[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-590159-105":59,"doc-detail-590159-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","comparing-the-growth-and-predictive-performance-of-a-traditional-oral-reading-fluency-measure-with-an-experimental-novel-measure","Comparing the Growth and Predictive Performance of a Traditional Oral Reading Fluency Measure With an Experimental Novel Measure","","Computerized oral reading evaluation (CORE) is evaluated against traditional curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) for tracking reading proficiency. The study compares model-based words read correctly per minute (WCPM) from CORE with Traditional CBM-R WCPM scores to identify more reliable growth estimates and stronger predictive validity for reading comprehension and state reading tests. Results show CORE provides better within-growth reliability and higher predictive performance with lower error and improved accuracy metrics, supporting its use for consequential assessment.",{"@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/comparing-the-growth-and-predictive-performance-of-a-traditional-oral-reading-fluency-measure-with-an-experimental-novel-measure/590159/",{"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/comparing-the-growth-and-predictive-performance-of-a-traditional-oral-reading-fluency-measure-with-an-experimental-novel-measure/590159.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Adam","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","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 is the goal of comparing CORE with traditional CBM-R?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study aims to determine which approach yields more reliable growth estimates and better predictive performance for reading comprehension and state reading test scores.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How is WCPM calculated in traditional CBM-R oral reading fluency assessments?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Students read aloud for about 60 seconds, and assessors mark incorrectly read or omitted words; WCPM is computed by subtracting incorrect words from total words read.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What limitations of traditional CBM-R motivate the use of CORE?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The text highlights high administration error risk, opportunity costs, substantial variation across passages, and large standard error of measurement, all raising concerns about using Traditional CBM-R scores for risk and growth evaluation.","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},590159,1792210923,{"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":56,"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},1374404737137,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","AERA Open  \nJanuary-December 2022, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1–19 DOI: 10. 1177/23328584211071112  \nArticle reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)© The Author(s) 2022. [https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero)  \nComparing the Growth and Predictive Performance of a Traditional Oral Reading Fluency Measure With an Experimental Novel Measure  \nJoseph F. T. Nese  \nUniversity of Oregon  \nCurriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) is used as an indicator of reading proficiency, and to measure at risk students’ response to reading interventions to help ensure effective instruction. The purpose of this study was to compare model-based words read correctly per minute (WCPM) scores (computerized oral reading evaluation [CORE]) with Traditional CBM-R WCPM scores to determine which provides more reliable growth estimates and demonstrates better predictive performance of reading comprehension and state reading test scores. Results indicated that in general, CORE had better (a) within-growth properties (smaller SDs of slope estimates and higher reliability), and (b) predictive performance (lower root mean square error, and higher R2, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve values). These results suggest increased measurement precision for the model-based CORE scores compared with Traditional CBM-R, providing preliminary evidence that CORE can be used for consequential assessment.  \nKeywords: assessment, comprehension, computerized testing, effect size, longitudinal studies, measurements, reading, regression analyses  \nOral reading fluency is an essential part of reading proficiency (National Reading Panel, 2000), and curriculumbased measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) is perhaps the most prevalent reading assessment used in classrooms across the country. In traditional CBM-R assessments, students read aloud for 60 seconds a passage (about 250 words), while an assessor scores each word the student reads incorrectly (producing the wrong word or omitting a word) . After 1 minute, the assessor marks the last word read and calculates words read correctly per minute (WCPM), by subtracting the number of incorrect words from the total words read.  \nCBM-R is considered to be more than just a measure of fluent decoding (Wayman et al., 2007) because it functions as a robust indicator of reading proficiency (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2001; Schilling et al., 2007; Tindal, 2013), as measured by reading comprehension and year-end state reading tests (e.g., Decker et al., 2014; Good et al., 2019; Jenkins et al., 2003; Nese et al., 2011; Roehrig et al., 2008; Shin & McMaster, 2019; Yeo, 2010) . As such, research indicates that oral reading fluency should be regularly assessed in the classroom so an instructional response can be made when needed (Jimerson et al., 2015; National Research Council, 1998) . CBM-R is widely used as part of a multitiered system of supports model to universally screen for students at risk of poor learning outcomes, to monitor student progress to help guide and inform instructional decision making (Fuchs et al., 2001; Speece et al., 2003), and  \nto predict year-end performance on state reading tests (Kilgus et al., 2014; Shin & McMaster, 2019) . For example, if a student scores below a locally defined cut point (e.g., the 20th percentile norm) on the CBM-R (and meets other locally defined indicators), they are candidates for grouped or intensive reading resources. For those receiving additional reading resources, their progress is monitored with regular CBM-R assessments to evaluate whether the intervention is meeting expectations. If student progress is satisfactory, the intervention may continue (or eventually discontinued); if student progress is below expectations, the intervention may be modified (e.g., increased in intensity) .  \nDespite CBM-R’s prevalent use, practical application, ","cbCaikdXHAwYTREY","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikdXHAwYTREY","pdf",1022620,"English","# Introduction\n## Purpose and research comparison\n## Traditional CBM-R procedure and scoring\n## Role in instructional decision making\n# Limitations of Traditional CBM-R\n## Administration and error sources\n## Instructional and training costs\n## Passage effects and measurement error","[{\"question\":\"What is the goal of comparing CORE with traditional CBM-R?\",\"answer\":\"The study aims to determine which approach yields more reliable growth estimates and better predictive performance for reading comprehension and state reading test scores.\"},{\"question\":\"How is WCPM calculated in traditional CBM-R oral reading fluency assessments?\",\"answer\":\"Students read aloud for about 60 seconds, and assessors mark incorrectly read or omitted words; WCPM is computed by subtracting incorrect words from total words read.\"},{\"question\":\"What limitations of traditional CBM-R motivate the use of CORE?\",\"answer\":\"The text highlights high administration error risk, opportunity costs, substantial variation across passages, and large standard error of measurement, all raising concerns about using Traditional CBM-R scores for risk and growth evaluation.\"}]","Comparing the Growth and Predictive Performance of a Traditional Oral Reading Fluency Measure With an Experimental Novel Measure | PDF",1792068947,48]