and graphing.
One of the other challenges encountered
in this project was the difficulty that some
teachers had making time to deliver instruc-
tional interventions indicated as being neces-
sary by the progress monitoring data. This was
a particular problem for teachers who deliv-
ered special education services within a full
inclusion model. Within this model, the spe-
cial education teachers were expected to sup-
port students in the general education setting
by making accommodations to the general
curriculum while students were engaged in
the standard classroom instruction. They
were not supposed to deliver supplemental or
specific instruction despite what was indicat-
ed by progress monitoring.
Many of these teachers reported that while
they collected the data and recognized when
instructional modifications were needed, they
could not find the time in a student’s schedule
to deliver such instruction without sacrificing
the required support that general education
teachers expected for students who were fully
included. Unfortunately, these observations
are similar to previous research reported by
Fuchs et al. (1995) on the extent to which
general education teachers engage in special-
ized instructional adaptations as result of the
use of CBM in math instruction. Thus, Fuchs
et al. (1995) remarked on the substantial vari-
ability in general education teachers’ use of
progress monitoring data to make individual
adjustments in instruction. Such issues con-
tinue to raise caution regarding the extent to
30
which specialized adaptations made in
are
general education settings for students with
learning disabilities, as well as suggest the
need for further research on how to imple-
ment progress monitoring in inclusive mod-
els. This did not appear to be a problem for
teachers who were assigned to part-time,
resource, or full-time special education ser-
vice delivery models although they, too, had
instructional routines that made it difficult to
find time to do new things.
Limitations
This project was not designed to be a care-
fully controlled research study. Therefore,
explanations for the levels and patterns of
improvement noted among students cannot
be derived empirically. Although teachers
were instructed to use the data to make
instructional decisions, and many appeared to
have done so throughout the project, the
degree to which teachers systematically made
use of the data to drive instruction was not
well documented. Thus, we do not know if
some students did not make progress because
their teachers were not examining their data
as instructed. It is well established that using
progress monitoring data to make instruction-
al decisions is the best predictor of successful
student outcomes. However, simply collecting
the data is not sufficient to result in academic
improvement (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986).
Another limitation of the project is that
teachers were all volunteers. As such, they
were motivated to learn and use the progress
monitoring processes. Given that most of the
teachers were quite naive and unfamiliar with
the concepts of General Outcome
Measurement prior to the study, we do not
know the degree to which teacher self-moti-
vation and interest resulted in better out-
comes than one might get with teachers who
are less predisposed to implementing the
progress monitoring process.
Finally, teachers were free to select stu-
dents from whom progress monitoring data
would be collected. The students who were
selected may not have been students with the
most severe problems in mathematics. Indeed,
our data showed that at least in computation
and concepts/applications, many students (25
and 10, respectively) were not deficient in
mathematics achievement. Future studies
should more carefully select students for
progress monitoring based on identified levels
of mathematics problems.
Conclusions
Despite the limitations, the outcomes of
this project show that the monitoring of com-
putation and concepts/applications together
can be a powerful tool for examining the
progress of special education students within
math curricula. Students in this project dis-
played gains in mathematics skills that were
equal to or better than those of typical stu-
dents at equivalent grade levels. Given that
the majority of students were performing one
or more grade levels below their chronologi-
cal grade, progress monitoring served to
demonstrate the potential to accelerate learn-
ing outcomes for students in special educa-
tion. Teachers were capable of fully managing
the system, integrating both data collection
and analysis into their weekly routine.
While instructional gains of 1.5 digits per
month in computation may seem relatively
small in terms of overall rate of growth, the
progress made by students with learning dis-
abilities in this project highlights the impor-
tance of viewing growth over an extended
period of time. Teachers trying to make
instructional decisions on a daily or weekly
basis may express frustration at what appears
to be only slight patterns of student progress.
However, our data suggest that the progress
that students with learning disabilities make
in math when viewed over extended time is
comparable to the progress of nondisabled
students at similar instructional levels.
Therefore, fairly significant gains in student
math achievement may be linked to the

extended of progress monitoring even
use
though only small gains are observed on a
week-by-week basis. Additional research is
needed to explore the use of progress moni-
toring in computation and applications in
math, but it appears that committed and
deliberate use of progress monitoring over an
extended period of time can have critical
impact on student performance - accelerated
leaming rates were observed for students with
leaming disabilities. As the challenges many
students with leaming disabilities have with
math are considered, the impact of progress
monitoring and individual instructional deci-
sion making on math achievement appears
unequivocally worthwhile, especially if
growth is accelerated over time.
