American Association of School Administrators. (2002). Using data to improve schools: What’s working. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/UsingDataToImproveSchools.pdf
Almond, P., Quenemoen, R., Olsen, K., & Thurlow, M. (2000). Gray areas of assessment systems (Synthesis Report 32). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/archive/Synthesis/Synthesis32.html
Arnold, N. (2003). Washington alternate assessment system technical report on standard setting for the 2002 portfolio (Synthesis Report 52). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis52.html
Black, P. (2003, April). The nature and value of formative assessment for learning. Paper presented with the King’s College London Assessment for Learning Group at AERA, Chicago.
Calhoon, M.B., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and curriculum-based measurement on the mathematics performance of secondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24(4), 235-245.
Carnine, D., & Granzin, A. (2001) Setting learning expectations for students with disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 466-472.
Crawford, L., Stieber, S., & Tindal, G. (2000). Using timed oral readings to predict students' performance on statewide achievement tests. Eugene: RCTP.
Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Stieber, S. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7(4), 303-323.
Daly, E., & McCurdy, M. (2002). Getting it right so they can get it right: An overview of the special series. School Psychology Review, 31(4), 453-458.
Deno, S. L. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 5-10.
Deno, S., Fuchs, L., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 466-472.
Espin, C.A., Busch, T., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. (2001). Curriculum-based measures in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching measures as indicators of performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(3), 142-151.
Espin, C.A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of three general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497-514.
Foegen, A. (2000). Technical adequacy of general outcome measures for middle school mathematics. Diagnostique, 25, 175-203.
Foegen, A., & Deno, S. L. (2001). Identifying growth indicators for low-achieving students in middle school mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 4-16.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Thompson, A., Roberts, P.H., Kubek, P., & Stecker, P.S. (l994). Technical features of a mathematics concepts and applications curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique, 19(4), 23-49.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Yazdian, L., & Powell, S. (2002). Enhancing first-grade children’s mathematical development with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31(4), 569-583.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (l991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488-501.
Gansle, K.A., Noell, G.H., & VanDerHeyden, A.M. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternate measures for curriculum-based measurement in writing. School Psychology Review, 31(4), 477-497.
Gersten, R., Keating T.J., & Irvin, L.K. (1995). The burden of proof: Validity as improvement of instructional practice. Exceptional Children, 61, 510-519.
Helwig, B., Anderson, L., & Tindal, G. (2002). Using a concept-grounded, curriculum-based measure in mathematics to predict statewide test scores for middle school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 36(2), 102-112.
Helwig, R., Heath, B., & Tindal, G. (2000). Predicting middle school mathematics achievement using practical and efficient measurement instruments. Eugene: RCTP
Hitchcock, C., Meyer A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8-17.
Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., McCoy, J.D., Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2003). How do critical thinking measures fit within standards-based reform? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28 (3&4), 37-48.
Krentz, J., Thurlow, M., & Callender, S. (2000). Accountability systems and counting students with disabilities (Technical Report 29). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/archive/Technical/Technical29.htm
Lane, S., & Silver, E. (1995). Equity and validity considerations in the design and implementation of a mathematics performance assessment: The experience of the QUASAR project. In M. Nettles, & A.L. Nettles (Eds.), Equity and excellence in educational testing and assessment (pp. 185-219). Boston: Kluwer.
Langenfeld, K., Thurlow, M., & Scott, D. (1997). High stakes testing for students: Unanswered questions and implications for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 26). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/archive/Synthesis/Synthesis26.htm
Lindsey, O.R. (1990). Precision teaching: By teachers for children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(3), 10-15.
Marston, D. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: What is it and why do we do it? In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Virginia: ASCD.
McLaughlin, M. (2000). Access to the General Education Curriculum: Paperwork and Procedure or Reinventing Special Education.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for states and school districts.(Committee on Title I Testing and Assessment, R. F. Elmore & R. Rothman, eds). Board on Testing and Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
Olson, B., Mead, R., & Payne, D. (2002). A report of a standard setting method for alternate assessments for students with significant disabilities (Synthesis Report 47). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis47.html
Olson, L., (2002). Ed. dept. hints Idaho’s novel testing plan unacceptable, Education Week, February 6, 2002.
Orr, C., Chin-Chance, S., Rabinowitz, S., & Vukminovic, Z. (2003, June). Integrating the elements of Annual Yearly Progress: Vertical scaling and standard setting. Presentation at the Council of Chief State School Officers Large Scale Assessment Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Paulson, F.L., Paulson, P.R., & Meyer, C.A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48, 60-63.
Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pemberton, J.B. (2003).Communicating academic progress as an integral part of assessment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 16-20 .
Petit, M. (2003, January). Bridging the gap between large-scale and classroom assessment. Presentation at the National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Quenemoen, R.F., & Almond, P. (2001). Gray areas of assessment systems. Perspectives (Journal of the International Dyslexia Association), 27(4),15-19.
Sargent, J. (2001). Data Retreat Facilitator’s Guide, Naperville, IL: NCREL.
Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
Shinn, M.R., & Bamonto, S. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: "Big ideas" and avoiding confusion. In M.R. Shinn. (Ed.), Advanced applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Shriner, J.G., & Thurlow, M.L. (1993). State special education outcomes 1992: A report on state activities in the assessment of educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Stecker, P.M., & Fuchs, L.S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: the importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 15(3), 128-34.
Stiggins, R.J. (2001). The unfulfilled promise of classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(3), 5-15.
Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis26.htm
Thompson, S.J., Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R.F., & Lehr, C.A. (2002). Access to computer-based testing for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 45). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis45.html
Thurlow, M., Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., & Lehr, C. (2001). Principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment and accountability systems (Synthesis Report 40). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis40.html
Thurlow, M.L., Wiley, H.I., & Bielinski, J. (2002). Biennial performance reports: 2000-2001 state assessment data. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/BPRsummary.12.29.02.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69 (4), 391-409.
Vinovskis, M.A. (1996). An analysis of the concept and uses of systemic educational reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 53-85.
Walmsley , S.A. , & Allington, R.L. (1995). Redefining and reforming instructional support programs for at-risk students. In R.L. Allington & S.A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools (pp. 19-44). Newark, DE / New York: International Reading Association and Teachers College Press.
Wiener, D. (2002). Massachusetts : One state’s approach to setting performance levels on the alternate assessment (Synthesis Report 48). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis48.html
Wiggins, G., & McTigue, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
This document is provided for the user's convenience. Inclusion does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any views, products or services offered or expressed.