Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ ; 25(4): 398-410, 2020 09 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32696962

RESUMEN

This review systematically identified and compared the technical adequacy (reliability and validity evidence) of reading curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tasks administered to students who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). This review included all available literature written in English. The nine studies identified used four CBM tasks: signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency, cloze (write in missing words given blank lines within a passage), and maze (circle the target word given multiple choice options within a passage). Data obtained from these measures were generally found to be internally consistent and stable with validity evidence varying across measures. Emerging evidence supports the utility of CBM for students who are DHH. Further empirical evidence is needed to continue to explore technical properties, identify if student scores are sensitive to growth over short periods of time, and examine whether CBM data can be used to inform instructional decision-making to improve student outcomes.


Asunto(s)
Curriculum , Educación de Personas con Discapacidad Auditiva/normas , Evaluación Educacional/métodos , Curriculum/normas , Evaluación Educacional/normas , Humanos , Personas con Deficiencia Auditiva/psicología
2.
J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ ; 25(3): 318-333, 2020 05 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32391549

RESUMEN

This study compared the reliability and validity of student scores from paper-pencil and e-based assessments using the "maze" and "silent reading fluency" (SRF) tasks. Forty students who were deaf and hard of hearing and reading between the second and fifth grade reading levels and their teachers (n = 21) participated. For maze, alternate form reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores and correct scores adjusted for guessing ranged from r = .61 to .84 (ps < .01); criterion-related validity coefficients ranged from r = .33 to .67 (most ps < .01). For SRF, reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores ranged from r = .50 to .75 (ps < .01); validity ranged from r = .25 to .72. Differences between student performance on paper-pencil and e-based conditions were generally non-significant for maze; significant differences between conditions for SRF favored the paper-pencil condition. Findings suggest that maze holds promise, with inconclusive results for SRF.


Asunto(s)
Curriculum , Sordera/rehabilitación , Educación de Personas con Discapacidad Auditiva/métodos , Evaluación Educacional/métodos , Estudiantes , Sordera/psicología , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA