title: Predicting reading outcomes with progress monitoring slopes among middle grade students.
abstract: Effective implementation of response-to-intervention (RTI) frameworks depends on efficient tools for monitoring progress. Evaluations of growth (i.e., slope) may be less efficient than evaluations of status at a single time point, especially if slopes do not add to predictions of outcomes over status. We examined progress monitoring slope validity for predicting reading outcomes among middle school students by evaluating latent growth models for different progress monitoring measure-outcome combinations. We used multi-group modeling to evaluate the effects of reading ability, reading intervention, and progress monitoring administration condition on slope validity. Slope validity was greatest when progress monitoring was aligned with the outcome (i.e., word reading fluency slope was used to predict fluency outcomes in contrast to comprehension outcomes), but effects varied across administration conditions (viz., repeated reading of familiar vs. novel passages). Unless the progress monitoring measure is highly aligned with outcome, slope may be an inefficient method for evaluating progress in an RTI context.
authors.affiliation: Tammy D. Tolar, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Houston; Amy E. Barth, Department of Special Education, University of Missouri-Columbia; Jack M. Fletcher, and David J. Francis, Department of Psychology, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation and Statistics, and the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Houston; Sharon Vaughn, Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, University of Texas-Austin, Austin TX.
authors.forename: Tammy D
authors.initials: TD
authors.lastname: Tolar
authors.affiliation: Tammy D. Tolar, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Houston; Amy E. Barth, Department of Special Education, University of Missouri-Columbia; Jack M. Fletcher, and David J. Francis, Department of Psychology, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation and Statistics, and the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Houston; Sharon Vaughn, Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, University of Texas-Austin, Austin TX.
authors.forename: Amy E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Barth
authors.affiliation: Tammy D. Tolar, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Houston; Amy E. Barth, Department of Special Education, University of Missouri-Columbia; Jack M. Fletcher, and David J. Francis, Department of Psychology, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation and Statistics, and the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Houston; Sharon Vaughn, Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, University of Texas-Austin, Austin TX.
authors.forename: Jack M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Fletcher
authors.affiliation: Tammy D. Tolar, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Houston; Amy E. Barth, Department of Special Education, University of Missouri-Columbia; Jack M. Fletcher, and David J. Francis, Department of Psychology, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation and Statistics, and the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Houston; Sharon Vaughn, Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, University of Texas-Austin, Austin TX.
authors.forename: David J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Francis
authors.affiliation: Tammy D. Tolar, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Houston; Amy E. Barth, Department of Special Education, University of Missouri-Columbia; Jack M. Fletcher, and David J. Francis, Department of Psychology, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation and Statistics, and the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Houston; Sharon Vaughn, Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, University of Texas-Austin, Austin TX.
authors.forename: Sharon
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Vaughn