[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-593029-105":59,"doc-detail-593029-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","addressing-the-large-standard-error-of-traditional-cbm-r-estimating-the-conditional-standard-error-of-a-model-based-estimate-of-cbm-r-assessment-for-effective-intervention","Addressing the Large Standard Error of Traditional CBM-R - Estimating the Conditional Standard Error of a Model-Based Estimate of CBM-R Assessment for Effective Intervention","","Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) is used widely as a fast indicator of reading proficiency and a predictor of comprehension and overall reading achievement, yet it suffers from practical and technical limitations, especially a large standard error of measurement (SEM). This study compares the SEM of traditional CBM-R words-correct-per-minute (WCPM) scores with the conditional SEM (CSEM) from model-based WCPM estimates, focusing on students with or at risk for poor reading outcomes. Model-based CSEM averaged substantially smaller than traditional SEM, particularly at or below the 25th percentile, and about 84% of sample scores (and ~99% at or below the 25th percentile) showed smaller CSEM values.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/addressing-the-large-standard-error-of-traditional-cbm-r-estimating-the-conditional-standard-error-of-a-model-based-estimate-of-cbm-r-assessment-for-effective-intervention/593029/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/addressing-the-large-standard-error-of-traditional-cbm-r-estimating-the-conditional-standard-error-of-a-model-based-estimate-of-cbm-r-assessment-for-effective-intervention/593029.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Aran","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What problem with traditional CBM-R scores motivated this study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Traditional CBM-R oral reading fluency scores have a large standard error of measurement (SEM), which can reduce precision and affect how educators interpret results for screening, progress monitoring, and instructional decisions.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the study compare SEM values?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It compares the SEM of traditional CBM-R words-correct-per-minute (WCPM) scores with the conditional SEM (CSEM) produced by model-based WCPM estimates, especially for students with or at risk of poor reading outcomes.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What were the main findings about CSEM versus traditional SEM?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The model-based CSEM was substantially smaller than reported traditional CBM-R SEMs, especially for scores at or below the 25th percentile. A large majority of sample scores (84%) and about 99% of scores at or below the 25th percentile had smaller CSEM than traditional SEM.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},593029,1792211405,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":29,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},137455076865,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","Addressing the Large Standard Error of Traditional CBM-R: Estimating the Conditional Standard Error of a Model-Based Estimate ofCBM-R  \nAssessment for Effective Intervention 2021, Vol. 47(1) 53–58  \n© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2020 Article reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[DOI: 10.1177/1534508420937801](DOI: 10.1177/1534508420937801)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/1534508420937801)[aei.sagepub.com](aei.sagepub.com)  \nJoseph F. T. Nese, PhD 1, and Akihito Kamata, PhD2  \nAbstract  \nCurriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) is widely used across the country as a quick measure of reading proficiency that also serves as a good predictor of comprehension and overall reading achievement, but it has several practical and technical inadequacies, including a large standard error of measurement (SEM). Reducing the SEM of CBM-R scores has positive implications for educators using these measures to screen or monitor student growth. The purpose of this study was to compare the SEM of traditional CBM-R words correct per minute (WCPM) fluency scoresand the conditional SEM (CSEM) of model-based WCPM estimates, particularly for students with or at risk of poor reading outcomes. We found (a) the average CSEM for the model-based WCPM estimates was substantially smaller than the reported SEMs of traditional CBM-R systems, especially for scores at/below the 25th percentile, and (b) a large proportion (84%) of sample scores, and an even larger proportion of scores at/below the 25th percentile (about 99%) had a smaller CSEM than the reported SEMs of traditional CBM-R systems.  \nKeywords  \nreading/literacy, progress monitoring, statistical methods  \nCurriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) is widely used across the country as a quick measure of reading proficiency that also serves as a good predictor of comprehension and overall reading achievement. But CBM-R has several practical and technical inadequacies, including large measurement error, or standard error of measurement (SEM; Ardoin & Christ, 2009; Christ et al., 2012; Christ & Silberglitt, 2007; Poncy et al., 2005) . As teachers use CBM-R data to screen for students at risk of poor reading outcomes and monitor student progress to inform instructional decisions (Christ & Coolong-Chaffin, 2007), the large SEM of traditional CBM-R can affect the interpretations and consequences of the assessment results, with implications for instructional decision-making. With a large SEM, observed scores do not necessarily reflect true scores; therefore, educators could make an inappropriate educational decision based on an observed score that is higher than the true score (e.g., decide a poor intervention is working and should continue) or an observed score that is lower than the true score (e.g., decide a good intervention is not working) . For CBM-R measures to have meaningful consequential validity for educators, scores need tobe sensitive to instructional change, and the smaller the SEM the better.  \nStandard Error of Measurement (SEM)  \nThe SEM is a measure of precision of an assessment score, where the standard deviation of the measure is multiplied by the square root of one minus the reliability of the measure:  \nSEM = SD × 1− ρxx .  \nThe smaller the SEM, the more precise the score. The SEM is generally more useful than a reliability coefficient for assessment consumers (like teachers) because it informs the interpretation of scores. For example, the SEM can be used to generate confidence intervals (CI) around reported scores; that is, the range, given a specific degree of certainty (usually 95%), within which a student’s “true score” is contained. A range of about ±2 SEM around a reported score provides a 95% CI that contains a student’s true score.  \n1 University of Oregon, Eugene, USA  \n2Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA  \nCorresponding Author:  \nJoseph F. T. Nese, Univ","cbCaiqZ02jDtaBWi","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqZ02jDtaBWi","pdf",491050,"English","# Abstract\n## Rationale and Study Purpose\n## Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)\n## SEM in Traditional CBM-R Scores\n## Implications for Instructional Decision-Making","[{\"question\":\"What problem with traditional CBM-R scores motivated this study?\",\"answer\":\"Traditional CBM-R oral reading fluency scores have a large standard error of measurement (SEM), which can reduce precision and affect how educators interpret results for screening, progress monitoring, and instructional decisions.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the study compare SEM values?\",\"answer\":\"It compares the SEM of traditional CBM-R words-correct-per-minute (WCPM) scores with the conditional SEM (CSEM) produced by model-based WCPM estimates, especially for students with or at risk of poor reading outcomes.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the main findings about CSEM versus traditional SEM?\",\"answer\":\"The model-based CSEM was substantially smaller than reported traditional CBM-R SEMs, especially for scores at or below the 25th percentile. A large majority of sample scores (84%) and about 99% of scores at or below the 25th percentile had smaller CSEM than traditional SEM.\"}]","Addressing the Large Standard Error of Traditional CBM-R - Estimating the Conditional Standard Error of a Model-Based Estimate of CBM-R Assessment for Effective Intervention | PDF",1792076444,15]