ABSTRACT

Researchers studying curriculum-based measurement of written expression have used a variety of writing prompt types and durations when establishing criterion validity of these tools. The purpose of this study was to determine through meta-analytic procedures whether any prompt type or duration was superior to others in terms of criterion validity. The literature search returned 24 articles (N = 24) that met our inclusion criteria. Included studies examined criterion validity for a variety of prompts: picture, story starters, expository, text copying, picture-word, and picture-story. These studies also reported criterion validity for writing durations ranging from 1.5 to 10 minutes. Results indicated no clear trends in criterion validity for prompt or duration. We provide suggestions for practitioners considering the use of CBM in written expression.

摘要

在确定这些工具的标准有效性时，研究基于课程的书面表达量度的研究人员已经使用了多种书写提示类型和持续时间。这项研究的目的是通过荟萃分析程序确定在标准有效性方面，任何提示类型或持续时间是否优于其他提示类型或持续时间。文献检索返回24篇文章（N= 24）满足我们的纳入标准。包括的研究检查了各种提示的标准有效性：图片，故事入门，说明，文字复制，图片单词和图片故事。这些研究还报告了标准写作时间为1.5至10分钟的有效性。结果表明，对于提示或持续时间，标准有效性没有明显的趋势。我们为从业人员考虑在书面表达中使用CBM提供建议。