References
Calhoon, M. B., & Fuchs, L. (2003). The effects of peer-
assisted and curriculum-based
learning strategies
measurement on mathematics performance of sec-
ondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 24
(4), 235-245.
Deno, S. (1992). The nature and development of cur-
riculum-based measurement. Preventing School
Failure, 36
(2), 5-10.
Deno, S. L., Espin, C. A., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002).
Evaluation strategies for preventing and remediating
basic skill deficits. In M.R. Shinn, H. W. Walker, &
G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and
behavior problems II: Preventative and remedial
approaches (pp. 213-241). Bethesda, MD: National
Association for School Psychologists.
Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J.
(2001). Using curriculum based measurement to
establish growth standards for students with learning
disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507-524.
Fuchs, L. S. (1992). Classwide decision making with
computerized curriculum-based measurement.
Preventing School Failure, 36
(2), 30-33.
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic dis-
tinctions between instructionally relevant measure-
ment models. Exceptional Children, 57
, 488-500.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic
formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional
Children, 53, 199-208.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student
progress toward the development of reading compe-
tence : A review of three forms of classroom-based
assessment. (4), 659-
School Psychology Review, 28
671.
31
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Computer applications
to curriculum-based measurement. Special Services in
the Schools, 17
(1), 1-14.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Mathematical prob-
lem-solving profiles of students with and without co-
morbid reading disabilities. Journal of Learning
(6), 563-573.
Disabilities, 35
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Allinder, R.
M. (1989). Reliability and validity of skills analysis
within curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique,
14, 203-221.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N., &
Karns, K. (1995). General educators’ specialized
adaptation for students with learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 61, 440-459.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Stecker, P. M.
(1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement
and consultation on teacher planning and student
achievement in mathematics operations. American
Educational Research Journal, 28
(3), 617-641.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Thompson, A.,
Roberts, P. H., Kubek, P., et al. (1994). Technical
features of a mathematics concepts and applications
curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique,
, 23-49.
19
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, C., &
Germann, S. (1993). Formative evaluation of acade-
mic progress: How much growth can we expect?
School Psychology Review, 22 (1), 27-48.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R.
(2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading
competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical
analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5
(3), 239-256.
Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1998).
Monitoring basic skills progress: Math computation.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1999).
Monitoring basic skills progress: Concepts and applica-
tions. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Jitendra, A., DiPipi, C. M., & Perron-Jones, N. (2002).
An exploratory study of schema-based word-prob-
lem-solving instruction for middle school students
with learning disabilities: An emphasis on concep-
tual and procedural understanding. Journal of Special
(1), 23-38.
Education,16
Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (2000). Effects of a prob-
lem solving strategy on the introductory algebra per-
formance of secondary students with learning dis-
abilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
(1), 10-21.
15
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).
Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathemat
-
ics. Reston, VA: Author.
Owen, R. L., & Fuchs, L. S.(2002). Mathematical prob-
lem-solving strategy instruction for third-grade stu-
32
dents with learning disabilities. Remedial & Special
Education, 23, 268-278.
Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct
assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a
learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29
(7), 4-14.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Advanced applications of cur-
riculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.
Shinn, M. R., Shinn, M. M., Hamilton, C., & Clarke,
B. (2002). Using curriculum-based measurement in
general education classrooms to promote reading
success. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner
(Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior prob-
lems II: Preventative and remedial approaches (pp. 113-
142). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. (2000). Effecting superior
achievement using curriculum-based measurement:
The importance of individual progress monitoring.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15
(3), 128-
134.
Thurber, R. S., Shinn, M. R., & Smolkowski. K. (2002).
What is measured in mathematics tests? Construct
validity of curriculum-based mathematics measures.
School Psychology Review, 31, 498-513.
Woodward, J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the
challenge of mathematics reform for students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 36,
89-101.
Author Note
This project was conducted as part of an
by the Bureau of Special Education,
initiative
Pennsylvania Department of Education, Dr.
Fran Warkomski, Director, and the
Pennsylvania Training and Technical
Assistance Network (PaTTAN).